SV-51 vs VF-0

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

In a different universe, where the SV-51 and VF-0 were competing against each other as designs, and not on opposite sides of a war (like Project Supernova) what design do you think would have come out on top and why?

I will stir the pot and start the debate by suggesting the SV-51 because of its close quarters battle advantage given by the periscope.

[anime52k8]

VF-0. It's a simpler, more conventional airframe and it's probably got more support political support than the SV-51 would have.the respective performance qualities of a plane don't decide the results of design competitions, economics and politics do.

The YF-21 was better in every way to the YF-19, but the YF-19 won. The real reason it won wasn't because of what happened at the end of Mac+, it won because it was the more conventional design from the more established company.

[frothymug]

Yeah, head-to-head, I'd say the SV-51 was the superior fighter. But as anime52k8 mentioned, that doesn't always mean it becomes the preferred choice. The VF-0's were probably easier to build and maintain and therefore, were the preferred design leading to the VF-1 line. The YF-21 was way ahead of its time, but its high cost and slight unreliability cost it the project. The VF-22 turned out to be used on a much smaller scale, and mostly served as a special operations fighter; since it was better than the 19, but more expensive to construct.

[Ghost Train]

They're both pretty evenly matched if we use screen-time as the only gauge, though the VF-0 has formidable plot-armor.

I vote SV-51 as I love Flankers, and Sukhoi if I recall was a partner in the development, along with Israeli Aircraft Industry (in terms of real air to air combat no other country comes close in terms of experience). Thus we merge the technical track record of 4+ generation beasts like the SU-27/30/35/37 with Israeli experience.

Also, the whole ability to launch from subs gives it a stealthy tactical edge.

[Vic Mancini]

The YF-21 was better in every way to the YF-19, but the YF-19 won. The real reason it won wasn't because of what happened at the end of Mac+, it won because it was the more conventional design from the more established company.

Being unconventional does not equate to being better. The YF-19 was pwning the YF-21 on the big chart in the control room of New Edwards.

[Ghost Train]

Being unconventional does not equate to being better. The YF-19 was pwning the YF-21 on the big chart in the control room of New Edwards.

How can you be sure, given the language barrier (as the official UN language is Engrish), that the bars aren't actually measures of failure rate, overheating, software crash or something to that effect?

Edit: As in the measurement of the bars, I'm well aware that the categories are prominently displayed.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Ghost Train

[sketchley]

It all boils down to conditions.

If the underlying conditions of the Macross universe aren't changed (ie: we need an anti-giant variable fighter jet, yesterday), then the SV-51 would win. Why? It's designed expressly for combat deployment and was in mass production while the VF-0 was still in trial manufacture of test models. It definitely wasn't rushed into production as a test bed for new technologies, like the VF-0 was.

As for the argument that the VF-0 was easier to manufacture, I don't remember coming across any assertions toward that claim in any of the official text that I've read and/or translated.

Now, if the underlying conditions were different, and, say, multi-purposefulness becomes the main requirement, then the VF-0 would be the winner. Simply put, the VF-0 has more exposed surfaces capable of mounting things like extra fuel tanks, FAST packs, supplemental dorsal hard-points and so on, than the SV-51.

[frothymug]

I can agree with you that the VF-0 was more versatile.

I could swear I had read a discussion on the highs and lows of the SV-51, but I cannot recall any details. At a glance, though... when I see the extra hinged joints on the wings, I think "more expensive both in manufacture and maintenance". Extra moving parts = more chances for failure of said moving parts. Also, isn't the SV-51 a meter or two longer than the VF-0? Pretty self-explanatory there, as to the reasons you could believe that it was more expensive. Just my $.02

[David Hingtgen]

You're arguing against a couple more wing hinges, in a PLANE THAT TRANFORMS INTO A FULLY ARTICULATED ROBOT?

[frothymug]

Would it not cost more, though?

[sketchley]

Would it not cost more, though?

Again, that depends on a number of factors.

The biggest mitigating factor would be that the SV-51 is mass produced. Therefore, by the economies of scale, it's both cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to maintain (in the sense that there are more spare parts available, and that the parts of the aircraft are standardized.)

Of course, if both craft are mass produced, then things might be different. Nevertheless, the last time I checked, the aircraft of Soviet/Russian lineage are a lot hardier than those of the USA/Western European family (how many of these can land/take-off in a farmer's field without incurring FOD?!?) So, it's highly likely that the SV-51 has a lower maintenance rate as it's components are designed by engineers who were accustomed to creating tougher components.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

SV-51. Developed from the outset for combat, meanwhile the VF-0 was hurriedly modified with armnament/combat avionics to combat it. The VF-0 also has an engine only meant as an interim..this is like comparing an F-14A(due to TF30 engines and associated problems), to an SU-35(current one, not the prototype from 15 years ago; the current one has thrust vectoring, redesigned LERX and no canards).

[Nicaragua]

SV-51

Its the better combat aircraft.

[Vic Mancini]

I'm going to say the VF-0, on balance. The SV-51 was quite a bit larger than the VF-0, especially in B-mode. Didn't it have to crawl when it attacked/entered the carrier because there wasn't room to stand? I think the VF-0's smaller battroid size gives it an advantage for infiltration style operations where the SV-51 would have to literally crawl around to fit in the same areas the VF-0 could walk/run in. (I'm talking about the Roy/reactive armor scene, but I'm going off memory so someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I think the VF-0's head laser is also a useful advantage over the SV-51. We see Roy use it with great efficiency in a defensive aspect.

In a pure air-to-air dogfight of fighter mode vs fighter mode, I'd give it to the SV-51 simply on the basis of it having a much better thrust to weight ratio. But how often do dogfights in Macross actually go down like that? It's always a constantly changing rock-paper-scissors match in all 3-modes.

[Prime]

I think it is pretty hard to say and depends in part on the scenario. Presumably if this was a Mac Plus type trial the VF-0 side would not be entering a research/testbed model converted for combat. I think combat-intended VF-0 would be very competitive with the SV-51. Also, the VF-0S model may have an advantage over the VF-0A as it doesn't not have the limiters in place, allowing the pilot maximum control. That being said, based on the few performance numbers that seem to exist, the SV-51 seems to be superior, with a better thrust-to-weight ratio, more powerful engines, and slightly better max speed. Who knows if its "flapping wing" design is troublesome to maintain.

Would be great to watch through!

[Vifam7]

In a different universe, where the SV-51 and VF-0 were competing against each other as designs, and not on opposite sides of a war (like Project Supernova) what design do you think would have come out on top and why?

I will stir the pot and start the debate by suggesting the SV-51 because of its close quarters battle advantage given by the periscope.

Who cares about design, which side offered the lower bid? That's the one I'll pick.

[Nicaragua]

Would it not cost more, though?

lets not forget the extra toes too, jeez all those hinges are really gonna break the bank.

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

I have a question...While Vtol fans are great and cool on the SV-51, does any plane with a Gerwalk mode really need these?

I suppose they may add some thrust to Battroid and some maneuvering to fighter... As a VTOL mechanism though it seems as though this would be pointless.

[eugimon]

No valk, including the VF-0, would need the VTOL fans as the numerous verniers provide enough thrust and control.

[valkyriechild]

I am wondering perhaps SV-51 are not capable to operate in space due to the design maybe?

And can it be fitted with reaction engine too?

I notice SV-51 seems run out of fuel and ammo lot sooner than VF-0. CMIIW

Edited November 22, 2010 by valkyriechild

[azrael]

I am wondering perhaps SV-51 are not capable to operate in space due to the design maybe?

Not in their current state with conventional engines. However, from texts, we know they have limited they have limited operation underwater using rockets. But that's only launching from underwater.

And can it be fitted with reaction engine too?

IIRC, the SV-52 would have been the SV-51 with reaction engines.

I notice SV-51 seems run out of fuel and ammo lot sooner than VF-0.

More thrust, more weight, shorter cruising range. Which is why it needs a sub to get it in closer to combat.

While the SV-51 may be more combat-oriented, it does have its own shortfalls.

[frothymug]

Doesn't the SV-51 use disposable fuel tanks to increase its range?

[Ghost Train]

In real life the US Government UN Spacy would probably pick the F-35 over both lol.

[eugimon]

In real life the US Government UN Spacy would probably pick the F-35 over both lol.

I think you mean the Logan...

[sketchley]

I have a question...While Vtol fans are great and cool on the SV-51, does any plane with a Gerwalk mode really need these?

How would one do a VTOL or SVTOL in fighter mode without them? How many other VFs can do that? Yet ALL VFs are seen parked in hangers in fighter mode.

I suppose they may add some thrust to Battroid and some maneuvering to fighter... As a VTOL mechanism though it seems as though this would be pointless.

As it acts as the backpack in battroid mode, I'd say it adds a lot of additional thrust and manoeuvrability to Battroid mode. Same for GERWALK, despite never having seen it deployed in GERWALK... anyhow, the best feature of this VTOL mechanism is that it doesn't use engine exhaust. Which prevents the engine "backfire" when hot exhaust is sucked back into the intakes. Therefore, in true VTOL and hovering in a single spot low to a surface, the SV-51's VTOL mechanism would not only be safer, a pilot would be able to remain in position far longer.

The only times we have for hovering in place in GERWALK come from the VF-1:

"Max hovering time using 13,000 kg x2 thrust: 70 seconds; using 11,500 kg x2 thrust: 420 seconds (GERWALK & Battroid modes)"

Not sure if that's cumulative or until the engines can cool before the next time. Nevertheless, if the VF-0 is the same, then the SV-51 should be able to hover longer, simply because it's using more cool air, not hot engine exhaust, to hover.

Edited November 23, 2010 by sketchley

[valkyriechild]

IIRC, the SV-52 would have been the SV-51 with reaction engines.

Never heard of sv-52 before, then against vf-1, i wonder which one would win. Interesting.

Doesn't the SV-51 use disposable fuel tanks to increase its range?

As it shown in the anime several times, but they always dumped them before every battle.

Edited November 23, 2010 by valkyriechild

[Kronnang Dunn]

From a Mecha fan point of view I completely love the SV-51 design... However, I must say I voted for the VF-0 all the way. Why? Because in practical combat capability terms the VF-0 was multi-role and more easily mantained, while the SV-51 had more limited functions.

The SV-51 also had some serious fuel-comsuption issues.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Kronnang Dunn

[sketchley]

Never heard of sv-52 before,

Been around for at least half a decade. Reference: Macross Chronicle, Great Mechanics.DX.

[valkyriechild]

Never had any macross magazines or artbooks either, only DVDs. T_T

Thanks for the info.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Unfortunately, I agree with the assertion that the SV-51 is a combat machine at the outset of the show. So if we took it back to its prototype, and then compared it to the VF-0, it's not so much apples and oranges. The VF-0 has the advantage of being a clean battroid, No kibble hanging off and what not. (The SV-51 is still cleaner looking than the VF-25.) We should look at design characteristics. The VF-0 is a swing-wing ship, versatile, but complicated. The SV-51 has a wide wingspan, similar to the A-10 and F/A-18. This would give it the benefit of outstanding turning ability at slow speed. In the end an extra hinge is better than swing wings, it's less complicated, though it introduces a second stress point on the wing. As the internal systems are not mentioned in great detail, I can only assume a double redundancy for both aircraft, on the systems, such as hydraulics, and flight controls. I would assume that negative stability would be present on both aircraft as well, considering that is the trend with modern fighters. So, the SV-51 would be able to out turn the VF-0 regardless. Point for the SV-51. VF-0 is more versatile, we all agree on that, point VF-0. Defensive capabilities, point VF-0. The SV-51 seems less complicated, and russian built so it's rugged too, that's 2 for the SV-51. The VF-0 is lighter, and smaller (by 4 meters approx. according to Macross Mecha Manual)so there's a point. I'd say as best I can that the two ships are evenly matched. The VF-0 is definitely what we would consider a more conventional VF, but conventional doesn't mean better. I'd say that the two excel in different arenas of air combat. The VF-0 would be a mighty interceptor, while the SV-51 would make a good attacker. The VF-0 had a decided advantage in staying power though, so it seems the VF-0 was more efficient. That's my take on it.

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

The SV-51 seems less complicated

I initially disagreed with this statement as most people probably would, but then as I thought about the transformation, it seems complicated because we aren't used to it.

1)Arms drop straight down, (VF-0's arms are tucked inside and have to turn out)

2)Legs drop straight down (Same as VF-0)

3)Head position stays in relatively the same position during the transformation, just pops up (VF-0 has to flip up from the underside through a hole)

5)The cockpit area of the fighter could really be described as the only complicated part of the tansformation and all it is doing is rotating to put the pilot out of harms way. Not a whole lot worse then how the head has to fold up then the body folds in half on the VF-0.

6)The Wings fold up neatly, as do the VF-0's, though the VF-0 is definitely easier here.

I do however disagree that the SV-51 has alot more kibble though. SV-51 wing kibble is just above the shoulders where the VF-0 wing kibble is below the butt (and therefore not as easily seen from the front). If you leave the missiles off in battroid, the wings are mostly out of the way, even with one set of missile pods on it is still relatively neat. However, if you add a set of missile pods to the VF-0 in battroid mode, then you will see some wing kibble!

I make no excuses for the VF-25 though, its like it has a Beta fighter still attached to its back after it transforms to battroid!

[Vic Mancini]

The SV-51 has a wide wingspan, similar to the A-10 and F/A-18.

The VF-0 would be a mighty interceptor, while the SV-51 would make a good attacker.

Not sure I agree with you.

The VF-0 has a huge wing span. It's about the same as the SV-51, and the VF-0 is considerably shorter in length than the SV, so proportionately speaking it's wingspan is even larger than the SV's. I've always thought the VF-0 had one of the most absurdly large wing spans of any VF, but I haven't actually compared line art to many of it's mecha brothers.

Check out the attachments.

Disclaimer: The SV silhouette is from a Hasegawa photo, (notice the slight distortion on the perspective around the missle pods), and the VF silhouette is from somebody's line-art color scheme comp. They may not be perfectly accurate, but they're probably not far off either.

Note: The VF-0's wings aren't even fully extended in this comparison. I think they can extend nearly straight out to the sides. Take that into consideration and you'll see that is has much larger wings than the SV-51.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Vic Mancini

[Valkyrie Driver]

Not sure I agree with you.

The VF-0 has a huge wing span. It's about the same as the SV-51, and the VF-0 is considerably shorter in length than the SV, so proportionately speaking it's wingspan is even larger than the SV's. I've always thought the VF-0 had one of the most absurdly large wing spans of any VF, but I haven't actually compared line art to many of it's mecha brothers.

Check out the attachments.

Disclaimer: The SV silhouette is from a Hasegawa photo, (notice the slight distortion on the perspective around the missle pods), and the VF silhouette is from somebody's line-art color scheme comp. They may not be perfectly accurate, but they're probably not far off either.

Note: The VF-0's wings aren't even fully extended in this comparison. I think they can extend nearly straight out to the sides. Take that into consideration and you'll see that is has much larger wings than the SV-51.

Thanks for pointing that out, I've only got the anime to work from and the wingspan seemed larger in relation to the fuselage, and I don't have an SV-51 toy to compare to the VF-0. Looking at the silhouette you provided, it actually seems like the dimensions on the VF-0 are more square than the SV-51. I also just took a look at the SV-51 toy online, the wing area is atrocious, no wonder the VF-0 had better efficiency, the wing area on the VF-0 is at least twice that of the SV-51. That would provide better maneuverability on the VF-0's airframe. I'd say the victor would be the VF-0 based on design.

[David Hingtgen]

Area/load-wise, the Sv-51 is much more of a low-alt striker. Wing loading is highly influential in how a plane flies at low altitude. The F-15E has amazing electronics etc, but it still sucks aerodynamically for the role---I think former F-111 pilots still complain about it. The F-111, Tornado, etc can still outfly most any other plane ever built in their element due to their skinny, highly-loaded wings. Every delta-winged plane ever sucks in this category. (when's the last time you saw a low-alt strike by a delta?)

[thegunny]

In a different universe, where the SV-51 and VF-0 were competing against each other as designs, and not on opposite sides of a war (like Project Supernova) what design do you think would have come out on top and why?

I will stir the pot and start the debate by suggesting the SV-51 because of its close quarters battle advantage given by the periscope.

Who ever the script writers want to win.