U.N. Military Service-Which Variable Fighter would you fly?

[Maximiria]

easy. 22.

[VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK]

easy. 22.

Yes, The VF-22 rules!!!

[VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK]

"... VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK never did quite recover from his relationship with Sharon, after the heart breaking news of his love falling for a dashing New Edwards test pilot.. he decides to take control of his life and now standing strong, sworn off from all dating AI/RI with multiple personalities and a fetish for system/electrical cable...

HA,HA,HA your funny!!!

[ruskiiVFaussie]

[Sorata]

You forget that even when the pilot has been removed from the airframe. The UAVS/UCAVS will still have a pilot controlling the airframe from a remote control room on some base in the U.S. Fortunately the Military is smart enough not to allow full autonomous control to the UAV/UCAV.

Drones will be assisting Manned air platforms on some jobs that are extremely dangerous here are a list of missions that they will be taking on.

1) SEAD Missions

2) Bombing Missions

3) CAS Missions

4) Reconaissance Missions

5) Wild Weasel Missions

6) CAP missions

In my opinion UAVS/UCAVS are here to stay, but there will be always be a pilot flying these drones. I'm surprised that UN Spacy has not invested in UCAV Variable Fighters.

To add to what you said UCAVS such as the X-45 are completely autonomous they conduct missions from takeoff, refuelling, target selection attacking and returning to base all autonomously. They have even done so in group flights with two X-45s and they decided based on weapons loadout fuel and position which one of the two would take out the target while the other covered the area from above all autonomously. They do however have a controller monitoring them that can override them if need be. The system is set to allow one operator to monitor multiple X-45s. The X-45 flew from the US to Australia on it own with only two clicks from the operator telling it when to takeoff and where it was to land. Being Navy myself I prefer the X-47 over the X-45 though. I imagine the Ghost in Macross F operates the same way.

[VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK]

To add to what you said UCAVS such as the X-45 are completely autonomous they conduct missions from takeoff, refuelling, target selection attacking and returning to base all autonomously. They have even done so in group flights with two X-45s and they decided based on weapons loadout fuel and position which one of the two would take out the target while the other covered the area from above all autonomously. They do however have a controller monitoring them that can override them if need be. The system is set to allow one operator to monitor multiple X-45s. The X-45 flew from the US to Australia on it own with only two clicks from the operator telling it when to takeoff and where it was to land. Being Navy myself I prefer the X-47 over the X-45 though. I imagine the Ghost in Macross F operates the same way.

You do have a point there about UCAVS being autonomous. Since UCAVS have no type of AI like the Ghost drones on Macross. There Flight plans and mission plans have to be planned out by the Operators of the UCAVS and downloaded into the UCAVS flight, weapon and mission computer systems.

Once this has been done then it is ready for its Autonomous mission. In a since UCAVS are autonomous, but with no type of mission or flight plans to be downloaded onto the Computer. The UCAVS are just any ordinary remote control aircraft.

I still think it would be a big mistake to give a weapon system like a UCAV A/I with full autonomous control, I think a pilot will always be in the loop when it comes to operating UCAVS.

Edited January 19, 2008 by VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK

[Warmaker]

I'm veering off topic with this reply, but I had to get this out with some of the recent replies here There is only one constant in warfare.

Change

Changes in doctrines and forms of fighting. And changes in the technology and weapons used. Nothing is permanent in warfare except change itself.

As far as pilots being removed from aircraft, I do believe it will happen sometime. Not now. Not in a few years. But it will happen, especially with better technology. And it will happen because some forward thinking officer in some air force will push it, and someone higher up will say, "That sounds interesting. Here's some funds, run the development, show me what it can do."

If a new weapon or form of fighting looks like it will increase one's capability in war, it will be be used and implemented by someone. If it proves successful, watch out. And of course, it too will be made obsolete at some point.

[VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK]

I'm veering off topic with this reply, but I had to get this out with some of the recent replies here There is only one constant in warfare.

Change

Changes in doctrines and forms of fighting. And changes in the technology and weapons used. Nothing is permanent in warfare except change itself.

As far as pilots being removed from aircraft, I do believe it will happen sometime. Not now. Not in a few years. But it will happen, especially with better technology. And it will happen because some forward thinking officer in some air force will push it, and someone higher up will say, "That sounds interesting. Here's some funds, run the development, show me what it can do."

If a new weapon or form of fighting looks like it will increase one's capability in war, it will be be used and implemented by someone. If it proves successful, watch out. And of course, it too will be made obsolete at some point.

Its possible that UCAVS will have some type of A/I, but not in our lifetime!!!

[mriboy]

VF-19 would be my choice.

[Macross_Fanboy]

Give me a VF-0 with my special non-canon space flight customization with VF-102 Diamondback CAG colors.

[VF-18S Hornet]

VF-19 would be my pick and the VF-1 in my spare time

[Warmaker]

Its possible that UCAVS will have some type of A/I, but not in our lifetime!!!

Never say never.

Especially since the timespan of a lifetime can differ greatly, for better or worse

If you told the average person (or college professor?) in 1940 that in just barely over 2 decades, man would be on the moon and man-made satellites would be in orbit around Earth in large numbers, you'd probably be told to lay off the comics.

As far as what's possible with computers, electronics, etc., think of this: How far have computers come since the 80's and 90's? They've become smaller and more powerful. They're able to do more for the same amount of space they used to require before. How many households in the 80s had computers? 90s? Compared to now?

You already have computers having a major role in how aircraft fly, where alot of the commands are automatic. Flight Control Computers / Fly By Wire. Automatic Throttle Controls. Computers controlling leading & trailing edge flap movements, dependent on what the aircraft senses in what the pilot inputs, airspeed, altitude, etc. Autopilot Systems. A far cry to say, how aircraft were flown during WWII and how involved a pilot was with the flight controls alone.

Computers have advanced rapidly. How far do you think they will progress in 10 years? 20?... and how they can affect weapon systems?

[KingNor]

Humans are already the limiting factor in fighter planes...

It's amazing to me that in nearly a single human lifetime from the invention of powered flight, planes have become so advanced that they can literally kill their pilot with their performance (or, at least COULD if we built a plane that could maneuver as hard as our technology could allow).

Humans have gone from inventing the plane, to being the weakest part of a plane in less than 100 years of flying.

I'd imagine the next generation of fighter, after the F-22 will be at least partially unmanned. They're already fly by wire, it wouldn't be a huge leap to train Predator pilots to fly an F-22 from a land based cockpit.

If distance and lag are an issue, maybe the pilots will fly in sims housed in C-130's orbiting near the actual operation zone. It would already be an easy next step today, I think.

[ruskiiVFaussie]

Maybe the pilots could be knocked out or somehow protected from the G's that normally would black them out and then after such a maneouver they are instantly brought back online and resume the dogfight... or something lol Some guey gell that could coat the pilot or something weird like that that would magically protect the feeble human pilot.... hurmmmm,,,,

Guld was the prime example of what happens when pushed to the human limits. Such a legend to be that reckless!!! And everyone goes on about Isamu who's the only one who takes the 'hardcore' risks.

Edited January 20, 2008 by ruskiiVFaussie

[Mr March]

I bet drugs, biotechnology, genetic engineering and as mentioned above, the flying bathtub scenario, will be alternatives in the future for superior pilot endurance. All kinds of possibilities exist that could improve the human pulmonary system for high g maneuvers and they might produce some pretty wild results. Of course, it's also possible that eventually technology will become available to counter the effects of inertia, but that sounds pretty far-future to my mind (though not outside possibility).

[Garrick]

I personally think that, while UCAVs will eventually take a large part in world's militaries, the fact that, as of now, flying two globalhawks on Iraq takes away half (read it, half) of all sat comm channels, places large scale use of UCAVs very far in the future. But also, if we resort to remote control, look at the can of worms you open:

You occupy a large chunk of the sat channels in any case

You prevent any kind of friendly EW operations (You can't choose what you want to jam, you jam everything.)

You heavily expose yourself to enemy EW operations. Even if the UCAVs can accomplish their mission on their own,

the lack of supervision means that many things can happen.

1st: the fact that the flight plan can be exploided by the enemy.

2nd the enemy can place civilian targets (or construct fake ones real enough for the public opinion to consider them as real.)

on the plane's target area. Hitting them would be perfectly avoided if the supervisor takes over, but if he can't...what happens?

The fact that the UCAVs themselves lose their link with SAT assets telling them where to go is also a big issue. in a modern

war operation you can't rely that much on a simple pre loaded topografic map all the time.

So, while i see manned planes controlling "Squire" UCAVs to support them, i don't see them replacing manned planes ever.

Even if it's just the need to have a human there and able to take over if the link becomes interrupted.

PS. Also, if you add satelites to support drone operations, it takes only a sat killer missile to incapacitate a large chunk of your drone assets. The US military loves drones so much at this time because it has the monopoly on space, and much of their military comm sats cannot be reached by the OPFOR. yet.

my 2 cents.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Garrick

[ruskiiVFaussie]

Humans will always be superior. Coz we can 'feel' man. We will find a way to push ourselves through every barrier encounted.

macross hasn't shown true RI>AI conversion yet in it's Ghosts, I dont think Sharon was in total control as the anime suggests.

Human emotion = win.

Edited January 20, 2008 by ruskiiVFaussie

[reddsun1]

VF-1X Plus, no doubt. If the stats are to be believed [Macross Mehca Designs], it's performance rivals most of the newer fighters. The VF-19 and VF-22 are marginally better in running, jumping and fighter speeds, but it's just as strong. "Space and weight formerly devoted to fuel could be used for armor and system improvements," and improved avionics.

Custom colors are a must [as it greatly improves chances of survival, per Laws of the Macross Universe ]. Color scheme? Would go for colors similar to Max/Millia -1J scheme: Navy gray primary, w/white stripes.

Either that, or: low-vis gray w/all-red tailfins [yellow bands on fin tops], per the 332nd FG, 99th FS.

As for heatshield art [another MUST for improving combat prowess/survivability]: maybe a hooded reaper, or death's head.

[Warmaker]

Maybe the pilots could be knocked out or somehow protected from the G's that normally would black them out and then after such a maneouver they are instantly brought back online and resume the dogfight... or something lol Some guey gell that could coat the pilot or something weird like that that would magically protect the feeble human pilot.... hurmmmm,,,,

Guld was the prime example of what happens when pushed to the human limits. Such a legend to be that reckless!!! And everyone goes on about Isamu who's the only one who takes the 'hardcore' risks.

Personally, I foresee advancements in technologies associated in weapons and computers coming alot faster than finding ways to increase a living pilot's ability to endure G's and high performance flights. Aircraft designers can already really push things with the current stock of modern aircraft. What do you think those aircraft designers can do if they had more advanced computers, electronics (given enough years) if they were not restricted to performance so that a pilot would not be killed just from flying the thing? I'm not talking remote control. I'm talking, with advanced computers and AI, autonomous combat aircraft.

Again, I just believe other technologies will come quicker than finding ways for a pilot to endure more in flight. Computers, weapons, and aircraft designs have come far since the 60s and 70s. How much advancements have been made for pilot endurance since the same span?

[VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK]

I bet drugs, biotechnology, genetic engineering and as mentioned above, the flying bathtub scenario, will be alternatives in the future for superior pilot endurance. All kinds of possibilities exist that could improve the human pulmonary system for high g maneuvers and they might produce some pretty wild results. Of course, it's also possible that eventually technology will become available to counter the effects of inertia, but that sounds pretty far-future to my mind (though not outside possibility).

In my opinion there will always be combat pilots, but you all have a point that the pilots have reached there limits when it comes to piloting Fighters up to 9G's. But I think some day there will be some type Inertial Dampner technology that will allow a fighter pilots to go beyond 9G's and fly there aircraft to the limit.

Edited January 21, 2008 by VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK

[ruskiiVFaussie]

Well, it's all about human vs human in the end. Scary to think AI against Ai will be when humans are obsolete. Imagine that...

[VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK]

I personally think that, while UCAVs will eventually take a large part in world's militaries, the fact that, as of now, flying two globalhawks on Iraq takes away half (read it, half) of all sat comm channels, places large scale use of UCAVs very far in the future. But also, if we resort to remote control, look at the can of worms you open:

You occupy a large chunk of the sat channels in any case

You prevent any kind of friendly EW operations (You can't choose what you want to jam, you jam everything.)

You heavily expose yourself to enemy EW operations. Even if the UCAVs can accomplish their mission on their own,

the lack of supervision means that many things can happen.

1st: the fact that the flight plan can be exploided by the enemy.

2nd the enemy can place civilian targets (or construct fake ones real enough for the public opinion to consider them as real.)

on the plane's target area. Hitting them would be perfectly avoided if the supervisor takes over, but if he can't...what happens?

The fact that the UCAVs themselves lose their link with SAT assets telling them where to go is also a big issue. in a modern

war operation you can't rely that much on a simple pre loaded topografic map all the time.

So, while i see manned planes controlling "Squire" UCAVs to support them, i don't see them replacing manned planes ever.

Even if it's just the need to have a human there and able to take over if the link becomes interrupted.

PS. Also, if you add satelites to support drone operations, it takes only a sat killer missile to incapacitate a large chunk of your drone assets. The US military loves drones so much at this time because it has the monopoly on space, and much of their military comm sats cannot be reached by the OPFOR. yet.

my 2 cents.

Garrick, You made a good point there! UCAVS do use SAT Datalinks in order to complete there missions and they continuously send Intelligance and up to date mission statuses to the Operations center that runs UCAVS. They also send up to date Intelligance to the E-8 Joint STARS.

An if wasn't for SAT assets UCAV Flight controllers would not be able to fly them. In the future there be a communications technology that UCAVS don't have to rely on SAT assets to complete there missions. As I've said there will always be a Man and Machine interface!!!

Edited January 21, 2008 by VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK

[JB0]

Garrick, You made a good point there! UCAVS do use SAT Datalinks in order to complete there missions and they continuously send Intelligance and up to date mission statuses to the Operations center that runs UCAVS. They also send up to date Intelligance to the E-8 Joint STARS.

An if wasn't for SAT assets UCAV Flight controllers would not be able to fly them. In the future there be a communications technology that UCAVS don't have to rely on SAT assets to complete there missions. As I've said there will always be a Man and Machine interface!!!

One word: Jamming.

That is why a more-autonomous drone is an appealing idea. As countermeasures evolve, it will be desirable for the vehicle to be capable of independent decision-making should it lose contact with the base. Then if it suspects tampering with the signal. Then, since it's proven so capable of self-control before, they remove the pilot totally.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Human emotion = win.

Yeah but the drone was partly "possessed" by myung's personality. Myung is partly to blame for making sharon fall in love with Dyson and Guld since it was born from her mind, as she was the one who was needed to "feed it" the emotions. (just a piece of meat who becames obsolete after the bioneural chip was brought in and she was told she would appear for appearances only)

So yeah emotions have their ups and downs.

I think the ghosts limits are they can't create. This is why humans will outperform machines because we take in all kinds of information that might seem completely useless to a machine but that is relevent to us. Humans adjust to a thinking opponent and can 'read'/predict what they might do better than a machine would.

It's why playing against a bot in a FPS is never going to be as good as a real person. The fact that we make mistakes and can gradually learn from mistakes to become better through experience and come up with new exploits, is why I think pilots will always be needed. We all have unique ways of processing the information and interpreting it and then coming up with a new way of doing something. Machines are hardcoded to process some information in a specific manner and follow a set path, ignoring anything going on beyond their set program. If you can lure a machine into say a dark area where it has no information about the inside of that place, and have it fall into some ambush, that makes it less smart than a human who might be aware of what the opposing pilot is trying to do by leading him into an area that may give him the advantage.

But robots don't think of things like that since they will ignore information that seems useless and irrelevant to them that a human might not think is irrelevant but gain him a advantage. But the money saved using them makes a lot of sense.

Maybe one day we will have especially made-terminator killers (like the character in the megaman games or the guy in blade runner) who hunt the rogue ones that have been somehow tampered with or hacked by the enemy, whose job is to take down the out of control drone? How will a human pilot ever fight a rogue robot that can fly faster than the human? You would need drone-killing drones. Machines killing machines. (like the giants programmed to fight each other in DYRL on behalf of the two rival PC sexes)

I do like the idea of the variable drone though: that would be like the mobile doll from gundam. heh Put some fold boosters on them and set them on a suicide kamikaze mission so pilots like max don't have to get so close to the dangerous area. The only thing that could beat them would be the bugs with the jamming devices, and the speed they've been given using the magical red paint that makes them travel faster.

Edited January 23, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Warmaker]

Wikipedia: WWII Casualties

People are replaceable, up to a certain point.

Machines? Keep churning them out, especially if the country has a sound technological and industrial base. And most especially, that country has the $$ money $$.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Not if you plant cheap biological weapons that multiply quickly to counter the machines. "Bugs" The earliest computers failing had to do with bugs being caught inside them.

The bugs are the key to defeating rogue machines.

All sara has to do is sing that song that makes them grow quickly and the drones are doomed.

some interesting history:

http://www.maxmon.com/1945ad.htm

The legendary bugbear may have been why the PC decided on biological weapons. Space monsters are the bugbears of macross.

Just as the droids are seen as inferior in star wars to the clone soldiers in prequel trilogy star wars, so the humans and drones are inferior to alien bugs. Note that the bugs appear to be intelligent?

It reminds me of a scene in starwars where the mercenary is commenting on the differences between intelligence and wisdom. There are just some things about the bug that although they look mechanical like robots, they show wisdom like a human or some being controlling it. Not programmed and preset to behave in a certain way as if processing the data fed to it like the way a computer program would respond. In star wars the Droids assume that information given to it is never false. Humans know better and question that information put into the databanks. These bugs like a living being, have wisdom to know the weaknesses of the drone, (as if having fought them before) while the inhuman speed that current human tech can barely match. (like the drones that are allowed to fly a high speed) They are more like the best of both worlds. Not showing the weakness of a drone which isn't wise, or the physical limits of a human which is forced to use a limiter while flying.

I get the feeling the bugs are going to be a combination of the bioroid things from SC, and the inbit in mospeada. bioroids were people inside an armor forced to live in it like it was their own skin. (explaining the wisdom that comes from experienced fighting) Inbit were tough on the outside, but with blood, like an armored beetle. The advantage of these is it allows them to act naturally, but be independent of repairs from a machine. If a 'factory' gets blown up, like with the zentradi who couldn't repair or build, that can cripple the fighting power of the enemy. But these things are part biological, making them independent of the need for something like that.

Order of goodness:

PC (girl was able to make plants grow quick) > Monsters (no reliance on factories) > humans (can repair broken things) > zentradi (can't repair) > drones (fast but not able to think for itself)

We all love machines but if the machines can't think for themselves and you can wipe out the factories they need to be built, and reprogram them, they can be enslaved and turned against themselves.

Edited January 23, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[VF-7000 THUNDERHAWK]

One word: Jamming.

That is why a more-autonomous drone is an appealing idea. As countermeasures evolve, it will be desirable for the vehicle to be capable of independent decision-making should it lose contact with the base. Then if it suspects tampering with the signal. Then, since it's proven so capable of self-control before, they remove the pilot totally.

I still think the U.S. Military will not give a UCAV full A/I control over a mission now or in the future. Even though a UCAV can be programed to complete a mission from take off to landing, a operator will always be monitoring the aircraft and its mission. If a problem occurs the operator can switch to manual control and fly the UCAV if a problem arises.

The Military would need to develop a more Advanced communication datalink without having to use a SAT asset to make the UCAV a more capable combat platform.

[Kasumi_Chan]

VB-6 Koenig. Nothing tells your opponent how much you hate him like quad 40cm railcannons.

[Taylor_VFA122]

Depending on timelines,

VF-0B (cause I like two seaters and the D is ugly and the fact that I hate delta wing planes)

VF-1J (Just to be different)

VF-11B

VF-25 (cause c'mon, the thing is bad ass)

Edited February 8, 2008 by Taylor_VFA122

[VenomMacbeth]

where's VB-06 Konig?

nah, I choose manuverability over blowing the enemy to smithereens before they even realize this big, ugly, green n' brown thing is sitting there. I want Max's VF-1A from SDF-Macross.

Edited February 12, 2008 by VenomMacbeth

[Shaorin]

the VF-1S.

[miked01]

VF-1S Strike Valkyrie.

or if I have to rise through the ranks the VF-1J Valkyrie or VF-11 Thunderbolt. I love being cannon fodder.

[Veneficus]

Collecting dust in my garage back home on Terra Firma; An old NR-SR-E3/NR-SL-E3, An SDP-1 Stampede Valkyrie. & a squad of Northrom QF-3000E Ghosts.

For combat purposes; A Custom VF-22C Super “Radome” (Not Canon per-say, But if Mac-7 kept going we would have seen Max, & Milia produce something along these lines.)

Mine would be basically a General Galaxy VF-22 Sturmvogel II equipped with a Recon Radome. A pair of S.E.S. FAST pack dorsal booster Pods For rocking on my electric keyboard with. & I’m going to keep the brainwave control system from the original YF-21 specs, But with a conventional control cockpit for emergencies, and mental cool down.

It’s not to dissimilar to the Shinsei Industry VF-11C Thunderbolt Super "Radome"

Why the Radome? I’m a drone nut, tactical warfare, multitasking freak. Tracking multiple targets simultaneously, and sending the telemetry via laser comm to my entourage Squad of Drone Fighters.

My Drone fighters? Old school would be a Squad of QF-300E Ghosts, Mac-7 Era I would be acquiring A Squad of Ghost AIF-9B Drone Fighters (equipped with Super Packs) Network coordinated with my Radome system.

I realize the Sharon Apple incident was to convince everyone AI drone Fighters are going to take over the world. But I like my AI ladies, & I was grooving on Sharon’s Music. So don’t knock my choice of Drones!

My ghosts would have a more classic N-net architecture AI system salvaged from my older QF-3000E Ghosts. (Not the manic wetware Sharon Apple used.)

Not that I would be afraid of the manic Wet-Ware Sharon used, It’s just the fact allot of folks seem to forget an AI has a learning curve. Given time they can obtain Veteran tactical combat pilot skillz making them practically invincible. I’d be tearing out the black boxes from the remains of downed drones every time they got shot up, & plugging the things into newer models as I upgraded.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Veneficus

[Alex]

I want to ride an actual Valkyrie. Breast plate and all!!!!! I'd ride her into battle wearing my Slim Pickens cowboy hat and screaming to high hell.

What's that? Valkyrie's are mythical Norse warrior maidens that probably never existed?

Then we genetically engineer some!!

YEE-HAW!!!!!!!!!

[Gubaba]

I wouldn't mind taking one of the cola machines for a spin...