Valkryie Practicallity

[DrStrangelove]

All anthropomorphic mecha significantly larger than man-sized(ie larger than powered armor) will always be at a massive disadvantage in most aspects when compared to a conventionally designed vehicle built with the same tech base intended for the same role.

[Bri]

I can see bipedal robots having a role within combined arms. In fact, their introduction is inevitable. [...] I can see a role for semi-human-scale heavy robotic infantry and more importantly, sub-human-scale robotic vehicles.

That would be the military's wet dream for asymmetric warfare. A sort of infantry version of the UAV that can be sent into urban or mountain/jungle environments without risking troops. In these times infantry casualties are becomming less and less acceptable. I guess Cameron's original vision in Terminator of future warfare wasn't that crazy. Terminator skeltons as infantry and hunter-killer UAV as air support.

[anime52k8]

I *love* it when people make gross errors like this.

The brotherhood of non-metric using nations are Burma (Myanmar), Liberia and the United States of America. Ask yourself if that group of 'real men' is a healthy group to be part of.

Those other countries don't matter, America is the only important country in the world. (and I find your inability to detect sarcasm is disturbing.) Edited April 2, 2010 by anime52k8

[Mr March]

That would be the military's wet dream for asymmetric warfare. A sort of infantry version of the UAV that can be sent into urban or mountain/jungle environments without risking troops. In these times infantry casualties are becomming less and less acceptable. I guess Cameron's original vision in Terminator of future warfare wasn't that crazy. Terminator skeltons as infantry and hunter-killer UAV as air support.

The current desired format for robotic warfare is definitely contemporary scale or smaller. And the smaller, the better. As far as I know, giant scale robotics are not on anyone's radar now or in the foreseeable future.

If anyone is at all interested in how robotics are being used to conduct warfare, I highly recommend a book I read last year titled Wired For War by P.W. Singer. It's not an exhaustive, scientific analysis, but it is a great primer on what is happening right now in the robotic and military industries and the direction they are going for the future. I found it a real eye-opening read and rather inspiring for the imagination.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Mr March

[aquilon]

There's a reason why soldiers, when the shooting starts, hit the deck: it minimizes them as a target. A giant robot fighting machine 40m tall will be a sitting duck on a real battlefield.

[Seto Kaiba]

There's a reason why soldiers, when the shooting starts, hit the deck: it minimizes them as a target. A giant robot fighting machine 40m tall will be a sitting duck on a real battlefield.

Um... with the possible exception of the Konig Monster, there aren't any combat mecha even close to being 40 meters tall.

Also, as seen in Macross Plus, VFs are perfectly capable of "hitting the deck" in a firefight if the situation calls for it. I don't think it usually does, since the use of VFs in shootouts against non-flying targets doesn't seem t happen all that often, since the bulk of combat takes place in space, where the deck that one would normally hit is conspicuously absent. The whole argument that VFs would be horribly inefficient against human-scale infantry and armored vehicles is generally a valid one*, but we must remember that with very few exceptions (Cheyenne I) these robots weren't developed to fight humans, and any use against human targets was when circumstances made it unavoidable. The targets they were designed to fight were ten meter tall giants packed inside even larger bipedal walkers. They were designed to cope with an extraordinarily unconventional enemy... and the enemies they faced since then have been similarly unconventional...

In terms of whether or not overtechnology could've improved existing conventional weapons platforms to a level where they'd be superior to a VF... there are some problems with the logic here from an in-universe standpoint. Jamming a set of reaction engines and energy converting armor onto a conventional fighter jet might not work out so well, since, as we have in the stats, energy demands of flight leave the energy converting armor running either at a very low level or not at all... thus eroding the potential benefits of its usage. Some of the equipment may simply be too bulky or suffer from other mechanical complications that would make it difficult to integrate into a tank or normal jet fighter... unless I've missed something MAJOR in Chronicle, we aren't exactly dealing with an alien version of Plug & Play.

* For a show that plays this completely straight, see Full Metal Panic!, and particularly episodes 0 and 1 of Full Metal Panic! The Second Raid, wherein the existence of robots for combat use is justified by them being able to go into combat with the versatility of infantry, the firepower of a main battle tank, and the ability to operate effectively in circumstances and environments were doing the same job with a main battle tank would be anywhere from "hideously difficult" to "virtually impossible".

[Phyrox]

I *love* it when people make gross errors like this.

The brotherhood of non-metric using nations are Burma (Myanmar), Liberia and the United States of America. Ask yourself if that group of 'real men' is a healthy group to be part of.

Also, besides the fact that you missed that he was joking...I could add that not a single person in England used the metric system for measurement while I was staying there. Litres and kilos, sure...but distance was all feet and miles.

[sketchley]

Also, besides the fact that you missed that he was joking...I could add that not a single person in England used the metric system for measurement while I was staying there. Litres and kilos, sure...but distance was all feet and miles.

No. I was referring to his misunderstanding that the entire rest of the world is pacifist and communist, when it's not.

[Oihan]

I'm sorry, but I have to chime back in. All of you naysayers seem to be thinking in terms of today's technology and the type of warfare today. Don't you think that by the time we are able to actually have the technology to produce things like the Valk, many...many...many....many years down the road, that they wouldn't have solved most, if not all, of these other problems you all speak of? Why is that so far fetched to think that? And I'm sure any technology that would make a dedicated aircraft all that better would be used in these Valks as well. Wouldn't it be asinine to think that they wouldn't implement the same technology in their multi-functioning machines?

Macross Zero is a great example of your dedicated aircraft vs a Valk...Nora vs Shin in episode 1, anyone? With all of the maneuvers Nora was able to pull over Shin....

[Mr March]

The OP was pondering a way to make the Valkyrie practical without implying a caveat of many, many, many ad infinitum years of technological advancement (he even mentions conventional technology as a benchmark). As has been mentioned, arguing for an infinite time line for technological advancement is akin to simply accepting the caveat of magic hand-waving OverTechnology. That brings us right back to the beginning of any speculation and also removes any reason for doing so.

I'd also like to reiterate several important points made earlier which were either not understood or simply missed. Our imperfect understanding of future developments in technology is not a one way street that inevitably favors realization of our dream machines. It is equally plausible (and in fact, MORE probable) that long before the incredible technology exists to build a transforming jet fighter the very idea of using a jet fighter will have long since been abandoned. Even the popular idea of the science fiction styled space fighter is suspect as a practical war machine thanks to the realities of space. This also goes hand in hand with singularities and the totally pervasive effect they would have on the way war will be fought. The more "possible future technology" one speculates, the greater likelihood that singularities will completely alter technology and warfare far from all we understand today...that applies to our modern fiction too.

Think of it in terms of the sci-fi stories of old and their prognostications. How many actually hold up to the present? None of them do. That's because for every prediction past fiction got right, other predictions turned out wrong. We may think right now that fighters, helicopters and tanks are going to be around for a hundred years, a thousand years or ten thousand years when it's even more likely they'll become obsolete relics far sooner than we can imagine. In his 1933 The Shape of Things to Come, H.G. Wells predicted a world war that would feature the aerial bombing of cities, a technological development he found "unsporting". So too may future technology alter warfare to such a degree that the obsolescence of fighters, helicopters and tanks offends our romanticized fondness for these modern weapons.

Lastly, I'd like to just say that examining the impracticality of a Valkyrie is not being a "naysayer". I think it's more than apparent the members participating here love Valkyries, my own love being rather blatantly apparent. Being pragmatic when discussing fiction is not a fault, it's a strength. The real robot genre itself was predicated by a creator unsatisfied with the simple explanation. Thinking critically about his favorite shows, he deconstructed them and then sought to rebuild them to achieve something greater. The point of this debate is not to stick our heads in the sand in favor of Valkyries or stomp our feet and pout about the impracticality of the Valkyrie. It's the debate itself that is the reward. The discovery of why things work the way they do and the exchange of interesting ideas. That is the essence of what makes this all worthwhile and is the birth of better fiction...or at least discussion such as this breeds an appreciation for better fiction, since most of us are perhaps destined to remain consumers rather than creators.

Anyway, more food for thought

Edited April 3, 2010 by Mr March

[anime52k8]

Jamming a set of reaction engines and energy converting armor onto a conventional fighter jet might not work out so well, since, as we have in the stats, energy demands of flight leave the energy converting armor running either at a very low level or not at all... thus eroding the potential benefits of its usage.

Official stats or not this makes absolutely no sense. How does the fighter mode demand more energy than the battroid mode? if anything I'd think it should be the other way around. The battroid mode should have huge energy demands do to all the motors needed to make the thing move.

[eugimon]

I'm sorry, but I have to chime back in. All of you naysayers seem to be thinking in terms of today's technology and the type of warfare today. Don't you think that by the time we are able to actually have the technology to produce things like the Valk, many...many...many....many years down the road, that they wouldn't have solved most, if not all, of these other problems you all speak of? Why is that so far fetched to think that? And I'm sure any technology that would make a dedicated aircraft all that better would be used in these Valks as well. Wouldn't it be asinine to think that they wouldn't implement the same technology in their multi-functioning machines?

Macross Zero is a great example of your dedicated aircraft vs a Valk...Nora vs Shin in episode 1, anyone? With all of the maneuvers Nora was able to pull over Shin....

Again, you guys have to invent magical scenarios where people design vehicles that look like anachronistic 20th century warplanes to fight a war that not one of you has described where a 40 ft tall anything would be remotely useful.

If you have to design a magical scenario where:

- magically strong materials only get applied to transforming vehicles

- transformation necessary components weigh the same as a non transforming airframe

- transformation necessary components do not cost more to manufacture or maintain in terms of money and time

- joints and the systems necessary to run them aren't more vulnerable than armor

- do battle in some sort of terrain where their size and slow movement speed are not an issue

- have magical targeting and stabilization systems to compensate for bipedal movement that can't be applied with greater effect on an ineherently stable platform

- where non transforming vehicles have received zero upgrades in the past however many hundreds or thousands of years necessary to get to this point...

Then YOU have proven that a valkyrie is not practical.

[Gubaba]

Is there something wrong with me that I think the most useful post in this entire thread was Sketchley's link to the American Spelling vs. UK Spelling site...?

[eugimon]

Is there something wrong with me that I think the most useful post in this entire thread was Sketchley's link to the American Spelling vs. UK Spelling site...?

yes, it's a sign that your fanboy tank is dangerously low.

[Gubaba]

yes, it's a sign that your fanboy tank is dangerously low.

What...? I can't hear you...I've been listening to Minmay songs and reading Macross the First all day today, so I'm a little out of it...

[eugimon]

What...? I can't hear you...I've been listening to Minmay songs and reading Macross the First all day today, so I'm a little out of it...

That's your problem right there, you should be pouring overing imaginary technical specifications and trying to apply those to the real world.

listening to music... pssh

[Gubaba]

That's your problem right there, you should be pouring overing imaginary technical specifications and trying to apply those to the real world.

listening to music... pssh

You're absolutely right...sorry. I hang my fanboy head in shame for the moment...but I'll be back with an argument for why the Koenig Monster would be a feasible and practical thing to build in the near future.

[eugimon]

You're absolutely right...sorry. I hang my fanboy head in shame for the moment...but I'll be back with an argument for why the Koenig Monster would be a feasible and practical thing to build in the near future.

child's play! I want a 1000 word essay on why an airplane that transforms into a robot that wasn't designed to be used in space would not only be designed for use in space but able to dive underwater, transform, swim and then use conventional air breathing engines in order to break surface tension and then fly away.

[Fly4victory]

Yeah, that part of M0 bothered me, also, glad that the floating stones and orchid alien head thing was more disturbing.

[Oihan]

The OP was pondering a way to make the Valkyrie practical without implying a caveat of many, many, many ad infinitum years of technological advancement (he even mentions conventional technology as a benchmark).

I obviously missed that...so I retract everything I've said.

As has been mentioned, arguing for an infinite time line for technological advancement is akin to simply accepting the caveat of magic hand-waving OverTechnology. That brings us right back to the beginning of any speculation and also removes any reason for doing so.

I'd also like to reiterate several important points made earlier which were either not understood or simply missed. Our imperfect understanding of future developments in technology is not a one way street that inevitably favors realization of our dream machines. It is equally plausible (and in fact, MORE probable) that long before the incredible technology exists to build a transforming jet fighter the very idea of using a jet fighter will have long since been abandoned. Even the popular idea of the science fiction styled space fighter is suspect as a practical war machine thanks to the realities of space. This also goes hand in hand with singularities and the totally pervasive effect they would have on the way war will be fought. The more "possible future technology" one speculates, the greater likelihood that singularities will completely alter technology and warfare far from all we understand today...that applies to our modern fiction too.

Think of it in terms of the sci-fi stories of old and their prognostications. How many actually hold up to the present? None of them do. That's because for every prediction past fiction got right, other predictions turned out wrong. We may think right now that fighters, helicopters and tanks are going to be around for a hundred years, a thousand years or ten thousand years when it's even more likely they'll become obsolete relics far sooner than we can imagine. In his 1933 The Shape of Things to Come, H.G. Wells predicted a world war that would feature the aerial bombing of cities, a technological development he found "unsporting". So too may future technology alter warfare to such a degree that the obsolescence of fighters, helicopters and tanks offends our romanticized fondness for these modern weapons.

Lastly, I'd like to just say that examining the impracticality of a Valkyrie is not being a "naysayer". I think it's more than apparent the members participating here love Valkyries, my own love being rather blatantly apparent. Being pragmatic when discussing fiction is not a fault, it's a strength. The real robot genre itself was predicated by a creator unsatisfied with the simple explanation. Thinking critically about his favorite shows, he deconstructed them and then sought to rebuild them to achieve something greater. The point of this debate is not to stick our heads in the sand in favor of Valkyries or stomp our feet and pout about the impracticality of the Valkyrie. It's the debate itself that is the reward. The discovery of why things work the way they do and the exchange of interesting ideas. That is the essence of what makes this all worthwhile and is the birth of better fiction...or at least discussion such as this breeds an appreciation for better fiction, since most of us are perhaps destined to remain consumers rather than creators.

I didn't mean to incline that the naysayers didn't love Valkyries, were heretics, or anything of the sort. I was merely arguing for the practicality of it all with the future technological advances in mind. Just as you touched on though...with the advent of certain technologies brought about from (science) fiction from the past...I have some beliefs that what was dreamt about then can be made a reality in the future. I've obviously missed the part where the OP was talking about today's technology. So I have no real ground to stand on.

Anyway, more food for thought

Edited April 4, 2010 by Oihan

[Oihan]

Again, you guys have to invent magical scenarios where people design vehicles that look like anachronistic 20th century warplanes to fight a war that not one of you has described where a 40 ft tall anything would be remotely useful.

If you have to design a magical scenario where:

- magically strong materials only get applied to transforming vehicles

- transformation necessary components weigh the same as a non transforming airframe

- transformation necessary components do not cost more to manufacture or maintain in terms of money and time

- joints and the systems necessary to run them aren't more vulnerable than armor

- do battle in some sort of terrain where their size and slow movement speed are not an issue

- have magical targeting and stabilization systems to compensate for bipedal movement that can't be applied with greater effect on an ineherently stable platform

- where non transforming vehicles have received zero upgrades in the past however many hundreds or thousands of years necessary to get to this point...

Then YOU have proven that a valkyrie is not practical.

Say for example, something like what's seen in the anime "Patlabor" comes to bear fruit. Who's to say "a 40 ft tall anything" wouldn't be remotely useful?

I never brought up anything of the sort in regards to "magically strong materials." But since you bring it up, who's to say that we won't discover something stronger than what we already have? We're constantly improving the strength of our metals and our materials...making them more durable and etc - take steel as one of many examples. As for weight, cost, money, and time...not to come across like an ass or anything but does the word "refinement" not mean anything to you? Look at the computer and the microprocessor back then compared to how they are now. As for "slow movement speed"...you don't think that by the time we actually have this technology that we wouldn't have the the ability to speed up the transformation process and or the movement of whatever it is we implement the technology in? I can't honestly imagine anyone would put out something so slow and clunky (making it like a sitting rock) with that kind of technology out in the field. It'd be like making a car with only axles and no tires or something just a stupid. It'll go...sure...but not fast...hence a reason why we have tires. ...And I never said anything about "non transforming vehicles hav[ing] received zero upgrades in the past." What I did say though (paraphrasing) was that anything that could be implemented on a dedicated fighter/tank/naval craft, to make it even better, could easily be implemented in the transforming vehicle as well.

I have NOT proven that a Valkyrie is not practical.

Moreover, I've been arguing with the thought that the OP was talking about the practicality of a Valkyrie regardless of what time period we are in. Mr. March had to remind me kindly (thank you very much) that the OP was talking about today's technology and today's world. Using today's technology in today's world...NO...a Valkyrie isn't practical - I'll agree and concede that much.

Edit: Grammar

Edited April 4, 2010 by Oihan

[Mr March]

I obviously missed that...so I retract everything I've said.

I didn't mean to incline that the naysayers didn't love Valkyries, were heretics, or anything of the sort. I was merely arguing for the practicality of it all with the future technological advances in mind. Just as you touched on though...with the advent of certain technologies brought about from (science) fiction from the past...I have some beliefs that what was dreamt about then can be made a reality in the future. I've obviously missed the part where the OP was talking about today's technology. So I have no real ground to stand on.

Appreciate the sentiment, but there's no need for any retraction. It's just discussion and not any kind of debate. Remember, you do raise some valid points that I happen to agree with in their specific context.

It's perhaps best to reiterate that I don't believe the Valkyrie is impossible, only impractical in a probable future context. I think the biggest obstacles against the eventual realization of a Valkyrie are the need and/or will to do build one. Basically, we have to imagine a scenario in which the way warfare is conducted demands the use of a machine like the Valkyrie. That's not necessarily impossible to imagine, but it is very difficult to rationalize. A lot of circumstances need to occur to create a physical/financial/political/technological world in which a Valkyrie would be practical on a mass produced scale and most of those circumstances are not very likely to occur at all. What I love about Macross (and the real robot genre in general) is that an effort went into rationalizing why these machines would exist at all. Macross even goes a step further and acknowledges the impact of various modern technological trends upon it's own fiction, such as human endurance limiting flight maneuverability and the incursion of unmanned vehicles upon the face of future warfare. Now granted, Macross doesn't provide a very strong rationale, but then again, it is a 25 year old animated show made for youngsters who weren't thinking about physics, finances, politics and technology at their age

Another way of looking at the Valkyrie (and strictly speaking, ANY sci-fi vehicle) is to examine the technology without the Valkyrie. What would someone build if the technology for "energy conversion armor" really existed? Would their first thought really be to build a giant transforming fighter plane? Probably not So what then would be the most likely implementation of ECA? Micro-missiles? Gravity control? And so on.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Mr March

[SIGHUP]

The only way it would work is with magic!

If you guys ever get a chance/time watch Battle of the X-Planes (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/).

http://www.hulu.com/watch/23356/nova-battle-of-the-x-planes or even on NETFLIX's Watch Instantly.

The development of the two X-planes competing for the military contract reinforced even more how impossible a Valkyrie really is. But who knows what they would come up with if giants were really invading earth.

[BChoinski]

... 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.

I remember a Mekton game, a long time back, where my mech was basically that -- the flying gun. It was light, with a heavy BFG.

I made the miniature by taking a stub-winged 25mm lead fighter figure and attaching a peice of 3mm copper tube to it. Looked awsome, hit like a bastard (in game), but I needed the high dodge or I was screwed.