Jump to content

Macross Frontier Mecha/Technology Thread IV *Read 1st Post*


azrael

Recommended Posts

Always look forward on hearing your take on things Mr March. And I would like to say one more time to everyone out there, I was never trying to make the VF-25 to be better than the -19/22, my question was just for the -25 itself due to the wording that's all. I don't think that the -25 HAS to be better in every way over everything before it. I feel that the -25 is a better fighter for a few reasons that have nothing (or at least not much) to do with the G limit of the airframe. It was good to here other takes on it though.

Although if I had my way an air wing in the Macross world would have a mix of VFs of almost every type we have seen. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Vol. 7 liner notes:

Battle Frontier

A variable stealth space attack aircraft carrier with the abbreviated name Battle 25. It is connected at the tip of Island 1 and takes charge of guarding the convoy.

Main power: Thermonuclear reaction engine matrix

Main Engine: OTM Macross heat pile cluster system

Length, overall: 1,681 m

Width, overall: 521 m

Weight, gross: 16,550,000 t

[Yeah that's it. There ain't much text.]

Ranka's mobile phone

(Giant Salamander)

-A organic material system is used to make it similar to a floppy/soft living creature.

-Data and music disks are supported.

Typical mobile phone

-A holographic screen is produced above the dialer.

Sheryl's mobile phone

The device is a type of microphone. It can also be used as a whip. [There's some small lineart showing the whip]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Vol. 7 liner notes:

Battle Frontier

A variable stealth space attack aircraft carrier with the abbreviated name Battle 25. It is connected at the tip of Island 1 and takes charge of guarding the convoy.

Main power: Thermonuclear reaction engine matrix

Main Engine: OTM Macross heat pile cluster system

Length, overall: 1,681 m

Width, overall: 521 m

Weight, gross: 16,550,000 t

[Yeah that's it. There ain't much text.]

So its longer than Battle 7 which is 1,510 meters. That would mean an excess of a 171 meters at either deck and engines.

Hard to believe it is longer than the Megaroad Class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a little visual comparison. (from March's M3)

Battle 7

battle7-attack.png

Battle Frontier

battle25-attack.jpg

Battle Galaxy

battlegalaxy.jpg

Battle 13

battle13-attack.gif

Notice that Battle Frontier has a longer flight deck bow. Part of the extra 171 meters is there. As for the extra mass both Battle Frontier and Battle Galaxy seem to be based on the hull of Battle 13.

Comparably Battle 13 was more heavily armed and armored than Battle 7. Not to mention there are more guns on Battle Frontier and especially Battle Galaxy.

The later generations of NMC carriers it seems goes back to basics of the Macross Class being both battleship and carrier. Earlier NMCs like Battle 1, 5 and 7 are more on the carrier command center and last resort with the Macross cannon.

But comparably the Macross Class is still more armored, more heavily armed and out-tons NMC carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're definitely making yourself clear to me. Debates about the nature of the statistics aside, if I were a pilot, I'd much rather fly a variable fighter where I could pull 27.5 g maneuvers for two minutes at a time without feeling a single g of stress than pilot a variable fighter that could handle 60 gs for less than a second or two before the stress sends me into cardiac arrest and pops my eyeballs :)

Digressing, I can definitely understand fan motives behind this debate between the YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur, the YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II and the newer darling fighter of the Macross franchise, the VF-25 Messiah. Obviously, every fan has their favorite variable fighter and many don't like the idea of their favorites becoming outdated, especially if the older fighters appeal to the fan more on an aesthetic level. Having said that, I think a lot of us are fixating on minutiae in order to justify our preferences. But the variable fighters aren't one-of-a-kind units piloted only by plot-shielded main characters; they are mass produced weapons. All other factors being equal, a force of 100 VF-25 Messiah fighters will be assured victory over a force of 100 VF-19/VF-22 fighters simply due to the reality of the ISC technology and it's effect upon the modern battlefield of the Macross universe. We could argue why all factors can never be equal, but that doesn't leave anything left to debate (other than a clash of opinion). All this doesn't mean the VF-19/VF-22 is outclassed to the point of being completely ineffective against the newer VF-25 Messiah. But think about it on the grander scheme of things; no military commander wants anything but the best when fielding their forces against the enemy. If you want to win, ideally you want all the advantages and none of the disadvantages.

When it comes down to it, we don't have enough information in a comparison between many of the variable fighters to reach any satisfactory conclusion. We have a few statistics like speed and thrust-to-weight ratio, but even those cannot give us a totally accurate picture of performance. Such statistics can only provide a vague guide. While it is true that not everything that's newer is necessarily better in every way, more often than not later variable fighters will be improvements over earlier variable fighters (obviously).

I think the best fans can hope for is trying to determine a sense of "how much improvement" exists between one fighter versus another. After all, I don't see many fans here debating the VF-1 Valkyrie vs. the VF-25 Messiah :) I think the debate between the YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur, the YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II and the VF-25 Messiah is so intense because some fans don't see a large enough performance gap between the 2040 era fighters and the 2059 era fighters. I suppose that's up to each fan. For my part, I think the VF-25 Messiah is VERY next generation and not just because of it's ISC inertia buffer technology. The fiction and statistics describe the VF-25 Messiah as very advanced on multiple levels including engines, T-W ratio, transformation technology, and so forth. To my eyes, the VF-25 Messiah is to the VF-19/VF-22 as they were to the VF-11 Thunderbolt in their day; truly next generation craft.

No doubt that is all true, but we were actually trying to answer the original question, could a VF-19 beat a VF-25 if it was equipped with ISC. So to conclude, I think we all agree that it can, under certain circumstances ^_^.

Along the way, I think we have teased out some very interesting questions:

1) Why is the VF-25 materials-limited to Mach 5, when previous generation VFs are not?

2) What are the true limits of the ISC?

3) When will the VF-27 model kit finally come out? ^_^

Ultimately, I have no doubt that the VF-25 is a generation ahead of previous VFs, incorporating ideas from recent real world innovations such as the insane thrust of the PW-F119/135 vs the PW-F110 series, magnetic actuators, and functional exoskeletons. But all the same, we shouldn't put it on a pedestal and claim that it has uber-properties in every area, when it certainly does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always look forward on hearing your take on things Mr March. And I would like to say one more time to everyone out there, I was never trying to make the VF-25 to be better than the -19/22, my question was just for the -25 itself due to the wording that's all. I don't think that the -25 HAS to be better in every way over everything before it. I feel that the -25 is a better fighter for a few reasons that have nothing (or at least not much) to do with the G limit of the airframe. It was good to here other takes on it though.

Thank you. I would also tend to agree with you on this point. If the VF-11 Thunderbolt isn't better than the VF-1 Valkyrie, why would the VF-1 be replaced by the VF-11? The answer is the VF-11 wouldn't replace the VF-1, unless it was significantly better to justify the costs involved to mass produce the Thunderbolt as a viably advanced replacement. This is the way technology works; the old - as good as it is - will be replaced by the new and eventually technology will reach a point where the new fighter outclasses the old in every conceivable way. The VF-25 Messiah doesn't appear to outclass the VF-19/VF-22 in every conceivable way, but there is no doubt in my mind that VF-25 Messiah is a major leap forward. The VF-25 is clearly a significantly advanced fighter, not some minor incremental improvement. Which is pretty much as certain as we can get :)

No doubt that is all true, but we were actually trying to answer the original question, could a VF-19 beat a VF-25 if it was equipped with ISC. So to conclude, I think we all agree that it can, under certain circumstances ^_^.

Which again is a debate over "all other factors being equal". We can create all kinds of hypothetical scenarios in which the VF-25's advantages are removed until it's possible for an VF-19/VF-22 to sit on equal footing. Or can we? Can we compare rate of turn? Fuel efficiency? Cost? And even if we could, what is the point in handicapping the VF-25? We could just as easily argue, as David Hingtgen has pointed out, that the VF-25 could be built for a 60g rating at added expense, which is the same thing as installing an ISC on the VF-19/VF-22 at added expense. It's just a slippery slope of speculation without definitive conclusion.

The debate seems to be an attempt at a definitive conclusion via inconclusive means AND arguing uncertainty as a mitigating factor to say a less advanced designed isn't completely outclassed by a more advanced design (or debating modern viability of old technology in the face of more advanced alternatives). Which again results in a simple debate of opinion without a solid conclusion. "Under certain circumstances" even the VF-1 Valkyrie could beat the VF-25 Messiah, but such scenarios get us nowhere. The only "certainty" that exists is that it's not a likely possibility an older fighter will beat a newer fighter and the older the fighter is, the less likely is such a possibility.

We can't even be 100% certain the VF-25 Messiah is superior in every way to the VF-1 Valkyrie. That's how little information we really have on these fictional vehicles. The only conclusion we can reach is to say it's very likely the VF-25 Messiah is better than the VF-1 Valkyrie, given the obvious written fiction by the Macross creative staff (engine power, T-W ratio, advances in technology, new technologies, etc). Same goes for the VF-11 over the VF-1, or the VF-19 vs. the VF-22 or the VF-25 vs. the older fighters. The VF-25's T-W ratio, its inertia buffer, the linear actuators, etc, all tell me the VF-25 Messiah is in a performance level beyond the VF-19/VF-22. The VF-25 Messiah is not a minor, incremental improvement; it's a significant leap forward. The official trivia doesn't get much more specific than that, but it doesn't need to be. The point is clear, at least to me :p

I will say this much; based on the official trivia released (meaning the VF-171EX Nightmare Plus remains an enigma thus far), if I had to fight a VF-25 Messiah using only previous generation fighters, I'd chose the VF-19S Excalibur or the VF-22S Sturmvogel II :)

From Vol. 7 liner notes:

Battle Frontier

A variable stealth space attack aircraft carrier with the abbreviated name Battle 25. It is connected at the tip of Island 1 and takes charge of guarding the convoy.

Main power: Thermonuclear reaction engine matrix

Main Engine: OTM Macross heat pile cluster system

Length, overall: 1,681 m

Width, overall: 521 m

Weight, gross: 16,550,000 t

[Yeah that's it. There ain't much text.]

Thank you. I'll note this for a revision to the Battle Frontier profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate seems to be an attempt at a definitive conclusion via inconclusive means AND arguing uncertainty as a mitigating factor to say a less advanced designed isn't completely outclassed by a more advanced design (or debating modern viability of old technology in the face of more advanced alternatives). Which again results in a simple debate of opinion without a solid conclusion. "Under certain circumstances" even the VF-1 Valkyrie could beat the VF-25 Messiah, but such scenarios get us nowhere. The only "certainty" that exists is that it's not a likely possibility an older fighter will beat a newer fighter and the older the fighter is, the less likely is such a possibility.

A great point there, and the one in your earlier post about simple fan love of the VF-19 being a significant factor in this. I'm sure that if this forum were around in 1995 the tech thread would have included a long discussion about "The VF-1's a classic! I bet if you put VF-19/22 engines and a pinpoint barrier system it would totally be as good as the new model too!" Which is nice and all but only covers one factor of many and distances itself from real comparisons of the fighters in question.

(Which admittedly is SK's apparent design motif for the VF-25, but to disclaim that's only visual reference, nothing to do with the underlying technology or airframe.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Battle Frontier masses twice as much as Battle 7's obviously arbitrary value of 7,777,777 tons.

If I assume height to be maybe a bit more than half the width (I chose 300m) it comes out to a volume of roughly 262740000m^3.

So with that enclosed volume and the given mass I calculate an average density of 63kg/m^3. USS Nimitz has an average density of about 111kg/m^3.

Battle Frontier must have quite a lot of empty space in it.

Edited by DarkReaper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we can clearly see that such debate has some benefits, such as elucidating the limitations of new technology as well as taking old technology to its theoretical limits . For example, without the debate, everybody would still have thought that the ISC was limited to 27.5 Gs, or that every new generation of VFs must outperform the previous generation in every way despite the plethora of facts to the contrary ^_^.

Really, me playing the devil's advocate in this debate is more about pointing out the fallacies in the reasoning of others than anything else, especially when people say stupid things like (paraphrasing): "The VF-25 will pwn the VF-19 no matter what because it is the latest and the greatest and it is h4x!!!!"-- I have no particular love for the YF-19 series. The VF-27 on the other hand.... :p

Edited by edwin3060
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great point there, and the one in your earlier post about simple fan love of the VF-19 being a significant factor in this. I'm sure that if this forum were around in 1995 the tech thread would have included a long discussion about "The VF-1's a classic! I bet if you put VF-19/22 engines and a pinpoint barrier system it would totally be as good as the new model too!" Which is nice and all but only covers one factor of many and distances itself from real comparisons of the fighters in question.

Yeah, that pretty much hits the nail on the head :)

Well, we can clearly see that such debate has some benefits, such as elucidating the limitations of new technology as well as taking old technology to its theoretical limits . For example, without the debate, everybody would still have thought that the ISC was limited to 27.5 Gs, or that every new generation of VFs must outperform the previous generation in every way despite the plethora of facts to the contrary ^_^.

Really, me playing the devil's advocate in this debate is more about pointing out the fallacies in the reasoning of others than anything else, especially when people say stupid things like (paraphrasing): "The VF-25 will pwn the VF-19 no matter what because it is the latest and the greatest and it is h4x!!!!"-- I have no particular love for the YF-19 series. The VF-27 on the other hand.... :p

No one said debate was without benefit, only that it's difficult at the best of times to reach any definitive, binding conclusion when comparing variable fighters. I agree that debate does, at the very least, draw attention to how much we don't know about the variable fighters. Which is usually why you'll hear me and the other statistic-fans crying for more information about the VFs. We can never have enough :)

However, just to point out, not all of us assume the ICS system maxed out at 27.5 gs. I myself have always followed "the rule lower limits" which states the minimum, but not necessarily the maximum (Energy Converting Armor is a good example of something with a proven upper limit that is much greater than the stated lower limit). Nonetheless, the lack of information is a good point to make as a reminder.

As for the YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur & YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II vs. the VF-25 Messiah, rest assured there are still some of us on MW who have invested more thought into the fiction than some knee-jerk fanboys with their 5-minutes-after-the-episode reactions :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, since the debate of 19/22 vs 25 is almost over for both sides...

I bring in more materials.

These two are the VF-32 and VF-36, fan arts of next-gen VFs after Frontier era, what do you guys think about them? I know they are not Kawamori's works, but these designs are still interesting, the VF-32 is one oddest looking VF I ever seen, while the VF-36 looks more traditional and way sturdier.

(I'm sure people who visited /m/ sure know about them :rolleyes: )

VF-32 "Vespa"

VF-36

Edited by REbirth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing, but these two have been posted around here before. They are good designs but many had a problem with the single engine design of the VF-32 as it was felt that there was just not a whole lot of room for a good sized engine with the way in which it transformed.

I think there was also a comment about 'chicken legs' ^_^

Have you made your way over to the fan works area, there are some great designs over there. The best IMHO is the VF-4 redesign/VF-400 done by anime52k8, take a look if you haven't yet.

Edited by hobbes221
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing, but these two have been posted around here before. They are good designs but many had a problem with the single engine design of the VF-32 as it was felt that there was just not a whole lot of room for a good sized engine with the way in which it transformed.

Why not bring back that VF-29..... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you made your way over to the fan works area, there are some great designs over there. The best IMHO is the VF-4 redesign/VF-400 done by anime52k8, take a look if you haven't yet.

hehe, thanks for the plug ^_^

I've actually got a couple more updates coming soon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with that enclosed volume and the given mass I calculate an average density of 63kg/m^3. USS Nimitz has an average density of about 111kg/m^3.

Battle Frontier must have quite a lot of empty space in it.

Assuming it's built with roughly the same armor/transformation mechanics/material as valks are, it'd make sense to be half as dense as a real ship----valks are half as dense as real fighters.

Replying to a few other comments:

Re: Jet engines needing subsonic air. True, but the main design issue in modern jets is not merely making it subsonic (that's easy), but how "nicely" you do so. F-14 and F-15 are well-known for having multiple variable ramps to "let the air down easy"--multiple small shockwaves, vs the F-16 and F-18 having "one large shockwave". (exactly the same principle as a sonic boom----and a boom inside the intakes is generally bad--but a lot of planes deal with it anyways---easier/simpler than designing around it) The more gradually the air is converted to subsonic speeds, the more power the engine makes. If the F-14 lost its ramps, it'd be slower due to less engine power. If the F-16 added ramps, it'd be faster. Or, as is often the case---forget the ramps, and just install inherently more powerful engines. Assume:

Engine X makes 20,000lbs and can go Mach 2 at high speed/alt with a super-fancy set of 4 moving ramps. To save money, some versions of the plane have no ramps, so the same engine/airframe combo can only make 17,000lbs of thrust and goes Mach 1.8.

Or, you can have the rampless version of the plane, but install an inherently more powerful engine, that can make 20,000lbs of thrust and go Mach 2 without ramps. (or even better, install that engine with ramps, and get 24,000lbs thrust or whatever and go Mach 2.2)

Normally, it's not THAT big of a difference, and few planes today have multiple or even variable ramps, and many have them disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. It was the pic someone trolled on 4chan. They took a pic of the mech from KISSDUM and 'shoped a VF-29 tag on it. :rolleyes:

Ahh, sorry didn't see that and had not heard of that anime before, just saw the opening on youtube and the design doesn't look bad at all, will have to try and find some good pics.

This is what I thought you meant

post-8467-1235545189_thumb.gif

Edited by hobbes221
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and your wish is that SK will retcon the VF-25 into the SuperDuperUltraHeroMecha that you wish it to be? :rolleyes:

It already is. But obviously Kawamori would retcon the VF-19, why contradict recent stats? :p

Except that sketchley's translation says that it can't go faster or the fuselage will melt. The VF-19/22 has no such limit ^_^

This has been obviously retconned: now Kawamori says that fuselage can melt, so the same applies to all VFs. Well, at least for those who reach Mach 5 at 10,000m.

Arguing hypotheticals again?

It's a reminder for the movie. Kawamori purposely made us know there will be more atmospheric battles. By the way, since the VF-25 has double the thrust of the VF-19, it would seem strange if it hadn't the power to use also the PPB while in fighter mode.

P.S. Don't get all pissy cuz I just used your math against you. ^_^ Peace out!

I still don't understand how someone can keep the same velocity while pulling some g's, but maybe it's too complicated for the purpose of this forum :p

FV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* Maximum airframe design load: 27.5G at maximum acceleration for 120 seconds (When ISC operates, the cockpit is protected from high G.)

This sentence asserts 2 things 1) The Max airframe design load is 27.5Gs for 120 seconds.

2) When ISC operates, the cockpit is protected from high G.

Nowhere in there does it say that the ISC's protection maxes out at 27.5Gs.

Even the VF-27 has an ISC, but it was made for a cyborg as pilot, so clearly the ISC maxes out before the pilot endurance.

Irrelevant

It is not, it shows that we don't know the istantaneous g-limit of the VF-25.

FV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I would also tend to agree with you on this point. If the VF-11 Thunderbolt isn't better than the VF-1 Valkyrie, why would the VF-1 be replaced by the VF-11?

By the way, let's remind that in Macross 7 we got a VF-1 upgraded to the level of a VF-11 (a VF-1X). It's not like the original VF-1 itself had performance equal to that of a VF-11 :) And even then there are areas that can be upgraded, like the aerodynamic response.

FV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It already is. But obviously Kawamori would retcon the VF-19, why contradict recent stats? :p

This has been obviously retconned: now Kawamori says that fuselage can melt, so the same applies to all VFs. Well, at least for those who reach Mach 5 at 10,000m.

It's a reminder for the movie. Kawamori purposely made us know there will be more atmospheric battles. By the way, since the VF-25 has double the thrust of the VF-19, it would seem strange if it hadn't the power to use also the PPB while in fighter mode.

Right... get back to me when your dream retcon has occured :rolleyes:

I still don't understand how someone can keep the same velocity while pulling some g's, but maybe it's too complicated for the purpose of this forum :p

FV

:p You still hurt that I disproved you with your own mathematics?

Edited by edwin3060
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right... get back to me when your dream retcon has occured :rolleyes:

:p You still hurt that I disproved you with your own mathematics?

You must really like to insult people and their intelligence. You do realize that all you're doing is alienating yourself, and making it less likely that people will attempt to have an intelligent discussion with you now, or in the future, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right... get back to me when your dream retcon has occured :rolleyes:

OK, if I were to go to Japan I won't come back without his autograph and new stat sheets :p

You still hurt that I disproved you with your own mathematics?

Why? I got the public on my side :p

You know, this could be the start of a wonderful friendship, provided you get yourself a decent avatar :p

FV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...