Macross: Variable Fighter operations

[edwin3060]

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.

I would say that they are probably just fans, given how flat they are in the line art and the toy.

Digressing a little, its interesting how the US JSF programme was based on Russian fighters-- the X-32 on the YAK-36 and the X-35 (F-35) on the YAK-38/-141.

[Vostok 7]

I would say that they are probably just fans, given how flat they are in the line art and the toy.

Digressing a little, its interesting how the US JSF programme was based on Russian fighters-- the X-32 on the YAK-36 and the X-35 (F-35) on the YAK-38/-141.

As I mentioned earlier, I didn't know it, but Yakolev Design Bureau actually assisted Lockheed in the design of the X/F-35, hence the similarities.

But in a lot of ways, even though they aren't "the enemy" anymore, the Russians are the only real competition in plane design to the US, and so you will tend to see a lot of copying and similarities when it comes to designs and systems. For instance, the F-15 was directly designed to combat the MiG-25. And what does it look like? A more elegant MiG-25 (In a lot of ways the F-15 is superior to the MiG-25 despite being "similar" since the F-15 was designed as a maneuverable air-superiority while the MiG-25 was a pure speed interceptor with marginal handling, but that suited the F-15 well when the MiG-29 was introduced)

We haven't seen any true 5th generation Russian fighters yet (they are all under development or stillborn as in the case of the Su-47 Berkut and MiG 1.44/1.42 'Flatpack') and all indications point to the fact that they will be very derivative of the current 5th generation US fighters. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA (interesting note, Sukhoi is developing a version of the "PAK FA" with HAL India... Not quite Israel, but close! )

Other countries make good fighters, it's just Russia and the US have always been at the forefront and in direct competition with each other.

Vostok 7

[hobbes221]

Talking about the generations of aircraft reminds me of one of the reasons that I love Macross and that's the fact that SK has been designing Variable Fighters for so long now that it's great to look back and see where new ideas have taken him as the next gen of VF come out. Even to the point of the VF-0, a look at what the VF-1 might have been if Macross was brand new today with all of the stealth designs from today's aircraft.

And somewhat back on the topic of VF ops, I would have loved to have seen a shot of the Macross Quarter's hanger bay with a VT-1 tucked away in the background. Because if you look at toady's world there are many airframes that date almost all the back to the dawn of the jet age that are still in use today. I mean how long did birds like the T-33, F-86, Mig-17 and Mig-19 still take to the sky, and A-4s were owning the skies over NAS Miramar, so old birds can still kick a$$. I think that the VT-1 or other old VFs would still (or should) have a role as a trainer/squadron hack or other such roles even to the 2060s. I never really liked the one VF for every role idea. And yes I remember that M7 did have many different VFs but most of those were spec ops birds and one off customs and such. - rant over-

[anime52k8]

I would say that they are probably just fans, given how flat they are in the line art and the toy.

Digressing a little, its interesting how the US JSF programme was based on Russian fighters-- the X-32 on the YAK-36 and the X-35 (F-35) on the YAK-38/-141.

I don't see how the X-32 is "based" on the Yak-36. they do use a similar method of obtaining VTOL but that doesn't mean one was based off of the other. and the Bell X-14 was using exactly the same system as the Yak all the way back in 1957 (6 years before the Freehand)

and there's even less of a relation between the X/F-35 and the Yak-38. the single engine with connected lift fan is completely different form anything else that's been done before, and the use of dedicated vertical thrust plus directed thrust is hardly unique. besides the Yak-38/-141 there was the VAK 191 (which the Yak-38 is essentially a copy of anyways), the XV-4 Hummingbird, the Mirage IIIV (basically a Mirage III stretched out to fit 8 small lift Jets), the Dornier Do 31, the Short SC. 1, and the VJ 101 (ok, technically that one uses tilt engines plus a pair of dedicated lift engines, but its still awesome.)

[SchizophrenicMC]

Hobbes, you make a great point. Even in 2059, according to some sources, the VF-1 is still in service. 50 years later... Though we probably don't see them because SMS is paramilitary and testing the VF-25 to give feedback to NUNS...

[edwin3060]

As I mentioned earlier, I didn't know it, but Yakolev Design Bureau actually assisted Lockheed in the design of the X/F-35, hence the similarities.

But in a lot of ways, even though they aren't "the enemy" anymore, the Russians are the only real competition in plane design to the US, and so you will tend to see a lot of copying and similarities when it comes to designs and systems. For instance, the F-15 was directly designed to combat the MiG-25. And what does it look like? A more elegant MiG-25 (In a lot of ways the F-15 is superior to the MiG-25 despite being "similar" since the F-15 was designed as a maneuverable air-superiority while the MiG-25 was a pure speed interceptor with marginal handling, but that suited the F-15 well when the MiG-29 was introduced)

We haven't seen any true 5th generation Russian fighters yet (they are all under development or stillborn as in the case of the Su-47 Berkut and MiG 1.44/1.42 'Flatpack') and all indications point to the fact that they will be very derivative of the current 5th generation US fighters. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA (interesting note, Sukhoi is developing a version of the "PAK FA" with HAL India... Not quite Israel, but close! )

Other countries make good fighters, it's just Russia and the US have always been at the forefront and in direct competition with each other.

Vostok 7

Heh the Indian and Israeli defence industries are so close that you can bet Israel is involved in some way with this, probably quietly so the Russians don't piss off their other customers too much.

Anyway, perceived competition always promotes development, so now you can see the US defence industry languishing in its technological glory while the defence industries of the Indians and the Chinese are racing to catch up. Until they do, I don't think we will see the end of ridiculous handling of procurement programmes in the US-- and even if they do I'm not optimistic.

Hobbes: I think it has been mentioned somewhere that all these old birds are still around somewhere, probably sold off to the backwaters of the universe where they can still do some good.

anime52k8: Let's not play semantics here, you yourself stated that the Yak-36 and the X-32 use similar methods of attaining lift. Also, it is open knowledge that LM engaged the Yakolev design bureau for help with the lift fans on the X-35, because of their expertise with the Yak-38 and Yak-141. Either way, supersonic VTOLs are cool, as long as they don't look like a goldfish (X-32 yucks)!

SchizophrenicMC: The SMS is an example of a rich mercenary company that parallels Blackwater today, but I'm sure that there are tons of poorer mercenary companies that still fly the VF-1 as their main fighter!

[Mr March]

I think Macross does an excellent job of showing as much air/space craft diversity and varied fighter roles as it can, especially for a kids show. Remember, Macross is primarily entertainment for a broad audience and as in-depth as it is, it is not a show strictly for aviation buffs. Kawamori said himself he dropped the VF-19 Excalibur because it looked too much like a hero valkyrie and wanted audiences to easily identify/distinguish the new VF-25s from the VF-171s. I think that Macross shows are better off without a vast landscape of varied fighters sending the audience into a spin. Besides, I'm not that crazy about the idea of filling new Macross productions with all the old designs. That's what the books are for and productions like "All That VF" (and of course, home videos of all the old Macross shows).

Given the scope of a single series, I think it's more than enough to have seen what we did in shows like SDF Macross and Frontier. I say leave the broadening fiction of the Macross military forces to embellishment text in fan books like the Macross Chronicle and don't waste time trying to stuff cameos or throwaway designs into the anime productions. With a few exceptions, most of the old Valkyries have had their moment in the sun, brief though those moments may have been. I think it's best Kawamori and Co. spend more time and effort on the new stuff.

[Vostok 7]

Talking about the generations of aircraft reminds me of one of the reasons that I love Macross and that's the fact that SK has been designing Variable Fighters for so long now that it's great to look back and see where new ideas have taken him as the next gen of VF come out. Even to the point of the VF-0, a look at what the VF-1 might have been if Macross was brand new today with all of the stealth designs from today's aircraft.

And somewhat back on the topic of VF ops, I would have loved to have seen a shot of the Macross Quarter's hanger bay with a VT-1 tucked away in the background. Because if you look at toady's world there are many airframes that date almost all the back to the dawn of the jet age that are still in use today. I mean how long did birds like the T-33, F-86, Mig-17 and Mig-19 still take to the sky, and A-4s were owning the skies over NAS Miramar, so old birds can still kick a$$. I think that the VT-1 or other old VFs would still (or should) have a role as a trainer/squadron hack or other such roles even to the 2060s. I never really liked the one VF for every role idea. And yes I remember that M7 did have many different VFs but most of those were spec ops birds and one off customs and such. - rant over-

I can understand the VT-1 being used even ~50 years after it's development. And the VF-1 would still be around in backwater colonies and defense forces, or used as trainers for lower level militaries (though it would probably be being replaced by VF-11s by 2059). There are several jets still in use with modern militaries that are going on 50+ years old by now. Heck, the F-104 Starfighter was only recently removed from service by the Italians and the Germans.

The VT-1 is understandable though. Most of the trainers currently used go back several years. The T-33 Shooting Star is still used as a trainer and even a fighter by many countries. The T-38 Talon which is the US' current trainer is getting close to 50 years old.

The VF-1 (and it's variants) were very sturdy and designed well, so it makes sense that they would still be in use even 50 years after the fact, just not by front-line military units.

Vostok 7

[Letigre]

About the Auderstat..I can imagine it surfacing, opening the hatches and extending the racks or cranes that hold the Valkyries (for servicing and launch) out of the superstructure, in order for them to be recovered,. The only point I'm stuck on is how they reattach- while the submarine appears to be large enough for them to stand on deck in GERWALK, I wonder if the SV-51's can position themselves to be attached by their storage racks in that mode.

[Remko]

About the Auderstat..I can imagine it surfacing, opening the hatches and extending the racks or cranes that hold the Valkyries (for servicing and launch) out of the superstructure, in order for them to be recovered,. The only point I'm stuck on is how they reattach- while the submarine appears to be large enough for them to stand on deck in GERWALK, I wonder if the SV-51's can position themselves to be attached by their storage racks in that mode.

Well, here's are a couple of quotes from the Macross Compendium:

"Unlike the VF-0, it has VTOL capabilities without needing to transform from Fighter to GERWALK mode."

and

"Power Plant: Two Aviadvigatel D-30F6X turbofan jet engines, each rated at 102.5 kN and 204.7 kN with afterburning, with variable nozzles that pivot 90 degrees down for VTOL flight in Fighter mode. Two VTOL fan jets in center fore in Fighter mode (operating as high-maneuverability jets in Battroid mode)."

Link: SV-51 entry @ Macross Compendium

N.B. This might not be conjecture! Then again, we could try it on the Yamato VF-toy. If the rear engine nozzles can rotate downwards fully (as in the rear nozzle of the F-35 JSF) this might explain a lot!

BTW, about the Yak 35 (231 aircraft produced, of which 38 two-seat trainers), I've read on various sites and in a small number of books about Fighter aircraft that it had a major design flaw. When using Vertical Take off, sometimes the ejector seat might be activated... So, technically, you would be airborne, only to see your fighter still on the deck of the ship. This is one of the reasons (along with higher fuel consumption, and lower weight) why conventional or STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) was preferred.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Remko

[SchizophrenicMC]

VTOL sucks fuel out of the tanks very, very quickly.

Given, the SV-51 has VTOL capabilities, however it can't land in a horizontal position on that submarine. Also, its thrust vectoring method is different in that the nozzles simply rotate downward. The F-35 uses a set of 2 rings that rotate laterally, moving the nozzle to a down position.

Moving on, I don't see a problem with transforming GERWALK to fighter while attached to a docking arm. Considering only its legs move out (if it's got the arms still retracted, as we see in almost all valks.), the arm could attach to the fuselage, the legs retract, the arm moves it into a vertical position and retracts. GERWALK seems more maneuverable and controllable than conventional VTOL systems.

[hobbes221]

... GERWALK seems more maneuverable and controllable than conventional VTOL systems.

Yes it does but that may not work in it's favor when it is trying to land and maybe the fighter VTOL mode is more stable by having the three points of thrust farther apart. Not to mention the fact that in fighter mode you also would not have to deal with the shifting of weight caused by the legs moving around during and after hook up. And looking at the SV-51 in gerwalk mode there does not seem to be too much open space on the top to have a spot for the docking arm to hook up to so maybe some of the mounting points are on the top of the engine nacelles or the airframe just may need to be as rigid as it can. In the pic I've added I can only see a small area inbetween the lift fans and the head so I'm not too sure as to where a hook up point could be, any ideas?

sv_51_cgi_gerwalk_rear.bmp

Edited December 8, 2008 by hobbes221

[sketchley]

That area in the Sv-51 is small. I think it looks too small for a mounting point - as right after it is the head unit and it's related equipment most likely buried in the section being discussed. Mind you, with Macross and the possibility of applying SWAG energy conversion to strengthen the Otec materials, it's also highly probably that the area can handle any hooking and hoisting stress.

[anime52k8]

About the Auderstat..I can imagine it surfacing, opening the hatches and extending the racks or cranes that hold the Valkyries (for servicing and launch) out of the superstructure, in order for them to be recovered,. The only point I'm stuck on is how they reattach- while the submarine appears to be large enough for them to stand on deck in GERWALK, I wonder if the SV-51's can position themselves to be attached by their storage racks in that mode.

I kind of agree with you on this. the most realistic recovery method I can come up with is that the ship surfaces and the launch tubes open up and deploy some sort of rack to recover them.

looking at the few drawings we have and how the SV-51's are shown to launch, this is what I've come up with:

first, when the SV-51's launch the planes are in rows, nose up, with the dorsal section facing inboard, so the plane has to end up in that position. also it appears that whatever supports/launches the SV-51 connects to it via the underside of the jet.

so what I'm thinking is that the ship surfaces and opens up the launch tube doors, then the SV-51 comes in and lands vertically in GERWALK mode inboard of the launch tube with the nose of the jet pointing outboard over the tube itself.

once the valk makes contact with the deck, it powers down it's engines so it's just sitting on the sub. Then an arm extends strait up out of the launch tube in front of the valk, and a section of it folds out and connects to the underside of the valk. the arm then continues to extend lifting the valk up to a certain height, at which point the valk transforms to jet mode and folds it's wings in. then the part of the arm the valk is connected to wings down so that the Valk (now in jet mode) is now vertical above the tube. then the valk is retracted into the tube and the door closes.

(wow, I have no idea if that made any seance)

[badboy00z]

I wonder if the SV-51 can hover vertically with the nose pointed up? Like in Yukikaze where the Mave hovers right on the edge of the aircraft carrier. If so then recovery would just be the sub surfacing, launch tube doors open, then a rack comes out and attaches to the bottom of the valk.

[edwin3060]

I kind of agree with you on this. the most realistic recovery method I can come up with is that the ship surfaces and the launch tubes open up and deploy some sort of rack to recover them.

looking at the few drawings we have and how the SV-51's are shown to launch, this is what I've come up with:

first, when the SV-51's launch the planes are in rows, nose up, with the dorsal section facing inboard, so the plane has to end up in that position. also it appears that whatever supports/launches the SV-51 connects to it via the underside of the jet.

so what I'm thinking is that the ship surfaces and opens up the launch tube doors, then the SV-51 comes in and lands vertically in GERWALK mode inboard of the launch tube with the nose of the jet pointing outboard over the tube itself.

once the valk makes contact with the deck, it powers down it's engines so it's just sitting on the sub. Then an arm extends strait up out of the launch tube in front of the valk, and a section of it folds out and connects to the underside of the valk. the arm then continues to extend lifting the valk up to a certain height, at which point the valk transforms to jet mode and folds it's wings in. then the part of the arm the valk is connected to wings down so that the Valk (now in jet mode) is now vertical above the tube. then the valk is retracted into the tube and the door closes.

(wow, I have no idea if that made any sense)

Yes it did! It also solves the issue with having your engines blasting away while trying to recover the aircraft, which is (needless to say) not a good thing. Well done!

MrMarch: I agree wholeheartedly. One of the best things about Macross is that it doesn't introduce a new machine every other episode like Gundam, which sometimes just seems like an endless series of toy commercials.

[Remko]

I wonder if the SV-51 can hover vertically with the nose pointed up? Like in Yukikaze where the Mave hovers right on the edge of the aircraft carrier. If so then recovery would just be the sub surfacing, launch tube doors open, then a rack comes out and attaches to the bottom of the valk.

Given the SV-51's design is based on the modern Sukhoi fighters (Su-37 etc) it stands to reason that the VF is more than capable of performing doing a "Cobra", pointing the nose up, using it's thrust-vectoring exhausts, and forward liftfans to bring forward motion to a minimum. But this would probably draw to much 'unhealthy' attention to the sub, especially in war time. The VF's (low on fuel and with ordnance spent) would be sitting ducks, for threat forces. The Mave landing from Yukikaze looks appliccable as well for the SV-51.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Anime, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying this whole time.

To pull into the Pugachev's Cobra, one must be moving faster than the stall speed. In most fighters, this is well above 200 Knots. The move puts a lot of stress on the pilot. Also, it's hard to stay stable, by any measure, for long. The lift fans would push the forward (Top, now that it's vertical) section more than the rear, pushing it over backwards. If you attempted to use the nozzles to prevent this, you lose all lift. There's a reason the supersonic SV-51 was only in the Cobra for mere seconds: It's just not a highly controllable move.

The way I see it, Gerwalk over the landing arm. Then, it attaches to the bottom. From there, the plane transforms into fighter mode. Finally, the arm rotates the end vertically and pulls the now-vertical plane into the sub.

[Remko]

I'm still not sure if the gerwalk thing would be the most ideal landing method... I will have to think about that for a while, and see if I can try it out once my SV-51 comes in, as actually handling a toy or model usually helps to visualize it's function in the real world (or, this gives me an excuse to play with it!! ).

Anyway, while searching for pictures of the SV-51, I found some very interesting views of the SV-51 1/60th toy. This being my favourite, the VF stays in fighter model, but the right arm, and head/sensor unit deployed, and the SV-51 is being used in the gunship role (like an AC-130 gunship). Looks very cool, and gives a whole new meaning to air support aircraft. Not only can the SV-51 lay down a rain of fire on the enemy, it can actually go in and help groundforces, or transform back to full fighter mode into the air dominance role. What do you guys think?

Edited December 8, 2008 by Remko

[SchizophrenicMC]

That's... Disturbing... Now that you mention it, it's pretty damn well-armed for a first-gen VF...

Why isn't GERWALK good for landing? It has 3 lift points, good maneuverability, is easier to keep up with your mobile target with.... And actually, that's it...

On a slightly off-topic note, I was talking with my dad about Macross tech yesterday (He was a Robotech Fan) and today I walked into his room, and sure enough, he's watching Macross Zero Episode 5... I thought he was too Robotech for Macross, but apparently he'd been watching it for what part of the day he'd been home.

[anime52k8]

I'm still not sure if the gerwalk thing would be the most ideal landing method... I will have to think about that for a while, and see if I can try it out once my SV-51 comes in, as actually handling a toy or model usually helps to visualize it's function in the real world (or, this gives me an excuse to play with it!! ).

Anyway, while searching for pictures of the SV-51, I found some very interesting views of the SV-51 1/60th toy. This being my favourite, the VF stays in fighter model, but the right arm, and head/sensor unit deployed, and the SV-51 is being used in the gunship role (like an AC-130 gunship). Looks very cool, and gives a whole new meaning to air support aircraft. Not only can the SV-51 lay down a rain of fire on the enemy, it can actually go in and help groundforces, or transform back to full fighter mode into the air dominance role. What do you guys think?

I would say it's a bit superfluous, considering you could do the same thing in GERWALK mode which I would think would be a more stable platform anyways.

[sketchley]

Been thinking about this and... the sub isn't meant to recover aircraft.

We know that the Anti-UN Alliance doesn't have a base on Mayan Island and that they fielded vehicles other than the Sv-51 in the battle (Octos, Su-27, helicopter), therefore an Anti-UN fleet present nearby is evident (the closest being just over the "horizon", outside of the long range defenses of the UN fleet).

The sub is also designed for stealth operations. During retrevial operations it would attract a lot of attention to itself - not only must it surface and engage in a bunch of noisy activities, the deaccelerating and hovering Sv-51 would be spotted (by at least the VF-0, if not other UN equipment). Such an action goes directly against the stealth needed to keep the sub in theatre.

Therefore, the Sv-51 would land normally on Anti-UN support ships in the fleet, and be transferred to the sub after the sub had retreated back to the fleet; maximum stealth and minimal additional equipment needed.

[edwin3060]

Or perhaps the recovery of the fighters is done underwater, to preserve some element of stealth. In the second episode of Mac0, Ivanov was running out of fuel in his fight with Fokker which is why he had to disengage from the fight. I don't think he would've had the fuel to fly that far out! (Especially since he would be engaged by the other VF-0s in the area on the way out to any surface support ship.)

[sketchley]

I was thinking about that and, again, it's possible to detect the slowing Sv-51 and there entering into the water, if not also their underwater movements.

IMHO, Ivanov had reached the "you've got just enough fuel to fly back to base" point when he disengaged.

[Nied]

Been thinking about this and... the sub isn't meant to recover aircraft.

We know that the Anti-UN Alliance doesn't have a base on Mayan Island and that they fielded vehicles other than the Sv-51 in the battle (Octos, Su-27, helicopter), therefore an Anti-UN fleet present nearby is evident (the closest being just over the "horizon", outside of the long range defenses of the UN fleet).

The sub is also designed for stealth operations. During retrevial operations it would attract a lot of attention to itself - not only must it surface and engage in a bunch of noisy activities, the deaccelerating and hovering Sv-51 would be spotted (by at least the VF-0, if not other UN equipment). Such an action goes directly against the stealth needed to keep the sub in theatre.

Therefore, the Sv-51 would land normally on Anti-UN support ships in the fleet, and be transferred to the sub after the sub had retreated back to the fleet; maximum stealth and minimal additional equipment needed.

Well the Octos is a submersible mecha so I wouldn't be surprised if the Auerstädt launched them as well, and there's no reason it couldn't have surfaced and launched the Mi-8s. However both the Mig-29As in the first episode and the weird canard equipped Mig-29s from the last episode are land based fighters with pretty short legs and no in flight refueling capability (Mig-29A has none, and I couldn't see a re-fueling probe on the canard variant), so they would have had to launch from a nearby base. The question then becomes how the heck the Anti-UN hid an airbase and attached submarine pen so effectively that they were able to launch a surprise attack on two CVBGs.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Nied

[anime52k8]

Been thinking about this and... the sub isn't meant to recover aircraft.

We know that the Anti-UN Alliance doesn't have a base on Mayan Island and that they fielded vehicles other than the Sv-51 in the battle (Octos, Su-27, helicopter), therefore an Anti-UN fleet present nearby is evident (the closest being just over the "horizon", outside of the long range defenses of the UN fleet).

The sub is also designed for stealth operations. During retrevial operations it would attract a lot of attention to itself - not only must it surface and engage in a bunch of noisy activities, the deaccelerating and hovering Sv-51 would be spotted (by at least the VF-0, if not other UN equipment). Such an action goes directly against the stealth needed to keep the sub in theatre.

Therefore, the Sv-51 would land normally on Anti-UN support ships in the fleet, and be transferred to the sub after the sub had retreated back to the fleet; maximum stealth and minimal additional equipment needed.

OR the sub could deploy SV-51's from under water near the enemy force, then while the SV-51's are engaging targets, the sub egresses to a safe location away from the enemy, then once the SV-51's are finished with there operation they brake off and meet up with the sub at which point they are recovered by the sub.

any ship is going to be a big fat target while it's recovering aircraft, weather it be a submarine or a conventional carrier. and having a conventional carrier involved along with the sub just puts more men and material at risk.

a conventional carrier even at long distance is even more vulnerable because it's on the surface ALL THE TIME. much more time for it to be spotted, and once it's spotted there's no real way to get away (it's kind of hard to loose a 40,000 tone ship on the surface).

and then, once you get the jets on the surface carrier, how does it get back to the submarine? the sub is still going to need to surface, meet up with the surface carrier, and then spend a long period of time transferring aircraft.

Or perhaps the recovery of the fighters is done underwater, to preserve some element of stealth. In the second episode of Mac0, Ivanov was running out of fuel in his fight with Fokker which is why he had to disengage from the fight. I don't think he would've had the fuel to fly that far out! (Especially since he would be engaged by the other VF-0s in the area on the way out to any surface support ship.)

that of course assumes that the SV-51 can even operate safely underwater. Just because the Shin did it once doesn't mean that's how it's supposed to be used. and considering how radically different the SV-51 is from the VF-0 there's no guaranty that the SV-51 has the same capability as the VF-0 in this area.

[anime52k8]

Well the Octos is a submersible mecha so I wouldn't be surprised if the Auerstädt launched them as well, and there's no reason it couldn't have surfaced and launched the Mi-8s. However both the Mig-29As in the first episode and the weird canard equipped Mig-29s from the last episode are land based fighters with pretty short legs and no in flight refueling capability (Mig-29A has none, and I couldn't see a re-fueling probe on the canard variant), so they would have had to launch from a nearby base. The question then becomes how the heck the Anti-UN so effectively hid an airbase and attached submarine pen so effectively that they were able to launch a surprise attack on two CVBGs.

other than the Fact that the Model in the anime looks like the -29A (the intake slats over the LERX's indicates that it is), I don't think anything official has ever been said that they were in fact A models. and the canard equipped one's don't equate to any real model so there capabilities are purely speculative.

it's possible that the Canard equipped ones are carrier capable models, which were launched by another Anti-UN carrier (submersible or conventional) somewhere, or they could have been launched from the Auerstadt as well.

as for the Migs we see in the earlier episodes, perhaps the fact that they were animated as Mig-29A's was just an animation error/oversight on the part of the production staff, and what we're seeing are really supposed to be carrier capable Mig-29K's, again launched from a second anti-UN carrier or the Auerstadt.

[Vostok 7]

other than the Fact that the Model in the anime looks like the -29A (the intake slats over the LERX's indicates that it is), I don't think anything official has ever been said that they were in fact A models. and the canard equipped one's don't equate to any real model so there capabilities are purely speculative.

it's possible that the Canard equipped ones are carrier capable models, which were launched by another Anti-UN carrier (submersible or conventional) somewhere, or they could have been launched from the Auerstadt as well.

as for the Migs we see in the earlier episodes, perhaps the fact that they were animated as Mig-29A's was just an animation error/oversight on the part of the production staff, and what we're seeing are really supposed to be carrier capable Mig-29K's, again launched from a second anti-UN carrier or the Auerstadt.

Considering the F-14s in the series are called "Kais" and "Super Tomcats" and use overtechnology (called F-14A+(Plus)Kai), there's no saying if the MiG-29s shown in the series are standard models as we know them. The Macross Compendium only lists the standard specifications for a MiG-29 and states "before modifications" before every spec.

Vostok 7

[edwin3060]

that of course assumes that the SV-51 can even operate safely underwater. Just because the Shin did it once doesn't mean that's how it's supposed to be used. and considering how radically different the SV-51 is from the VF-0 there's no guaranty that the SV-51 has the same capability as the VF-0 in this area.

Given how it is launched from underwater I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

Either way, I think it's pretty silly to have to involve a carrier in the recovery operations-- there's no point having your VFs launch from a submarine/submersible and not have any way of recovering them independently. The vulnerability issue could be mitigated by the active stealth systems on the VF and (probably) on the submarine as well, preventing the casual observer from detecting recovery operations.

[Letigre]

Also I don't think they would have bothered serving the VF onboard the submarine if they had a conventional surface carrier and it's facilities to utilize.

[anime52k8]

Given how it is launched from underwater I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

just because it can be launched from under water doesn't mean it can manuver under water like a submarine. for all we know it launchs like a trident missile, as in they close all the intakes, pressurise the interior to keep water out, then shoot it to the surface in a giant bubble of steam. then once its out of the water the motor fires.

you can't leave a sub launched missile under water for very long. when they're launched they try to get them out of the water as soon as possible, and protect them as long as they can.

we don't know if the engines on an SV-51 will even work under water, nor do we know if they're supposed to even if they can.

only the backpack thrusters on the VF-0 were clearly shown to work underwater, and even then it could be extremely detramental to the valk, and not something you wan't to do reguarly.

[Killer Robot]

Either way, I think it's pretty silly to have to involve a carrier in the recovery operations-- there's no point having your VFs launch from a submarine/submersible and not have any way of recovering them independently. The vulnerability issue could be mitigated by the active stealth systems on the VF and (probably) on the submarine as well, preventing the casual observer from detecting recovery operations.

On the contrary, there's still a lot of tactical value to be gained from a submarine launch even if carriers are needed for recovery. Given a submarine can get much closer to the objective unobserved before launching aircraft it not only allows for greater element of surprise and overall stealth, but it still gives as much as twice the effective range of a traditional carrier launch and return, when the submarine can sneak up to the objective undetected and the fighter doesn't have to use a large percentage of its fuel to reach the combat zone.

Ideally, your submarine launches fighters then hides in the depths, your fighters do their job and fly off to a waiting carrier, and the enemy can't counterattack because your ships are either out of sight or out of range. The carrier takes care of maintenance and refueling of the fighters, then has a later rendezvous with the submarine to reload, and you're ready to go again. This takes more time and effort than a fully functional submarine carrier, but if the latter isn't technologically feasible it's still a useful option

[anime52k8]

On the contrary, there's still a lot of tactical value to be gained from a submarine launch even if carriers are needed for recovery. Given a submarine can get much closer to the objective unobserved before launching aircraft it not only allows for greater element of surprise and overall stealth, but it still gives as much as twice the effective range of a traditional carrier launch and return, when the submarine can sneak up to the objective undetected and the fighter doesn't have to use a large percentage of its fuel to reach the combat zone.

Ideally, your submarine launches fighters then hides in the depths, your fighters do their job and fly off to a waiting carrier, and the enemy can't counterattack because your ships are either out of sight or out of range. The carrier takes care of maintenance and refueling of the fighters, then has a later rendezvous with the submarine to reload, and you're ready to go again. This takes more time and effort than a fully functional submarine carrier, but if the latter isn't technologically feasible it's still a useful option

except I highly doubt that it would be unfeasible/more trouble than it's worth to retrieve fighters on a sub that's large enough and advanced enough to be able to sub-surface launch a dozen aircraft.

the auerstadt is in the 300 meter long ballpark, and only has to support 12 aircraft. for some perspective it's about the same size as the Russian Admiral Kuznetzov, but the kuznetzov supports some 40+ aircraft (12 Su-33's, which are about as large as a SV-51, and the rest are helicopters).

you've got more than enough room to handle maintenance and refueling for that many fighters.

[hobbes221]

I think that the problem with the carrier/sub mix is the the time it would take for the sub to leave the area of operation, link up with the carrier, move the fightersto the sub and return to a launch point. It would work fine for a one shot long range strike but keeping up sustained combat ops would be hard as the faster a sub goes the more noise it makes and easier it is for ASW systems to find. Do we have a day by day or range of dates for M Zero? If Sv-51s were doing one or two flights a day I would say that they are going right back to the sub, if it's a few days or a week between when we see them fly then ether could work. Just my take on things.

Oh and not to take us back to the topic of cats and tubes and all that but a thought hit me at work and I forgot to post it then. But as some said that it may not be a good idea to launch your birds at right angle to the carrier (BSG style). I was thinking that a launch like that may be useful as it clears the air wing from being in the line of fire if both fleets are headed right at each other and rounds are going both ways. Anyways back on with the boats and stuff.

[sketchley]

(...) Do we have a day by day or range of dates for M Zero? If Sv-51s were doing one or two flights a day I would say that they are going right back to the sub, if it's a few days or a week between when we see them fly then ether could work. Just my take on things.(...)

Look to Macross Chronicle's timeline.

I have this question: how many times are the Sv-51 seen launching and/or stored in the sub? I've got a hunch that it's far less then the number of times they were deployed in combat.

Also, why would they be equipped with drop tanks in that episode when a whole wing of them attacked the UN fleet? If they were deployed from the sub, wouldn't they a) not need drop tanks and b) fly in low to avoid radar?