SV-51 vs VF-0

[SilentCrossHairs]

The SV-51 would be the victor in a dog fight with the VF-0. The slim agile nature of the SV-51 along with the forward swept canards give this baby a mean angle of attack. The pilot would need a strong g-suit because the turns and Gs the SV-51 could probably pull may be enough to crack the pilots ribs. In order for the VF-0 to pull the same manuvers. It would have to go into gerwalk mode and get the hell out of dodge.

[eugimon]

The SV-51 would be the victor in a dog fight with the VF-0. The slim agile nature of the SV-51 along with the forward swept canards give this baby a mean angle of attack. The pilot would need a strong g-suit because the turns and Gs the SV-51 could probably pull may be enough to crack the pilots ribs. In order for the VF-0 to pull the same manuvers. It would have to go into gerwalk mode and get the hell out of dodge.

You're forgetting the vf-0 has a much more aggressive vector thrust system then the SV-51.

[miles316]

You're forgetting the vf-0 has a much more aggressive vector thrust system then the SV-51.

I thought the VF-0 had Two-D thrust vectoring nozzles and the SV-51 had Three Paddle thrust vectoring just a observation.

[eugimon]

I thought the VF-0 had Two-D thrust vectoring nozzles and the SV-51 had Three Paddle thrust vectoring just a observation.

True. But the paddles on the SV-51 are pretty small, not at all like the 3D paddles on the 21/22. While the entire foot on the VF-0 is shown pitching up or down.

edit::

if you watch the fight between shin and nora in ep 5, Shin is able to pull off pretty aggressive moves using thrust vectoring. While Nora keeps up the way she maneuvers the SV-51 is a little different and not as dependent on thrust vectoring.

Edited November 27, 2010 by eugimon

[Valkyrie Driver]

The VF-0 has the advantage of variable geometry wings, which gives it the ability to alter it's handling characteristics somewhat. At slower speeds with the wings extended, you could achieve higher wing loading, and pile on the g's, that and as mentioned by eugimon the VF-0 has more aggressive thrust vectoring, which also means capability for super-maneuverability. Come to think of it I never saw cobra turn or kulbit (tight diameter loop) or any other super maneuverability Air Combat measures. I still say the VF-0 has the win on this hypothetical competition.

[eugimon]

in ep 5 both shin and nora pull off the cobra move. In the animation, it appears that the vf-0 is able to attain a slightly more aggressive angle than the sv-51, however.

[Uxi]

VF-0 with fusion engines would roxor

[Valkyrie Driver]

in ep 5 both shin and nora pull off the cobra move. In the animation, it appears that the vf-0 is able to attain a slightly more aggressive angle than the sv-51, however.

I guess I gotta watch it again

[sketchley]

Hmmm I was thinking about this (and apologies if someone already said it): in-universe, we already have a winner.

The SV-51 was significantly altered from a jet fuel burning craft, to a reactant burning thermonuclear engine equipped craft; the SV-52. The VF-0 was not. Therefore, the SV-51 is the winner.

Sure, one could argue that there were a heck of a lot more VF-1 produced than SV-52. However, as this thread is about the VF-0 vs the SV-51, and not the VF-1 vs the SV-51 (or 52), then in-universe, the SV-51's design succeeded, whereas the VF-0's did not (as the VF-0 is a derivative of the VF-1, and the VF-1 did not take on any of the *new* features introduced in the VF-0).

It must really be stressed that there is a huge amount of internal changes needed to change from a conventional jet engine to a thermonuclear jet engine. Not sure where to begin, but if VFMF:VF-19 acts as a guide, than the liquid jet fuel and it's affiliated systems for storage, transport and injection into the engine would all have to be changed to a cooled system for the oxygen-hydrogen slush that the thermonuclear engines operate off of. That alone would most likely require a complete replacement of the fuel system.

[Vic Mancini]

Hmmm I was thinking about this (and apologies if someone already said it): in-universe, we already have a winner.

The SV-51 was significantly altered from a jet fuel burning craft, to a reactant burning thermonuclear engine equipped craft; the SV-52. The VF-0 was not. Therefore, the SV-51 is the winner.

Sure, one could argue that there were a heck of a lot more VF-1 produced than SV-52. However, as this thread is about the VF-0 vs the SV-51, and not the VF-1 vs the SV-51 (or 52), then in-universe, the SV-51's design succeeded, whereas the VF-0's did not (as the VF-0 is a derivative of the VF-1, and the VF-1 did not take on any of the *new* features introduced in the VF-0).

The VF-0 was a derivative of the VF-1 in universe? I thought it was the other way around.

[Valkyrie Driver]

The VF-0 was a derivative of the VF-1 in universe? I thought it was the other way around.

I also interpreted it that way. The VF-0 may not have been a true prototype of the VF-1 (as they are distinct airframes) but it would be accurate to call it a proof-of-concept demonstrator.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Swing wing mechanisms take up more weight too, so that's another disadvantage for the VF-0.

[Vic Mancini]

Swing wing mechanisms take up more weight too, so that's another disadvantage for the VF-0.

I don't think you can count that as a disadvantage if you've already given the SV-51 a nod for having a better thrust:weight ratio. It's the same thing.

I also don't buy into swing wings being a disadvantage for a Valkyrie. These aren't normal airplanes. These are transforming robots with thousands of built in motors and moving parts to transform and articulate them in Gerwalk and Battroid. They are already jam-packed full of dead weight! I don't think a few more internal mechanisms to swing the wings is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back. The extra weight of moving parts are obviously a non-issue in the age of over technology.

At the end of the day the SV-51 simply has a better thrust:weight ratio, but I don't think it has to do with the VF-O's wings at all.

[David Hingtgen]

Agreed. Valks already have numerous high-power servos in them. 2 more for the wings is nothing. I don't think they'd have jackscrews etc like an F-14 does.

::edit:: Well, looking at the VF-1, it looks exactly like the F-14's, just oriented funny. I'm going to chalk that up to the artist blindly copying the F-14's internals and making the parts fit. (are any of the famous VF-1 cutaways actually by Kawamori?)

[eugimon]

Besides, the SV-51 has some ridiculous wing articulation as well. They Z fold and those actuators are strong enough to give it a pseduo-ornithopter ability. That's got to be way heavier than just a simple swing wing desgin.

[Macross_Fanboy]

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.

Israelis used Sukhois? Technical track record means nothing without a combat track record which no aircraft have against NATO aircraft just against each other.

Anyways, I like the SV-51 just as much as the VF-0, I really like its conventional weapons like the 30mm cannons on its hips a lot more than the head lasers of the VF-0, but as others have pointed, you can throw more weapons on a Zero in the end than a SV-51 even without the reactive armor. Kinda like the MiG-35 against something like the Rafale M or Super Hornet in India's MRCA competition, way more payload and a just a bit more range and both have plenty of combat experience over the MiG-35 and are carrier ready once India rolls out its CATOBAR CV.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I'd question the safety for the pilot of the SV-51, due to the inherent weakness in the winds from the Z-fold hinges, and the high wing loading. the VF-0 has a low wing loading which makes it more maneuverable, not to mention the fact that the VF-0 has a blended wing, with leading edge root extensions. It seems more aerodynamic than the SV-51 and seems more solid and robust.

[David Hingtgen]

Israelis used Sukhois? Technical track record means nothing without a combat track record which no aircraft have against NATO aircraft just against each other.

I believe he was referring to the Sv-51, regarding Sukhoi and Israel.

[Nicaragua]

I'd question the safety for the pilot of the SV-51, due to the inherent weakness in the winds from the Z-fold hinges, and the high wing loading.

why? its a sci-fi aircraft so why try and look for potential problems that would exist in current technology. What about the inherent weakness in the vf-0's fuselage were it folds to make a backpack or the weakness in its battroid locomotion due to its flimsy hip joint that conects to the nose?

Your judging one craft on real world limitations while completely ignoring real world limitations of the other which is ridiculous considering what these things are supposed to be.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Nicaragua

[David Hingtgen]

I'd question the safety for the pilot of the SV-51, due to the inherent weakness in the winds from the Z-fold hinges, and the high wing loading. the VF-0 has a low wing loading which makes it more maneuverable, not to mention the fact that the VF-0 has a blended wing, with leading edge root extensions. It seems more aerodynamic than the SV-51 and seems more solid and robust.

VF-0 wing isn't blended, and I've never liked calling its little extensions "LERX"s. It's little more than the F-15's intake lips IMHO. It's a big chine at best. Too much intake and glove in the way for it to directly affect the wing or be considered a root or LE extension. It's got a leading edge, but the rear goes into the intake, or a non-lifting-profile glove. Half an airfoil is no airfoil.

As for wing loading---high loading is great for low-level (it resists turbulence/gusts and gives a smoother, more stable ride for firing accuracy), and as the attack on the carrier group shows, low-level strike is certainly part of the Sv-51's mission, and it does it well.

As for maneuverability---the Sv-51 has big moving canards, and it uses them. That'll count for something vs the Zero's loading advantage. Plus, the Sv-51 seems able to fold/flap its wings in every mode---we may not see it animated, but "flapping" the tip just a bit for more lift/roll in turns is certainly possible IMHO, it's no different than the F-16 and F-18 tweaking their LE flaps constantly. Seriously---a plane with a bird-like ability to adjust/use its wings? That is one HELL of an advantage aerodynamically. It's been the ultimate goal for years.

[Macross_Fanboy]

I believe he was referring to the Sv-51, regarding Sukhoi and Israel.

I think that's what he meant, but just to be sure.

[Valkyrie Driver]

VF-0 wing isn't blended, and I've never liked calling its little extensions "LERX"s. It's little more than the F-15's intake lips IMHO. It's a big chine at best. Too much intake and glove in the way for it to directly affect the wing or be considered a root or LE extension. It's got a leading edge, but the rear goes into the intake, or a non-lifting-profile glove. Half an airfoil is no airfoil.

As for wing loading---high loading is great for low-level (it resists turbulence/gusts and gives a smoother, more stable ride for firing accuracy), and as the attack on the carrier group shows, low-level strike is certainly part of the Sv-51's mission, and it does it well.

As for maneuverability---the Sv-51 has big moving canards, and it uses them. That'll count for something vs the Zero's loading advantage. Plus, the Sv-51 seems able to fold/flap its wings in every mode---we may not see it animated, but "flapping" the tip just a bit for more lift/roll in turns is certainly possible IMHO, it's no different than the F-16 and F-18 tweaking their LE flaps constantly. Seriously---a plane with a bird-like ability to adjust/use its wings? That is one HELL of an advantage aerodynamically. It's been the ultimate goal for years.

You bring up a good point about the backpack and hips on the VF-0, I didn't bring up the hips because, well that would be a huge failing for real world construction, but as was mentioned earlier, it's moot. As for the LERX/Chines/intake hood things, look at the F/A-18, the LERX's go right over the intake there as well, the benefit is that it directs airflow. Air is always flowing to the wingtip, and so would still benefit the fighter in the same way. This would negate some of the SV-51's advantage from the canards. As for the Wing loading, yes each design has benefits. I am curious though, as to the aspect ratio of the wings on both designs. The SV-51 appears to have a higher aspect ratio than the VF-0 which would increase the roll rate on the SV-51, making it unable to maneuver at high speed. That's my assessment, and as of right now I have no facts to back up my claim. If someone could do the calculations from a yamato SV-51 that would be cool, I can do them for my VF-0.

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

If someone could do the calculations from a yamato SV-51 that would be cool, I can do them for my VF-0.

Wing tip to wing tip vs nose to toe?

Let me know and I will grab my tape.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX

[Dobber]

I'd vote for the SV-51. Beside the one Roy shot down in episode 1, I don't recall seeing an SV-51 shot down by a VF-0. Not saying none were not, but just using screen evidence. VF-0 does have it's advantages too, though, as have been mentioned. Another area we have to factor in is transformation time, IIRC the SV-51 did have a longer transform time than the VF-0 which in this category could be crucial.

Chris

Edited December 14, 2010 by Dobber

[Valkyrie Driver]

Wing tip to wing tip vs nose to toe?

Let me know and I will grab my tape.

Just need the wingspan tip to tip, if you have a VF-0 could you do that, I don't have a measuring tape.

thnx

Edited December 14, 2010 by Valkyrie Driver

[frothymug]

I'd vote for the SV-51. Beside the one Roy shot down in episode 1, I don't recall seeing an SV-51 shot down by a VF-0. Not saying none were not, but just using screen evidence. VF-0 does have it's advantages too, though, as have been mentioned. Another area we have to factor in is transformation time, IIRC the SV-51 did have a longer transform time than the VF-0 which in this category could be crucial.

Chris

If you look closely in episode three while Nora and DD are talking to their squadron, you see a couple of CF SV-51s get shot down by the AA fire from the carrier battlegroup. Did you mean specifically by other VF-0s? Technically, Shin took Nora down by colliding his damaged VF-0D into her SV-51.

[Dobber]

yeah I meant shot down by a VF-0. True shin rammed her but she technically shot him down first

Chris

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

Just need the wingspan tip to tip, if you have a VF-0 could you do that, I don't have a measuring tape.

thnx

SV-51 is ~13 and 1/4" tip to tip

i don't have a VF-0 to measure.

[Valkyrie Driver]

SV-51 is ~13 and 1/4" tip to tip

i don't have a VF-0 to measure.

I can do it some how. What I was attempting to do was figure out the aspect ratio of the wings, to determine which had the higher ratio.

[Macross_Fanboy]

yeah I meant shot down by a VF-0. True shin rammed her but she technically shot him down first

Chris

Class A Mishap!

[SchizophrenicMC]

VF-0

Lighter empty mass, greater simplicity of components, and conventionality of design add up to a cheaper, more easily maintained aircraft.

While the SV-51's stats indicate greater performance, its structure was more complicated and heavy than the VF-0's, leading to slower transformation times (I KNOW I read that somewhere; I think the M3 used to say it), greater fuel consumption, and lower weapons payload capacity. (From submarine launch, 4 wing hardpoints are inaccessible)

I'm gonna compare it to the decision to remove the F-14 from service, in favor of the F-18. The former outstripped the latter in terms of performance, in all but rate of climb. But, it was heavy, fuel inefficient, lacked weapons capacity, and expensive to maintain and produce. The cheaper, and in most respects, inferior F/A-18 replaced the F-14. The F-18 does have its advantages, but the point to be shown is the less costly, more efficient aircraft was selected, because it was easier to field, and could carry greater payloads into combat, and fulfill multiple roles.

The VF-0 is lighter, simpler, apparently cheaper, more fuel efficient, capable of carrying far more weapons, and fulfilling multiple roles, at least through a variant of the design. (Wasn't the 0D used for Radar detection? It's been too long since I watched Zero)

Because of this, it would win a competition, like Supernova. (The -19 was chosen for the same reasons)

[twich]

For sheer firepower and intimidation factor, I would have to say that the SV-51 is the winner hands down. The only advantage that I see for the VF-0 is that it has laser head turrets (1 or 2) depending on model. The SV-51 would probably be even more intimidating if the hip guns were replaced by lasers or if there was a head laser or 2 attached to the head/telescope unit on the SV-51. I think that the gunpod is much more hardy and is field reloadable, while the VF-0 is not.

Twich

[Ghost Train]

Israelis used Sukhois? Technical track record means nothing without a combat track record which no aircraft have against NATO aircraft just against each other.

Nowhere did I state that the IAF flew or flies Sukhoi's in the real world. The SV-51 was partly designed / manufactured by IAI, which leaves the possibility open that in the Macross timeline that the experience of Israeli pilots contributed to some extent to the development of the SV-51 or that Israel was actually part of the Anti-UN faction.

NATO's air dominance is a result of its well funded air forces, well trained personnel, and the use of force multipliers like AWACS, Electronic Warfare, Aerial Refueling etc, - all factors that were missing in their last 2 real opponents.

In terms of modern jet combat experience, Israeli pilots have by far the most experience, with half of all kills attributed to Eagles and Falcons done by them. If you put them in say an advanced Flanker I highly doubt they would just suck simply because their repertoire has always consisted of Mirages, and US aircraft. On the contrary, they'd be just as good (if this is what you actually meant).

Also, after a certain point, the technical aspect of you hardware does matter. In the Cope India exercises, the USAF's F-15/F-16 combo has routinely (that's a polite word really) been beaten by the Indian SU-30MKI. (Too lazy to link source, just google it)

Edited January 13, 2011 by Ghost Train

[Nicaragua]

One thing about the SV-51 which might be an advantage over the VF-0 is that it can keep its wings extended and forward facing in Battroid mode which might give it additional manoeuvrability during those mid air giant robot battles.

Also it would mean that the SV-51 could still use its wing mounted missiles in Battroid mode - not sure if the VF-0 can do the same as they are tucked up behind it.

[valkyriechild]

SV-51 and VF-0 both can launch their missiles in battroid mode, in fact VF-0 wing can not be swept back as long as there are missiles still remain on the wing hardpoints, the only difference is SV-51 missiles is internal in it's fuel/missile pod while VF-0's is hanging on the hardpoints.

According to mecha manual SV-51 can not launch the ones on external hardpoints while in batroid mode because the wing is folded, only the ones in the pod. Just watch again episode 1 near the end.

I don't know about increasing maneuverability though, perhaps for airbrakes or hovering?

EDIT: Wait, i was wrong, SV-51 can extend it's wing in batrroid mode, i don't see why it can not shoot it's external hardpoints in that condition.

Edited January 13, 2011 by valkyriechild