Macross: Variable Fighter operations

[Zinjo]

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.

That's assuming they even care to recover the fighters.

These are simplistic fighters piloted by clones....

[Vostok 7]

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!

Exactly the reasoning I used for my stalled MiG-45 "Valhalla" project. Even better, Valhalla ties into "Valkyrie"... Valkyries are the warrior chicks that haul dead warriors to Valhalla.

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.

Vulture is a good reporting name, fits the styling of the SV-51 very well. NATO reporting names were often descriptive (Flanker, Foxbat, Foxhound, Fulcrum), while some were just nonsense words. As far as the Alpha/Gamma thing, NATO reporting names were usually amended when different variants were spotted, like 'MiG-25 Foxbat-A', 'Su-27 Flanker-E'. The Soviets used their own naming designations, usually an acronym at the end of the model number that designated different design changes or equipment changes, such as the MiG-25P 'Foxbat-A' standard interceptor model versus the MiG-25PU 'Foxbat-C' interceptor-trainer model (U is the first letter of the Russian word for "Trainer") or even more exotic, the MiG-25RBSh which was a reconnaissance-bomber model with a SLAR (side-looking airborne radar) system (Sh was the model designation for the type of SLAR in that model, there was also a MiG-25RBS model with a different type of SLAR).

I would assume then that the Alpha and Gamma are more in line with NATO designations for variant models, as in "SV-51 Vulture-A" or "SV-51 Vulture-G".

Though, reading the NATO reporting name article at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_reporting_name), Vulture seems like too common of a name to use, but they they did use "Bear" for the Tu-95, so I suppose it's not out of the question.

Vostok 7

Edited December 6, 2008 by Vostok 7

[SchizophrenicMC]

SV-51 Vostok?

Clones? Only the 501st, buddy. Only the 501st. All of the other legions were entirely recruit.

[Vostok 7]

SV-51 Vostok?

Clones? Only the 501st, buddy. Only the 501st. All of the other legions were entirely recruit.

Haha, SV-51 'Vostok' is great. Did they come from the east? (Vostok means "east" in Russian )

Only the 501st were clones? Maybe officially. It's never implicitly stated that all other stormtrooper legions were pure recruits and not clones. Millions of clone troopers wouldn't just disappear after the Clone War

But there were lots of very very good TIE Fighter pilots that the Empire would have definitely cared to recover Of course, if you survived long enough in an unshielded TIE/ln to NEED recovery you might be worth it

Vostok 7

[splatcat]

Just a thought here.

Fighter recovery in space would usually be a simple issue. There's no gravity so the fighter can just coast in an let the control arms do the hard work. Gerwalk mode would make it even simpler since they can land themselves then transfom to fighter mode for storage.

The catapults and launch arms both make sense to me. They both have uses depending on what is happening.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Um... Well, since Zero happened in the Pacific, I guess they didn't come from the east, but they definitely went east!

Over a period of 20 years, most of the 501st had died off. One must remember that stormtroopers serve the role of VF-1As. They are simple cannon fodder whose job is to take hits and die. So, I could definitely say that (And I believe that it is stated that the 501st is the only remaining all-clone legion) the clones, over 20 years, had been cannon-foddered to extinction.

TIE/Ins themselves are so cheap, the Empire doesn't care. However, the occasional shielded (yes, they do have a hardpoint) squadron leader variant is much more expensive. Also, the SL is expensive.

Well, Splat, it's not that simple. There are gravitational fluctuations near the carriers, as they are rather massive objects. Given, it's microgravity, but if one takes into account how the AG systems possibly work, in some areas, G force could be near 1. If this is the case, a VF would drop like the 20 ton piece of metal it is. So, you can't just let it coast.

On a related note, GERWALK, shown almost whenever a VF-25 lands, would push the VF AWAY from the carrier. Even idle thrust would send it off-course. GERWALK-braking, I can understand, but you can't land in GERWALK in space with your engines running.

[sketchley]

Can we talk about Star Wars in a different forum or at least a different section of this forum? Star Wars and Macross are apples and oranges.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Right... Just got off-topic, discussing space recovery methods.

On topic, wouldn't a launch arm prove a bit... Unwieldy to catch targets that are... flying?

[VF5SS]

Wouldn't it be possible for the Sv-51 to simply hover vertically in fighter mode in order to land in the submarine? Sort of the same way the X-13 Vertijet maneuvered.

[SchizophrenicMC]

It would, however, it's INCREDIBLY hard to do that, not to mention it would keep flying aimlessly forward. This is why we have GERWALK.

[VF5SS]

Nothing should be hard for an airplane that can also transform. Given that the flight computer can deal with such impressive maneuvers, emulating a 1950's X-plane shouldn't be that difficult.

[hobbes221]

All good points, but now I have a question that has been bugging me for some time now. In DYRL we see a VT-1 on it's belly, gear up being able to use it's thrusters to lift itself up high enough to switch to gerwalk mode. I'm wondering if this can be done in 1G, if so that would be very useful. Also if it can go from fighter to gerwalk could it go the other way once on the ground?

I would like to here any ideas on this.

[edwin3060]

All good points, but now I have a question that has been bugging me for some time now. In DYRL we see a VT-1 on it's belly, gear up being able to use it's thrusters to lift itself up high enough to switch to gerwalk mode. I'm wondering if this can be done in 1G, if so that would be very useful. Also if it can go from fighter to gerwalk could it go the other way once on the ground?

I would like to here any ideas on this.

Well, all mainline fighters since the VF-11 have a stated VTOL capability, which means 1 of 2 things a)Can transform to Gerwalk on the ground, then use Gerwalk for VTOL or b)Vernier thrusters have enough thrust to lift the VF off the ground in fighter mode. Given the accelerations these things can pull in space, (b) is far more likely.

[edwin3060]

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.

Not at all-- in current world operations, you often want all your aircraft to arrive at the same time for an Alpha strike, so they put the aircraft that launch first into a holding pattern waiting for the rest of the aircraft--tanking as per necessary. Differential launching velocities would eliminate the need for this. Afterall, if your fighters have to go into a holding pattern to wait for the rest of the flight, you have already lost the velocity advantage gained from catapult launching, so in comparison my method is still more effective for large operations.

[hobbes221]

Well, all mainline fighters since the VF-11 have a stated VTOL capability, which means 1 of 2 things a)Can transform to Gerwalk on the ground, then use Gerwalk for VTOL or b)Vernier thrusters have enough thrust to lift the VF off the ground in fighter mode. Given the accelerations these things can pull in space, (b) is far more likely.

I remember about the VTOL capability being stated but was unsure if it meant fighter or gerwalk mode and the whole DYRL bit got me thinking, thanks for the input.

Oh and good point on the Alert 5 SOP but my thinking with the launch tubes is that it would allow the VFs to be kept off the deck and in a more safe area and it was just a idea.

Edited December 6, 2008 by hobbes221

[Remko]

This is going to be a very interesting thread. Like I said before, it's been a long time since I've seen the original show (although I still have the first two episodes on VHS tape, with German dubbing!! ) so i don't remember all the action from the series.

Anyway, launching fighters (be it VF's or Ghosts) has been shown on a very good occassion in Macross Frontier, as already mentioned in this topic. The way Galaxy launches those damn Ghosts like they ame just of the assembly line is awesome, and probably the most effective way of launching small combat craft in space.

Something else was bugging me as well, can VF walk in gerwalk mode? I remember the VT-1 from the first show standing with one foot before the other. But if this means it can actually walk, I don't know. Then again, even if it could walk, it would be most likely similar to the ED-209 enforcement droid from Robocop. Awkward, like a big turkey.

[Sulendil Ang]

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.

Clearly seen? But I see nothing on the linearts!

But the Macross OP is helpful. Thanks.

[sketchley]

It would, however, it's INCREDIBLY hard to do that, not to mention it would keep flying aimlessly forward. This is why we have GERWALK.

why would it fly aimlessly forward? It (the Sv-51) is the only VF equipped with forward fans (like the F-35) for VTOL in fighter mode. (In battroid mode, they end up behind the head, and act as backpack thrusters).

[VF5SS]

Something else was bugging me as well, can VF walk in gerwalk mode? I remember the VT-1 from the first show standing with one foot before the other. But if this means it can actually walk, I don't know. Then again, even if it could walk, it would be most likely similar to the ED-209 enforcement droid from Robocop. Awkward, like a big turkey.

A VF can walk in Gerwalk mode. You can see a VF-0 walking in the beginning of Macross Zero episode 2. See here. It does kind of bob up and down like a bird.

[edwin3060]

why would it fly aimlessly forward? It (the Sv-51) is the only VF equipped with forward fans (like the F-35) for VTOL in fighter mode. (In battroid mode, they end up behind the head, and act as backpack thrusters).

Yea, I'm surprised that S.K. didn't credit the F-35 for inspiration for the SV-51. He HAD to have got that idea from there, afterall-- are there any other aircraft with a forward lift fan?

VF5SS: Yep, the bobbing is kind of the consequence of having the reversed knees.

[Mr March]

Clearly seen? But I see nothing on the linearts!

But the Macross OP is helpful. Thanks.

You can see the circle and lane markings clearly in these pictures:

SDF-1 (TV) lane markings

SDF-1 (Film) lane markings

[VF5SS]

Yea, I'm surprised that S.K. didn't credit the F-35 for inspiration for the SV-51. He HAD to have got that idea from there, afterall-- are there any other aircraft with a forward lift fan?

Actually lift fans in a VTOL plane are more commonly associated with Russian designs like the Yak-38 The double dedicated lift fans are a reference to that design.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Wouldn't it be possible for the Sv-51 to simply hover vertically in fighter mode in order to land in the submarine? Sort of the same way the X-13 Vertijet maneuvered

Because VF5SS said it would hover vertically, and if you were to move it into that position, your forward momentum from lift-based flight previous to it would carry you forward. Lift fans or no, it would still drift forward.

Yes, GERWALK can walk. VF-0 is clearly seen doing this, VF-1 (Title sequence, at least) is shown with one leg forward, and I think the VF-25 did it...

As for the VTOL via Vernier, doing so would drain the fuel rather rapidly. Even if they can give enough thrust to get it off the ground, doing so must use quite a bit of their fuel. I guess it's possible, though not normally used.

At the point in time in which Zero was produced, there was almost no mainstream information about the X-35. Also, it has only one lift fan, while other Russian planes (Yak-38) have 2.

If you used the lift fans while vertical, you'd overbalance backwards, and if you combined this with vectored thrust to counteract it, you'd lose all of your lift.

[sketchley]

Because VF5SS said it would hover vertically, and if you were to move it into that position, your forward momentum from lift-based flight previous to it would carry you forward. Lift fans or no, it would still drift forward.

(...)

If you used the lift fans while vertical, you'd overbalance backwards, and if you combined this with vectored thrust to counteract it, you'd lose all of your lift.

These two statements are based on what facts?

Have you seen the Harrier fly? Have you seen the F-35 fly? One uses both lift fans and vectored thrust, the other uses only vectored thrust. Both can slow to a stop, and hover over a spot. Sure, the Harrier has some problems with sucking in heated exhaust, (which the F-35 overcomes with the forward fans), but that's beside the point -> How can something that is proven in reality not apply to a ficticious plane utilizing similar technology?

And a 5 sec internet search reveals this nice video of the F-35 using both lift flans and vectored thrust to vertically take off: http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm7_PPE-8nk&...feature=related

Edited December 6, 2008 by sketchley

[Vostok 7]

Yea, I'm surprised that S.K. didn't credit the F-35 for inspiration for the SV-51. He HAD to have got that idea from there, afterall-- are there any other aircraft with a forward lift fan?

VF5SS: Yep, the bobbing is kind of the consequence of having the reversed knees.

Yes, the Yakolev Yak-141 'Freestyle' which pre-dates the F-35 by almost two decades, and I'm sure was more the inspiration for the SV-51 than the F-35 was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

Also, it should be noted that the F-35 isn't a true VTOL, it is only a STOVL setup.

Ha, reading over the F-35 entry, Lockheed was actually assisted by the Yakolev Design Bureau in designing the STOVL setup on the F-35 That explains the similarities between the systems.

Vostok 7

Edited December 6, 2008 by Vostok 7

[SchizophrenicMC]

VERTICALLY, AS IN THE NOSE IS POINTING UP! The lift fans are for lifting the plane in a horizontal position. Since they are forward towards the nose, ahead of the CG, they'd force the nose backwards if they were used to stop its drift. I've seen the damned F-35 in person. I live in Fort Worth, maybe half an hour from the assembly line! I know how it works. But I dare you to find a way for the F-35 to lift fan and thrust vector with the nose up.

[Vostok 7]

VERTICALLY, AS IN THE NOSE IS POINTING UP! The lift fans are for lifting the plane in a horizontal position. Since they are forward towards the nose, ahead of the CG, they'd force the nose backwards if they were used to stop its drift. I've seen the damned F-35 in person. I live in Fort Worth, maybe half an hour from the assembly line! I know how it works. But I dare you to find a way for the F-35 to lift fan and thrust vector with the nose up.

Vertically nose up, like the X-13, the Lockheed XFV and the Convair XFY Pogo? All those concepts "worked" but were otherwise deemed total failures for various reasons. Landing and taking off nose up would be extremely difficult to do, especially in an aircraft as large as the SV-51.

Vostok 7

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

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.

DYRL went the other way ignoring the idea of using the landing strip, but the tv series made it so that the sdf-1 had the earth carriers added to the sdf-1 after the first spacefold accident which brought all kinds of stuff off earth's surface with it including parts of macross island. (which is why the tv series SDF-1 has deadalus and prometheus added on, while DYRL has ARMD 01 and 02.

^

That's the story reason. Global is a complete noob and the humans were caught off guard so they couldn't use the intended carrier at that point since the space ones were destroyed right in the beginning of the war.

But yeah it's just cool to see fighters being launched that way. Just like how in some gundam shows it has the robots launch off catapault as if they were planes which really isn't necessary. (it looks more dangerous if you ask me)

I like the idea that the Koenig monster actually used the landing strip to provide better stability in macross frontier in one ep and gets away with *"wrecking the ground wherever it goes"!

*wrecking the ground wherever it steps is a nice homage to the original monster from SDF-M. "WTF!? why would they build a robot that can break the floor whenever it wants to walk around??" ...Only in a japanese cartoon.

Edited December 6, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[SchizophrenicMC]

Monster: If you see its footstep and it's walked away by then, you'll say "RUN! ISS GOZILLA!"

Global's no noob... He just had no other option than to get the Prometheus and Daedelus for the role they can play. Without the ARMD carriers, (Arm? ) the SDF-1 had a very limited ability to launch and retrieve fighters, and NO ability whatsoever to deploy destroids. So, by adapting the arm attachment thingies to connect to the ships, he gained the ability to launch and retrieve fighters, as well as deploy destroids... And pay homage to Space Battleship Yamato! Also, come on, a giant robot with an aircraft carrier for an arm is awesome.

[edwin3060]

Actually lift fans in a VTOL plane are more commonly associated with Russian designs like the Yak-38 The double dedicated lift fans are a reference to that design.

Yea I did more research and found that, and the Yak-141 as well. My bad. S.K. doesn't credit either of the Yak designs as well, though.

Anyway, the fact that the SDF-1 had an attached carrier, and every Macross since then had catapult launch facilities, clearly indicates that there must be some advantage to catapult launching, whether it be saving reaction mass or increasing sortie rates (i.e. no. of VF launched per minute). The need to maintain a safety distance between launching fighters, due to backblast, or risk or collision or whatever, may be one factor.

Edited December 6, 2008 by edwin3060

[SchizophrenicMC]

Yes. There must be some reason they did it. The engineers behind it all aren't stupid. I mean, come on! They design transforming giant robot planes/starships! So, there must be some advantage to cats.

[hobbes221]

Now that I'm thinking about it if you are in space and using cats to get the VFs off the deck then it might be possible to launch the birds with their engines at idle or even off and wait until they are clear to kick them back in. If so then that might speed up the rate at which they are launched as you would not have to deal with all the problems of having the engines running on deck and things like having to raise and lower the JBD (jet blast deflector). Anyways just a thought.

And on the topic of the Russian birds do they use lift fans? I thought that both the Yak-38 and Yak-141 used dedicated lift engines and not fans as in the F-35B.

The fan on the F-35 is powered by a shaft from the main engine while as the Yaks have lift engines that are separate from the flight engine/s. Or am I wrong?

[Vostok 7]

And on the topic of the Russian birds do they use lift fans? I thought that both the Yak-38 and Yak-141 used dedicated lift engines and not fans as in the F-35B.

The fan on the F-35 is powered by a shaft from the main engine while as the Yaks have lift engines that are separate from the flight engine/s. Or am I wrong?

Indeed, the Yak-38 and Yak-141 use two small lift jets behind the cockpit, but one of the major similarities is the "swiveling" main jet exhaust for stability, similar to the F-35. Despite the Yakolevs using separate lift engines versus one engine with a shaft driven fan, the systems between the Yakolevs and F-35 are very similar.

The Harrier uses a completely different setup in that it has only one engine with four vectorable ports to provide lift, part of the reason the Harrier has been so successful because it's rather simplistic. However, the Yak-141 is distinct in that it is mach-capable and true multi-role fighter aircraft rather than strictly close support attack aircraft (though the F-35 is closer in role to the Harrier being multi-role, however the F-35 is mach-capable and so can fill the role of air-superiority better than the Harrier could).

Vostok 7

Edited December 7, 2008 by Vostok 7

[SchizophrenicMC]

F-35: Air flows around lift fan shaft as it is sucked towards the turbine. The fan causes air to flow downward, giving upward thrust.

Harrier: Air flows into engine, where cold air in the front is directed out of the front 2 thrust vectored nozzles. The rest of the air continues into the turbine, and hot air flows out of the rear nozzles.

Yak: Similar to the F-35, except they use 2 fans.

Please note that while the F-35 shown is an A model, therefore CTOL only, however it was the only schematic picture I could find.

The Blue lines on the Harrier one show cold air flow, red is hot. This doesn't mean the same on the other 2. I didn't differentiate because the fans don't share their intake with the engines.

..........bmp

untitled.bmp

[hobbes221]

Indeed, the Yak-38 and Yak-141 use two small lift jets behind the cockpit, but one of the major similarities is the "swiveling" main jet exhaust for stability, similar to the F-35. Despite the Yakolevs using separate lift engines versus one engine with a shaft driven fan, the systems between the Yakolevs and F-35 are very similar.

The Harrier uses a completely different setup in that it has only one engine with four vectorable ports to provide lift, part of the reason the Harrier has been so successful because it's rather simplistic. However, the Yak-141 is distinct in that it is mach-capable and true multi-role fighter aircraft rather than strictly close support attack aircraft (though the F-35 is closer in role to the Harrier being multi-role, however the F-35 is mach-capable and so can fill the role of air-superiority better than the Harrier could).

Vostok 7

Yeah I got how the Yaks and -35 have the same lay out for thrust when compared to the Harrier I was just checking as how everyone was calling them 'lift fans'

sometimes I get a little picky on words. But thanks for the info and reply.

And on the whole lift fan vs engine thing has it been stated 100% just what are in the SV-51? because if they are just fans that would seem to say that they would have to powered by electric motors without a direct power take-off shaft do to it being a variable fighter.