Macross: Variable Fighter operations

[Remko]

Something I always found funny about Macross, was that they showed the VF's launching from an exterior flightdeck while in space. This can be seen very nicely in Macross Frontier, where there are VF-25's on the flight deck of Macross Quarter. This doesn't make any sense, since in Space you won't need a flight deck, landing gear or catapults like on a normal aircraft carrier. It looks cool, but I found it to be a bit disturbing. The VF-171 carriers looked much better in that perspective.

Anyway, my favourite VF of all times is the SV-51 from Macross Zero. It's just one big mean looking bird. Especially in GERwalk mode it's very birdlike complete with talons. Does the SV-51 actually have a name? Or is it only Alpha and Gamma? I hearby would like to supply the name Cormorant.

I know how they launch vertically from the sub (at least in case of Macross Zero). But how do they return? The real world submarine launched Cormorant UCAV (now under development by the US Navy) also launches from the launch tube of an Ohio class SSGN while submerged, and when it has completed it's mission it returns to the location of the sub, and plucnhes in the water, while activating a locator beacon. Small UAV's deploy from the sub, and tow the UCAV back to the launc tube.

I don't think this is possible with the SV-51 though. So my guess is this. After completing the mission, the SV-51's fly back in close formation, and give of a signal to the sub. This then surfaces, after which the SV-51's quickly land vertically (using the two fans behind the cockpit, as well as the thrust vectoring exhausts from the normal engines) on the deck, and are quickly stowed in the hangar. The sub dives again, and the SV-51's are then hoisted into the launch chutes. This looks plausible, because the Auerstädt has been shown with plenty of open space inside, and the fact that protective coverings rise over the SV-51's prior to launch.

Any others who would like to give their own ideas about this?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, considering that VFs are designed as planes, should the need for aerial combat (And we see this in Frontier 12 and 13) is necessary. As such, landing gear are present for ground landings. On that note, the NMCs and the Quarter are also designed to work in atmospheres, and so have landing decks. The Guantanamo class carriers the 171s launch from would not work in such environments.

GERWALK is entirely Acronym. (Ground Effective Reinforcement of Winged Armament with Locomotive Knee-joint) From there, I like the SV-51 in Gerwalk 3rd most. The 25 and 27 take up 1st and second, respectively. My opinion, though. Anyway, the SV-51 Alpha is the cannon fodder and the gamma is the S of the SV-51s. (Like VF-1S, VF-19S, 25S, etc) Let's see... Return... I'd say Gerwalk and land on a landing platform, where it is then clamped, it transforms back into fighter, retracts the wings, and there we go. (By the way, you mean ROV, not UAV.)

No, you can't name it the Cormorant. It's named. Sorry.

[Remko]

Well, considering that VFs are designed as planes, should the need for aerial combat (And we see this in Frontier 12 and 13) is necessary. As such, landing gear are present for ground landings. On that note, the NMCs and the Quarter are also designed to work in atmospheres, and so have landing decks. The Guantanamo class carriers the 171s launch from would not work in such environments.

Yes, that does make sense. But still doesn't explain why you see VF's in fighter mode on deck in space. GERwalk I would understand.

(By the way, you mean ROV, not UAV.)

Yes, that's what I meant.

No, you can't name it the Cormorant. It's named. Sorry.

Then, what name has it?

Edited December 4, 2008 by Remko

[Nied]

The most widely held theory is that VFs use a deck and catapult system to save reaction mass when launching in space. the fighters get a bit of "free" acceleration from the deck catapults. Of course the actual reason is that it looks cool.

[Kronnang Dunn]

Then, what name has it?

AFAIK... There's still no official name for the Anti-U.N. SV-51... yet...

Edited December 4, 2008 by Kronnang Dunn

[David Hingtgen]

It doesn't even have a conjectural fan-made nickname AFAIK. I've never heard anything about a name for the -51. I do like Comorant a lot though. (goes with the Su-27 Crane)

[Nied]

It doesn't even have a conjectural fan-made nickname AFAIK. I've never heard anything about a name for the -51. I do like Comorant a lot though. (goes with the Su-27 Crane)

Since it's an Anti-UN mech with a strong Russian heritage we could always give it a NATO like reporting name ala Flanker or Fishbed. Since it's a jet powered variable fighter it would need a name that starts with V containing two syllables. Victor? To the dictionary!

[Mr March]

I have no idea how the SV-51 docking situation would work. But since the SV-51 is OverTechnology much like the VF-0, I would assume short term underwater operations are not a problem for the fighter.

The carriers and variable fighters are designed as all-environment craft, functional in space, the atmosphere and at sea. The Uraga, Macross Quarter and New Macross Class vessels have all been shown landing at sea. The most logical reasons for storing the valkyries in fighter mode would probably be ease of storage on board a carrier and to make conveyance that much simpler. In space, artificial gravity might also play a role and could be set for dynamic intensity to assist in launching the valkyries. The aft half of the flight deck might hold close to 1 gravity, while the forward half reduces gravity the farther on the deck you travel until gravity becomes near zero at the forward tip of the launch deck.

The Guantanamo Class vessels, with their four launching decks in the diamond shape of the main hull, are obviously a unique craft and are likely designed to be used in space almost exclusively.

[ChronoReverse]

Not to mention it's much more stable to store valkyries in fighter mode under any sort of gravity.

[SchizophrenicMC]

That docking arm never looked stable to me... Why do you think Harriers don't use 'em?

Anyway, one of my theories from way back in SDFM is that the Artificial Gravity creates more or less a bubble of roughly 1g. This bubble happens to envelop the landing deck, since the weapons stores are all under it. The catapult is necessary to move it out of the bubble with enough speed to escape without drifting aimlessly down with the gravity flow. I made that up to explain why the VF-1s always went DOWN after takeoff in space. (Watch closely and you'll see what I mean.)

GERWALK. Not GERwalk. It's the little things that get me...

AFAIK, the SV-51 is called the Gamma or the Alpha, depending on the model. The team leader model's the Gamma, the cannon fodder, the Alpha. That's how I've always seen it. NATO Reporting name: SV-51 Vulture.

[hobbes221]

I would hate to be the Air Boss for a carrier that kept it's VFs in gerwalk mode on the deck. It would be like having a deck full of helos with skids, having to rig them with small wheels just to respot them and such (yes you could walk the VFs but a flight deck has enough going on without adding a few mechs walking around). Also having them in fighter mode allows the ground crew better access to more of the bird. And from the pilot's point of view it is far more helpful to be in fighter as to gerwalk when doing a pre-flight. Have you ever seen a pilot for something like a 747 do a walk-a-around? Not very many places that they can really get into not like a smaller aircraft closer to the ground where the pilot can run his hand along most of the bird.

What I would like to see for the VFs is a launch system along the lines of the launch tubes from BSG or those drop bays from Babylon 5 (anyone remember those?). Mainly as a way to get the VFs out into space a little faster.

And as for the SV-51s, I could see them reentering the launch tubes in battroid mode then having a mount or rail hook up to hold them in place as the retractable part of the tube opens giving the room needed to switch back to fighter mode. Not to sure about this, will have to look at it some more.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, I think GERWALK would work better than battroid, since the '51 folds up in all sorts of weird ways for Battroid, but just flips the legs and arms out for GERWALK. Just hover over the whatchit, docking arm, transform, docking arm pushes 51 into vertical position and retracts.

As for the drop bay idea, how about Halo 3's Pelican drop bays?

And who, might I ask, proposed storing VFs as GERWALKs?

[Beltane70]

those drop bays from Babylon 5 (anyone remember those?).

Ah, yes, the cobra bays as they called them. I always thought it was interesting how they used Babylon 5's own rotational speed to help launch the fighters.

[hobbes221]

And who, might I ask, proposed storing VFs as GERWALKs?

But still doesn't explain why you see VF's in fighter mode on deck in space. GERwalk I would understand.

I just took that and ran with it, also I was under the idea that he was asking why a VF had/needed landing gear. Sorry if I missed the point. Even if you are not storing them in gerwalk and transform them once you're on deck I still don't like the idea of having to taxi a VF around in gerwalk.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Caution: Jet Blast

Then just hover 'em along? Personally, taxiing in Gerwalk is useless. However, it's great for mass takeoffs. Just fill all of the safe space on the flight deck with Gerwalked Valks, VTOL 'em, and BAM! you've successfully scrambled a squadron in under a minute.

[taksraven]

Something I always found funny about Macross, was that they showed the VF's launching from an exterior flightdeck while in space. This can be seen very nicely in Macross Frontier, where there are VF-25's on the flight deck of Macross Quarter. This doesn't make any sense, since in Space you won't need a flight deck, landing gear or catapults like on a normal aircraft carrier. It looks cool, but I found it to be a bit disturbing. The VF-171 carriers looked much better in that perspective.

I think its fair to say that its just about the visuals.

Taksraven

[Mr March]

What I would like to see for the VFs is a launch system along the lines of the launch tubes from BSG or those drop bays from Babylon 5 (anyone remember those?). Mainly as a way to get the VFs out into space a little faster.

There are advantages and disadvantages to launch tubes, at least those shown in Battlestar Galactica or Babylon 5 (yes, some of us know them well). While the BSG launch tubes and B5 drop bays both enjoy extremely rapid deployment, they are both limited to fighter launches perpendicular to the carrier craft/station. In the case of combined fighter/carrier combat, in order to gain catapult advantages launching fighters toward the enemy, the BSG/B5 solution must ensure the carrier's flank is facing the enemy. Not only is this not an ideal solution for most warship weapons (whose armaments are typically arranged to bear the most firepower on the forward arc) but it also presents a much larger prospective target to enemy fire. You'll also note that because the fighter tubes and drop bays are so close to each other, they don't launch the fighters simultaneously but rather in succession.

In the case of Macross, the number of fighters launched may be less overall, but the variable fighters can be launched directly toward the enemy while the carrier faces the enemy with it's best guns and the smallest target cross-section. Correspondingly, the variable fighters can be launched in larger simultaneous waves. While the Vipers of BSG or the Starfuries of B5 arrive into combat with the first fighter followed quickly by the second fighter a few seconds later and the third and so on, the valkyries can arrive in simultaneous waves of multiple fighters from a single launch. This allows that many more valkyries to attain firing range upon the enemy sooner and to do so initially in greater numbers. The New Macross Class, with it's 12 standard catapults and 3 electromagnetic catapults, can launch valkyries in waves of 15 simultaneous craft. The disadvantage is the greater delay time between launch waves.

So I guess it depends upon which way you look at it. Would you want to fly into battle alone with all your nearest friendly trailing a second, the next 5 seconds behind, the next 7 seconds behind, etc OR arriving to face the enemy with 14 wingmen at your side?

Edited December 5, 2008 by Mr March

[shadow3393]

I was wondering, can the NMC launch fighters when it is in attacker mode via the normal catapults. The hanger section is truncated and the flight deck is no longer there, because of the arms.

Edited December 5, 2008 by shadow3393

[hobbes221]

Mr March I get what you're saying and they are good points but what I was thinking was something along the lines of maybe 6 or 8 launch bays just to get an 'alert 5' off fast while the cats' do their thing. So not so much one or the other but I think a mix would be good.

And I kinda forgot just how many cats the NMC have, guess part of me auto relates things to RL. Do we know how many cats the Quarter has?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Quarter has 3 cats.

I stick with my VTOL idea...

[Mr March]

Well, technically Macross does use both. The ARMD and SDF-1 Macross Class used launch bays/deployment arms to rapidly scramble valkyries immediately and the NMC Class has the three electromagnetic catapults designed to instantly scramble the VF-17 Nightmare fighters.

There's been virtually nothing published on the Macross Quarter so far, but I would expect the Quarter - as a much smaller ship with a different operational role - to have fewer launch options than the Battle Class ships. Looking at the artwork, the Macross Quarter carrier arm appears to have 6 catapults and 21 elevators on the flight deck. Oddly enough, the cannon arm actually appears capable of launching craft as well. We can clearly see 2 elevators on the port side of the cannon arm and I can assume another 2 elevators on the starboard side.

I was wondering, can the NMC launch fighters when it is in attacker mode via the normal catapults. The hanger section is truncated and the flight deck is no longer there, because of the arms.

The NMC doesn't need the central hangars to launch craft, but it's really a mute point anyway since the hangar doors can be opened at any time. The NMC does have 23 elevators spread across both the two forward "arm" decks and the two rear "calve" decks, so it can lift fighters to the flight deck in Carrier or Attack mode. Since most often the ship would be transformed in space, the individual orientations of the four flight decks is really irrelevant. The valkyries should be able to launch while the Battle Class is in either mode (just like the Guantanamo launches VF-171 fighters both right side up from the dorsal flight decks and upside down from the ventral flight decks, as seen in Macross Frontier episode 1).

The only problems I can see is the NMC angled flight deck on the port side has the edge folded back upon the deck when the NMC is in Attack Mode. So it's likely the three catapults on the rear port angled deck/left leg can't be used.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Mr March

[SchizophrenicMC]

March, I only count 3 cats...

[hobbes221]

Well, technically Macross does use both. The ARMD and SDF-1 Macross Class used launch bays/deployment arms to rapidly scramble valkyries immediately and the NMC Class has the three electromagnetic catapults designed to instantly scramble the VF-17 Nightmare fighters.

There's been virtually nothing published on the Macross Quarter so far, but I would expect the Quarter - as a much smaller ship with a different operational role - to have fewer launch options than the Battle Class ships. Looking at the artwork, the Macross Quarter carrier arm appears to have 6 catapults and 21 elevators on the flight deck. Oddly enough, the cannon arm actually appears capable of launching craft as well. We can clearly see 2 elevators on the port side of the cannon arm and I can assume another 2 elevators on the starboard side.

Wow that many... I was thinking 3 or 4 for the MQ. Also I forgot that the Battle Galaxy was kicking out Ghosts like a Pez dispenser, I wonder if VFs could use the same system.

And thanks for the reminder on the SDF-1 and it's systems, sometimes there is just too much to remember at once

[Mr March]

It's hard to say either way. It's either 3 or 6 catapults. If the white line is the catapult, then it's three. If each yellow line is a catapult, then it's six. Either way, it doesn't have that many.

[ChronoReverse]

6 seems pretty reasonable. The Nimitz class only has 4 catapults and it's not that much smaller than the Quarter.

[Mr March]

Wow that many... I was thinking 3 or 4 for the MQ. Also I forgot that the Battle Galaxy was kicking out Ghosts like a Pez dispenser, I wonder if VFs could use the same system.

And thanks for the reminder on the SDF-1 and it's systems, sometimes there is just too much to remember at once

The Battle Galaxy was a NMC ship, so it can launch a lot of fighters very quickly. The primary advantage of the NMC is the two large dorsal hangar bays across the forward launch decks. With those open, the NMC could rapidly launch six catapults with very little ferrying time. The valkyries would roll out from the hangars directly toward the six catapults and would launch very quickly in sequence. Any gaps could be filled in with elevator lifted craft from beneath the flight decks. But if I recall the Battle Galaxy was performing mostly launch arm deployments; the catapults likely weren't needed because the Frontier fleet was already right on top of the Vajra/Galaxy forces.

6 seems pretty reasonable. The Nimitz class only has 4 catapults and it's not that much smaller than the Quarter.

While certainly an advantage, I don't think catapults are as necessary to space-based fighter warfare as they are at sea. Basically any space carrier, as long as it's designed properly, should be able to just dump a ton of fighters into space very quickly. Technically any elevator or hangar port can act as a launch zone in space and with the type of technology available in Macross, all they need to do is ferry the craft near the exit under it's own power or on launch arm.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Mr March

[hobbes221]

Okay so are these shots of the flight deck then? To me they looked like they are on the side of the ship but it could just have been the angle. Also those bays/elevators look a little too small for anything but Ghosts, but again that could just be me.

[Mr March]

Those are launch ports that run along the side of the forward arms, just below the edge of the flight deck. You can even seen the edge of the flight deck in the second picture. All NMC ships appear to have those.

Like I said, as long as they have a method to ferry craft to and from the ports, any open bay or door can serve as a launching port in space. The ARMDs were littered all over with launching ports and used launch arms to spit out VF-1 Super Valkyries

Edited December 5, 2008 by Mr March

[Morpheus]

Hmm, valk deployment method, interesting topic .

Would it be just easier to make a huge belly door like the one on the Zentran strike Cruiser (the one Kamjin used when he attack SDF-1 on the ocean, the ship belly door opens to drop dozens of regult.)

The launch arms on the ARMD/Guantanamo (also the Sentinel Stealth Carrier) is not very effective if you want to scramble all of the fighter at once since the maximum number of Valk that can be deployed is limited to the number of the launching arms (not including the valk "reloading").

Battle Galaxy "drop chutes" are more effective, capable of delivering dozens of craft per round. And if any of you watched Nadesico the movie, you will see that the Aestivalis carrier literally opens it belly hangar door and dropping all on board Aestivalis at once.

Btw, NorthHampton frigates can also "shoot" Valk in encased capsule for rapid deployment during Operation Stargazer and have faster deployment rate compare to the other carriers.

[hobbes221]

Those are launch ports that run along the side of the forward arms, just below the edge of the flight deck. You can even seen the edge of the flight deck in the second picture. All NMC ships appear to have those.

Like I said, as long as they have a method to ferry craft to and from the ports, any open bay or door can serve as a launching port in space. The ARMDs were littered all over with launching ports and used launch arms to spit out VF-1 Super Valkyries

That's where I thought they were, thanks for the confirmation.

[edwin3060]

Storage in fighter mode also puts the components lower to the ground, i.e. no need to climb up and down to service the VF like you would in GERWALK or Battroid mode. Also makes it easier to slide out the turbines in the legs, which, if they operate like present day turbines, need lots of maintenance (would probably apply more to the VF-0).

Mr March: Seeing as to how they are EM catapults, you could launch the VFs with different velocities so that they all arrive at roughly the same time, regardless of when they were launched.

Hobbes: If SOP in Macross is anything like real life, the Alert 5 aircraft would already be sitting on the catapults, so no need for any additional launch bays in that situation.

[Sulendil Ang]

hobbes221: To reinforce March's point, here's the picture of the left arm flight deck of NMC's Battle Mode.

http://www.new-un-spacy.com/macross7/newma...-rearbottom.gif

BTW, how Macross really deploy their VF? I remember from DYRL that the fighters are launched via deployment arms from the ARMD's big, red circle I think, but is there other methods Macross launch her VF, seeing that she didn't have any catapult on her?

Pictures would be helpful in my case.

PS: I learned a lot from this thread, so kudos to Remko for making such wonderful topic.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Sulendil Ang

[Mr March]

The ARMDs use both flight decks and launch bays. With 262 x VF-1 Super Valkyries and 66 x Ghosts it stands to reason the ARMDs can launch those fighters quite quickly.

BTW, how Macross really deploy their VF? I remember from DYRL that the fighters are launched via deployment arms from the ARMD's big, red circle I think, but is there other methods Macross launch her VF, seeing that she didn't have any catapult on her?

Pictures would be helpful in my case.

The OPENING ANIMATION to the original SDF Macross series shows the VF-1 Valkyries launching from the dorsal surface of the main guns of the SDF-1. It also shows catapults being used.

The line art for both the TV and FILM versions of the SDF-1 clearly show lane markings on the dorsal main guns that are very similar to the lane markings seen on the launch decks of the ARMDs. So the dorsal forward deck of the SDF-1 Macross was one big flight deck.

We also know the SDF-1 Macross has hangar bays on the port and starboard sides and that these bays link with the ARMDs/Aircraft Carriers to allow air/space craft to be ferried from the docked carriers to the SDF-1 and vice versa.

[Zinjo]

The line art for both the TV and FILM versions of the SDF-1 clearly show lane markings on the dorsal main guns that are very similar to the lane markings seen on the launch decks of the ARMDs. So the dorsal forward deck of the SDF-1 Macross was one big flight deck.

We also know the SDF-1 Macross has hangar bays on the port and starboard sides and that these bays link with the ARMDs/Aircraft Carriers to allow air/space craft to be ferried from the docked carriers to the SDF-1 and vice versa.

It stands to reason that the Macross Cannon also served as a surface launch deck since the ship was designed to attach to the ARMD space carriers not the Prometheus. Thus a need for surface launch capablilities were needed while in an atmosphere.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Mr March: Seeing as to how they are EM catapults, you could launch the VFs with different velocities so that they all arrive at roughly the same time, regardless of when they were launched.

Except logic dictates that they would launch all fighters at the maximum safe acceleration, therefore giving maximum launch velocity. Faster, and the Gs cause harmful effects. Slower, and you've made the operation less effective.

March: I call the lines that look like catapults catapults.

Chrono: Nimitz classes have 4? I thought they only had 3...

Drop chutes are pretty effective.

So, here's what they did for TIEs in Star Wars: The hangars have launch arms that hold multiple TIEs, parallel to each other. TIE 1 leaves, then TIE 2, then 3, etc. Multiply this by the total number of launch arms in a carrier, and in theory, within the space of a minute, 100 or more TIEs can be launched from a single Star Destroyer. Recovery is a bit harder, as they must fly into a bottom-mounted hangar and let a docking arm attach to the top of the fighter.