Valkryie Practicallity

[Thai Boxer 9901]

So I've been thinking about this for the longest time and even more since I made my cousin watch frontier lol. HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, IF valkryies were real, would they be of practical use to the Military and/or civilian use?

Let me explain...

I did this last night in photoshop and it got me thinking. What if the military did build the VF-1 but only incorporated the fighter mode (obviously) and half of the gerwalk mode? Lets face it, in a real world situation, having the Battroid mode would be COOL but un-nessessary. We arent at war with giant aliens and to design and engineer the battroid with todays technology would be damn-near impossible. What i came up with was a more practical VF-1 design. Keep the fighter mode all the same but eliminate the arms all together because they fall in line with the same amount of engineering difficulty as the battroid. But have the engines swing down like in gerwalk so that the valkyrie becomes a part time ground attack/support fighter with VTOL capabilities. Forget the harrier or even the F-35. This thing would be able to hover in situations in a fraction of the time it takes a harrier or the f-35 to hover over one spot. It would basically become a Mach 3 fighter/gunship.

As for Air Superiority, it would go unmatched. It can turn on a dime, slow down in an instant and carry an impressive payload. Basically where the arms would be, its all fuselage with missle or bomb racks. As an interceptor (like the tomcat), getting to a target at Mach 3 would take no time at all. As an Ground Attacker, no competition. It can be dogfighting at one moment and if troops on the ground request air support, the VF-1 can dive down, drop the legs and hover over the troops and fire on the ground targets and then go back into the dogfight.

[RedWolf]

In universe explanation is that Valkyries are not merely designed as fighters but infantry against giants.

The idea was fine until Vrlitwhai showed up... Designers had to think bigger.

[Vostok 7]

There's some Rowboattech stuff I've seen that had "half-guardian" versions of modern-day (for the '80s) planes as pre-"veritech" prototypes.

Trying to find practicality in any kind of Giant Robot is a lost cause, really. There's no real reason a giant robot would be better tactically than any other vehicle, at least in our current form of warfare. At least in Macross they tried to logically explain that they needed giant robots in order to fight the giant aliens hand-to-hand. Even in your "half-GERWALK" example there's just too many moving parts and joints and things to really make it practical, maintenance and even building them in the first place would be astronomical in price.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Vostok 7

[Mr March]

I can't see even a partial adoption of a Valkyrie being practical. It simply wouldn't function as needed using today's technology as the benchmark for this discussion. The extensive hardware, necessary structure and weight needed to build a walking fighter craft would pretty much render the fighter itself impractical and obsolete compared to virtually any other conventional fighter aircraft (using the last 30-40 years of contemporary aircraft for comparison). That would leave us with a legged fighter acting as an attack helicopter...which doesn't sound any more efficient. There are easier, less expensive ways to achieve all the capabilities of a fighter and those of an attack helicopter than trying to build a jet fighter with robotic thruster legs.

Macross can only exist in a practical manner using the magic of OverTechnology. Without that caveat, everything about a Valkyrie is called into question. Cost, maintenance, complexity, manufacturing, logistics, reliability, practicality, role...everything about such a machine would have to somehow justify itself. If all those factors couldn't be reasonably justified, then the Valkyrie wouldn't exist as a weapon of war.

Even with the hand-waving magic of OverTechnology, one begins to question why other pieces of existing military hardware (or new types of machines altogether) haven't been developed using the same technological base used for the Valkyries. This is the robot show conceit of robot bias, pitting giant robots against conventional fighters, tanks, helicopters and ships to display robot superiority. If the fictional universe was written in an internally consistent manner, all that conventional hardware would enjoy the same technological advances as any giant robot. There would be OverTechnology tanks with energy converting armor, OT fighters with super powered engines and OT helicopters fitted with micro-missiles. Deploying a conventional A-10 Tank Killer against a giant robot is ridiculously anachronistic. The technology would need to be equal and what you would have is an A-11 Mech Killer with a mounted beam gun.

[VT 1010]

Let's also not forget the pilot. IIRC (and David H can probably better explain, or correct me here), modern planes are capable of a lot more in terms of maneuverability, but their capabilities are gimped so the pilots don't turn into mush. Going from 0 to Mach 3 in 10 seconds would also cause a lot of physical stress on the pilot too.

Macross may be more realistic than most, but that doesn't mean it isn't free of its share of own issues. In the end, it's still a show about space aliens and giant robots.

Edited March 29, 2010 by VT 1010

[azrael]

I love it when people attempt to justify anime magic for real-life applications.

[thegunny]

It would also save on ammo as the opposing pilot would probably bust a side laughing so much and crash when the valk turned into a chicken in front of him.

[VF5SS]

They're practically awesome

[Master Dex]

I love it when people attempt to justify anime magic for real-life applications.

I consider it food for thought. I pretty much agree with March on this one but that doesn't make it a bad discussion topic. It gets people thinking about science and engineering and I love that stuff (I am studying it after all). I am trying to design futuristic machines for my own sci-fi novels, and I want to do it realistically and within realms of science. Considering even options like this helps me to understand what works and what doesn't. I once thought, it would be cool to have a Valkyrie like thing for space battles and such, but the more I looked at it and thought about what is needed there are what is hard to do or unnecessary, I changed a lot. No more mecha really in my plans, but it was a fun idea to play with for a while. The trade off was that I designed a really cool space fighter based on realistic physics.

[Ghost Train]

So I've been thinking about this for the longest time and even more since I made my cousin watch frontier lol. HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, IF valkryies were real, would they be of practical use to the Military and/or civilian use?

Let me explain...

I did this last night in photoshop and it got me thinking. What if the military did build the VF-1 but only incorporated the fighter mode (obviously) and half of the gerwalk mode? Lets face it, in a real world situation, having the Battroid mode would be COOL but un-nessessary. We arent at war with giant aliens and to design and engineer the battroid with todays technology would be damn-near impossible. What i came up with was a more practical VF-1 design. Keep the fighter mode all the same but eliminate the arms all together because they fall in line with the same amount of engineering difficulty as the battroid. But have the engines swing down like in gerwalk so that the valkyrie becomes a part time ground attack/support fighter with VTOL capabilities. Forget the harrier or even the F-35. This thing would be able to hover in situations in a fraction of the time it takes a harrier or the f-35 to hover over one spot. It would basically become a Mach 3 fighter/gunship.

As for Air Superiority, it would go unmatched. It can turn on a dime, slow down in an instant and carry an impressive payload. Basically where the arms would be, its all fuselage with missle or bomb racks. As an interceptor (like the tomcat), getting to a target at Mach 3 would take no time at all. As an Ground Attacker, no competition. It can be dogfighting at one moment and if troops on the ground request air support, the VF-1 can dive down, drop the legs and hover over the troops and fire on the ground targets and then go back into the dogfight.

I actually had similar heretical thoughts about valkyrie design and why battroid mode from a practicality standpoint is not needed. Basically fighter-mode is purely an atmospheric fighter, but gerwalk or 1/2gerwalk would be used as a space fighter. The biggest obstacle to any space vehicle is the need to vector thrust in every considerably direction, and thus "the legs" could solve that problem.

Also, the idea that battroid is useful against "giant alien infantry" is not a very good argument in my opinion. First, given similar targeting computer capabilities - you can never make the case that a gun from an unstable platform (battroid) will be more accurate than a gun from a more fixed position (1/2 gerwalk). Additionally, the idea that the counter to a giant anthropomorphic enemy is to build your own anthropomorphic mecha is wrong.

The only remaining argument is that battroid can do kung-fu... but seriously, since the pilot needs to execute the judo-chops and the roundhouse kicks via the Valk's controls, it will never have the sufficiently effective response time as the biological instincts of a Vajra or giant Zentradi infantry performing similar CQB manuevers.

Battroids exist because giant robots look nice on screen, and our own genetic bias towards things with 2 arms & 2 legs .

Edited March 29, 2010 by Ghost Train

[Agent ONE]

I love it when people attempt to justify anime magic for real-life applications.

yeah.

I've actually never seen a thing in anime that would make any real sense.

I guess, when watching Iron man (not anime) I had thought, it would be cool if our ground troops had: harder armor, the ability to move faster, and increased firepower... But we are going in that direction no matter what.

[Vostok 7]

yeah.

I've actually never seen a thing in anime that would make any real sense.

I guess, when watching Iron man (not anime) I had thought, it would be cool if our ground troops had: harder armor, the ability to move faster, and increased firepower... But we are going in that direction no matter what.

Iron Man-esq body armor makes sense. But multiple meter high walking tanks don't make much sense, especially when they turn in to airplanes. Turning in to airplanes makes sense since it increases mobility, but the weight and maintenance of all the mechanisms necessary would be crazy.

The only way things like a Gundam or a Patlabor, for instance, would make sense is if it offered more mobility than a standard tank. In their respective animes, they do, but at the same time defy physics most of the time in order to get the effects they need. Otherwise a tank can do the same thing at a much lower mechanical cost.

[aquilon]

Even with the hand-waving magic of OverTechnology, one begins to question why other pieces of existing military hardware (or new types of machines altogether) haven't been developed using the same technological base used for the Valkyries. This is the robot show conceit of robot bias, pitting giant robots against conventional fighters, tanks, helicopters and ships to display robot superiority. If the fictional universe was written in an internally consistent manner, all that conventional hardware would enjoy the same technological advances as any giant robot. There would be OverTechnology tanks with energy converting armor, OT fighters with super powered engines and OT helicopters fitted with micro-missiles. Deploying a conventional A-10 Tank Killer against a giant robot is ridiculously anachronistic. The technology would need to be equal and what you would have is an A-11 Mech Killer with a mounted beam gun.

I recall part of the plot device in Gasaraki (which I hated BTW - anybody want to buy the complete DVD set???) was how a one-man giant robot will soon make conventional AFV's obsolete. Of course, the writers used animagic as I have a hard time believing a company of M1 Abrams can be destroyed by a biped robot squad with much higher profiles. If anything, I'd see it as a draw with the only advantage to the robot of losing one guy if it gets destroyed as opposed to losing four guys in the Abrams.

Edited March 29, 2010 by aquilon

[Vostok 7]

I recall part of the plot device in Gasaraki (which I hated BTW - anybody want to buy the complete DVD set???) was how a one-man giant robot will soon make conventional AFV's obsolete. Of course, the writers used animagic as I have a hard time believing a company of M1 Abrams can be destroyed by a biped robot squad with much higher profiles. If anything, I'd see it as a draw with the only advantage to the robot of losing one guy if it gets destroyed as opposed to losing four guys in the Abrams.

Like I said, if it had better maneuverability (fast & agile, like a Gundam for instance), then it would be an advantage. And potentially a bipedal robot could be better in a tight environment (such as an urban environment or a forest/jungle) or an uneven environment (rocky mountains, for instance) as opposed to a tank. Better protection against close in threats as well, and a better coverage for weapons.

There are advantages, for sure, but first you have to get over the 1) technological barrier that we have right now and 2) the cost/maintenance issue, that's where the idea of "practicality" comes in.

For civilian use there are advantages to large bipedal human-like robots for sure. Just imagine construction or warehousing if you had large bipedal robots.

For space applications, such as outer space or different planets, bipedal robots would be great for warfare, since your limits are much less. This is where Gundam actually makes some sense.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Vostok 7

[eugimon]

large bipedal robots make no sense for warfare, their cons out weigh any potential benefits in maneuverability.

Increased per unit cost

Increased maintenance cost and time

More soft points to worry about

Increased visibility/radar signature

Slower movement speed

Increased fuel consumption

Decreased stability as a weapons platform

[Vostok 7]

large bipedal robots make no sense for warfare, their cons out weigh any potential benefits in maneuverability.

Increased per unit cost

Increased maintenance cost and time

More soft points to worry about

Increased visibility/radar signature

Slower movement speed

Increased fuel consumption

Decreased stability as a weapons platform

Then again, most of those can be negated via technological advancements.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Vostok 7

[eugimon]

Then again, most of those can be negated via technological advancements.

Any technology that advanced would still yield better results in a vehicle without those flaws.

[Mr March]

I recall part of the plot device in Gasaraki (which I hated BTW - anybody want to buy the complete DVD set???) was how a one-man giant robot will soon make conventional AFV's obsolete. Of course, the writers used animagic as I have a hard time believing a company of M1 Abrams can be destroyed by a biped robot squad with much higher profiles. If anything, I'd see it as a draw with the only advantage to the robot of losing one guy if it gets destroyed as opposed to losing four guys in the Abrams.

Gasaraki had an interesting approach to introducing human piloted combat robots as something much smaller; an intermediary between enhanced-heavy infantry and a light armored fighting vehicle. That's not a bad concept, but not one without flaws. Again, any technology applied to a mecha would be applied uniformly across all military hardware. Which is always the big catch.

I think Patlabor came up with the most semi-plausible introduction for a giant robot, which was to fight labor-related crime. Basically Patlabor got around the problem of implausible giant robots by creating a need for giant robot enforcement, which remains a rather unique approach. But again, it's unclear why it simply wouldn't be easier and more cost effective to build portable human-scale anti-labor arms for enforcement agencies. The anti-labor equivalent of an anti-tank rocket would suffice. And there are other non-lethal options as well.

I can see bipedal robots having a role within combined arms. In fact, their introduction is inevitable. What I cannot see is bipedal robots replacing the tank or fighter as the current masters of their roles. If you can make a humanoid robot fly at Mach 2, you can make a fighter jet fly way faster. If you can make a humanoid robot immune to tank shells, you can build one helluva killer tank using the same technology. I can see a role for semi-human-scale heavy robotic infantry and more importantly, sub-human-scale robotic vehicles. But they wouldn't be the giants of our favorite animes or video games and they wouldn't rule the roost

Of course, given enough technological advancement and time (specifically, allowing for an economic/industrial base of sufficient scale far beyond our contemporary age) all kinds of weapons far more complex and grand than even a giant bipedal robot will become the norm. Just as the complexity and cost of our modern tanks and fighters are far beyond the war machines of a thousand years ago, so are the ever more complex and costly weapons of war's future destined to become the norm.

[VF5SS]

next you're gonna ask why the battleships transform

and why the pinpoint barrier is controlled by atari's missile command

[NeoverseOmega]

Even if you can make superstrong, superlight metals - a hollow jet using those same metals will STILL have a higher thrust to weight ratio than a jet with robot joints integrated in it, so just about anything would be able to outfly a valkyrie. Then making your valk light enough to function as a jet means that it will STILL have less armor than a tank. Battroids would probably get obliterated pretty quickly. Current warfare is about designing elegantly simple specialist machines. Being able to switch back and forth between a mediocre land unit and a mediocre jet just makes it vulnerable while transforming (assuming the transformation itself doesn't have glitches). When you can achieve VTOL and even reverse flight with ducting and vents, Gerwalk just becomes a useless form with two extra targets hanging off for other military units to cripple.

Honestly, I love transformable mecha to the point that its almost painful to admit - but they are completely useless as anything other than a representation of our own strange need to have a humanoid knight emerge from inhuman weapons of war.

The only way anything like that could happen is if in the distant, distant, distant (did I mention distant?) future we are able to create machines capable of such outrageous output using such minimal material that, well, it just plain doesn't matter how they are designed.

That's right - magic.

Then someone might build something a bit like a valk - NOT because its even remotely practical, but just because it satisfies them in some way. Maybe when mankind get sick of shooting (can that happen?) and wants to have the satisfaction of watching their battlefield surrogates beat each other down. Or more probably, some funky sports slash demolition derby craze. People might do something like that because they think its cool - armies notsomuch.

Heh, I am writing a story that has something resembling transformable robots in it. In it the humanoid form is the side effect of a paranormal event. Basically the Paranormal Science Institute discovers that psychic effects are the result of our bodies in this dimension being holograms of a thousand different variations of us in alternate dimensions. Some people can actually shortcut impulses from their nerves through all those dimensions causing an effect in this one. Using people with phantom limb syndrome as models, they construct mechanisms that have no mass or weight in this dimension but are capable of absurd outputs. Integrating that with modern technology had an odd side effect - on some level all those "parts" recognize they should be human. The first ones tore the bodies of the tanks and jets apart - twisting them and reshaping them into something a tad disfigured.

Later ones were designed more elegantly and deliberately - primarily to fight the ones that came about by accident.

In short I use quack science that sounds a little like the kind of paranoid drivel that people might expect to see in area 51 and viola - magic!

Fun but BS.

[Agent ONE]

Iron Man-esq body armor makes sense. But multiple meter high walking tanks don't make much sense, especially when they turn in to airplanes. Turning in to airplanes makes sense since it increases mobility, but the weight and maintenance of all the mechanisms necessary would be crazy.

...

... It wouldn't be crazy... it would be impossible. COMPLETELY opposing goals. A tank should be super HEAVY, as the heavier it is, the larger guns it can fire and the more armor it can carry... Nobody ever put a howitzer on a plane.

A plane has to be as LIGHT as possible in order to FLY. Also be as maneuverable as possible.

[eugimon]

... It wouldn't be crazy... it would be impossible. COMPLETELY opposing goals. A tank should be super HEAVY, as the heavier it is, the larger guns it can fire and the more armor it can carry... Nobody ever put a howitzer on a plane.

A plane has to be as LIGHT as possible in order to FLY. Also be as maneuverable as possible.

Well, there's the AC-130

[Seto Kaiba]

Well, there's the AC-130

Okay, you have a point there... multiple variants of the AC-130 did mount howitzers... but it's not exactly a nimble plane, and certainly not one that will win a turning contest with a fighter.

Really, there's no practical application for the magic, fairy-dust farting wonders that are Variable Fighters in a real-world battlefield. There are just too many implementation issues.

[azrael]

Okay, you have a point there... multiple variants of the AC-130 did mount howitzers... but it's not exactly a nimble plane, and certainly not one that will win a turning contest with a fighter.

Heck, a P-51 could probably fly circles around a AC-130...

An Iron Man-esque armor makes sense...but the upkeep...well requires a Tony Stark-fortune. Heck the power requirements are bad enough. And he use to plug that thing into a wall socket...

[Seto Kaiba]

large bipedal robots make no sense for warfare, their cons out weigh any potential benefits in maneuverability.

Increased per unit cost

Increased maintenance cost and time

And let us make no mistake, the creators of Macross are fully aware of just how impractical things like VFs would be on real-world battlefields. Remember, they've always had VFs and destroids down as extremely expensive hardware, and have toyed with the idea of replacing them with more cost-effective, non-transformable unmanned fighters on at least two separate occasions... in Macross Plus and in the backstory of Macross Frontier. On more than one occasion, the initial cost and upkeep costs for a particular VF were cited as reasons for its development, adoption or rejection (ex. VF-5, VF-6, VF-7, VF-9, VF-14, VF-171, VF-25), and the same goes for the AIF-7S Ghost, which became the primary air force of many emigration fleets because they cost 1/3 of what the VF-171 does, and that thing's considered extremely cost-effective for a VF.

So, let it never be said that Macross's creators are completely blind to the fact that something like a VF would be an implementation nightmare, or that the increased cost would make non-transformable fighters much cheaper and far more appealing by comparison once they were on roughly the same technological level... they just keep coming up with various reasons to keep the VFs as central figures in the story because it's much more exciting than watching some mook in a control center ordering UCAVs about.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Agent ONE]

Well, there's the AC-130

Not such the fighter plane though...

AZ says a p51 can pound on that thing... I say Snoopy in his Red Baron dog house can take that thing apart.

[Agent ONE]

...

An Iron Man-esque armor makes sense...but the upkeep...well requires a Tony Stark-fortune. Heck the power requirements are bad enough. And he use to plug that thing into a wall socket...

Well, I meant the direction that Iron Man goes, makes sense... As usual comic books and hollywood are 100x over the top.

[eugimon]

Not such the fighter plane though...

AZ says a p51 can pound on that thing... I say Snoopy in his Red Baron dog house can take that thing apart.

You didn't say "fighter plane", you said "plane" and that's a "plane"

And yeah, the AC-139 flies in a big circle, it doesn't dogfight, it just pounds whatever is in the middle of that big circle.

[Vepariga]

a real Valk would end the war in iraq and Afghanistan, over night, can bomb the hell out of those mountains,then land and run over to the tunnels and missile volley inside them then gun down the runaways,incoming RPG's will easily be taken out with the lasers. dont need armies, 2 valks will be enough.

[Vostok 7]

Not such the fighter plane though...

AZ says a p51 can pound on that thing... I say Snoopy in his Red Baron dog house can take that thing apart.

There were many large fighters in WW2 that mounted some pretty impressive cannons and still were relatively fast and manuverable. Not "howitzers" by any means but still decently sized. Even some smaller fighters that mounted good size cannons as tank killers. Look at the A-10, a modern example of what I'm talking about.

An on the other hand, you had the Il-2 "Flying Tank" which was practically indestructible in WW2 and wasn't that big of a plane.

Modern fighters have done away with a lot of armor and weapons in favor of higher speeds and better power/weight ratios, but with modern materials updated versions of those older fighters would be incredible. They just aren't necessary on the "modern battlefield".

One I always liked stylistically and for realism was SF3D/Machinen Kreiger which was set in the distant future but was very much WW2 in space with walking tanks and power armor. Awesome.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Vostok 7

[sketchley]

Also, the idea that battroid is useful against "giant alien infantry" is not a very good argument in my opinion. First, given similar targeting computer capabilities - you can never make the case that a gun from an unstable platform (battroid) will be more accurate than a gun from a more fixed position (1/2 gerwalk). Additionally, the idea that the counter to a giant anthropomorphic enemy is to build your own anthropomorphic mecha is wrong.

Who said that it's a good arguement? It's the arguement used in the series to explain the development of the VF-1. From the events of SDFM, we already know that some of the "won" arguements by the UN [united] Government didn't pan out, either. (The Grand Canons for starters).

The other thing we have to be careful of is, is viewing the technology in an "after the fact" manner. No one will debate the effectiveness of the developed equipment post SWI. However, pre-SWI, there was little to no evidence of the war making capabilities of the enemy small craft and personnel/infantry.

The other angle to look at is that the majority of the equipment fielded by the UN Forces in SDFM were never considered to be the ideal solution. They were the solutions that the limits of humanity's understanding of OTEC allowed the UN Forces to produce at the time. The concurrently (to the VF-1) developed VF-X-2 is a good example. So, too are the VF-X-3 and VF-X-4 that started design and prototyping long before the VF-1 started mass production, let alone had a completed design.

[Ghost Train]

a real Valk would end the war in iraq and Afghanistan, over night, can bomb the hell out of those mountains,then land and run over to the tunnels and missile volley inside them then gun down the runaways,incoming RPG's will easily be taken out with the lasers. dont need armies, 2 valks will be enough.

I think 1 valkyrie + 1 Macross Idol will be sufficient for regime change in any country, planet, or star cluster.

First, the valk shows an awesome display of destruction that glorifies war, then the generic moe Macross Idol uses [Power of Song©] maneuver that shows why violence and war is bad. At that point, everyone will just be so confused and stop fighting.

[Ghost Train]

Who said that it's a good arguement? It's the arguement used in the series to explain the development of the VF-1. From the events of SDFM, we already know that some of the "won" arguements by the UN [united] Government didn't pan out, either. (The Grand Canons for starters).

The other thing we have to be careful of is, is viewing the technology in an "after the fact" manner. No one will debate the effectiveness of the developed equipment post SWI. However, pre-SWI, there was little to no evidence of the war making capabilities of the enemy small craft and personnel/infantry.

The other angle to look at is that the majority of the equipment fielded by the UN Forces in SDFM were never considered to be the ideal solution. They were the solutions that the limits of humanity's understanding of OTEC allowed the UN Forces to produce at the time. The concurrently (to the VF-1) developed VF-X-2 is a good example. So, too are the VF-X-3 and VF-X-4 that started design and prototyping long before the VF-1 started mass production, let alone had a completed design.

I'm too tired to argue, and I don't think we're disagreeing... but it's spelled argument. Thanks.

[sketchley]

but it's spelled argument. Thanks.

Not according to some sources: http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm

[Einherjar]

Without a giant humanoid or bug-like alien to fight against, battroid mode could(?) be less practical. I think that would mean more reliance on Destroids, acting like walking tanks and stuff. The VOTL aspect of GERWALK mode could be very valuable in certain situations. For instance, you wouldn't have to rely on a runway of some type to get into the air. Use thrusters to get the plane off the ground high enough to accommodate the transformation sequence, go into GERWALK mode, and boost upward and forward a bit before returning to fighter mode. It also makes landing easier and quicker too.