SV-51 vs VF-0

[anime52k8]

Here's an interesting thought in terms of missile capability:

The SV-51, with it's 6 under wing hard points, carries a standard load of 4 micro-missile launchers with 18 missiles each and 2 medium range missiles. The VF-0 on the other hand carries a standard load of 12 medium range missiles on 4 hard points plus 2 conformal FAST packs containing 24 micro-missiles each.

In this case, the SV-51 has more micro missiles in a standard load out with 72 to the VF-0's 48; but the VF-0 beats the SV-51 6-to-1 at medium range. Further, for every additional medium range missile the SV-51 carries (up to it's maximum of 6) it looses 18 of it's micro-missiles. The VF-0 on the other had can trade out 2 of it's 3-missile pylons for a set of micro-missile launchers (which carry 3 volleys of 8 for a total of 24 each) allowing it to still carry 6 medium range missiles while carrying 96 micro-missiles.

Now if both planes are going to a maximum micro-missile load; the SV-51 can carry 6, 18 shot launchers for a total of 108 micro-missiles. The VF-0 can carry 4 micro-missile launchers and 2 FAST packs with 24 missiles each for a total of 144 micro-missiles. And this of course is before you start doing crazy field mods like welding extra missile launchers to the planes dorsal tanks and strapping a stripped-down drone fighter with it's own indeterminate load of missiles to the thing.

So if your preferred style of combat is to missile spam (and we are talking about Macross here), the VF-0 is the better bet.

Edited January 13, 2011 by anime52k8

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I would think the SV-51 has the edge, it seemed like it was more manueverable and it was specifically made for air combat, whereas the VF-0 was a testbed that was quickly configured for combat. The achilles heel of the SV-51 being short range and due to that, I think, either high fuel consumption, lower fuel capacity, or possibly both. So a VF-0 pilot would probably be better off trying to force the SV-51 into a vertical energy fight to trick the SV-51 pilot into exhausting his fuel via afterburner use.

Just my thoughts.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I've been doing some research on some very successful real world fighters, and looking at the design aspects of each.

The VF-0 and the F-15 seem to have similar design philosophies in mind, a lightly loaded, low aspect, shoulder mounted wing with blended wing roots. The F-14/F-111 swing wing gives it a lot of versatility, and useful speed ranges, it can work well at slow speed at low altitude, or high altitude at high speed.

The SV-51 seems to have a lot in common with the F-16/F-18 with higher aspect, lightly loaded (I'm guessing as the structural nature of the wing hasn't been revealed) wing with blended roots/lerx.

Both wing designs with blended roots can still produce lift at high angles of attack, the only question is which is more maneuverable. It seems to me that the g-loading on the SV-51 might be lower than the VF-0, which means the VF-0 can maintain higher speed through a turn, which means the VF-0 can out turn the SV-51 at speed. It also means that the SV-51 needs to sacrifice airspeed for a tighter turn. That can be good or bad depending on the situation. The SV-51 seems more stout and robust, due to the nature of the primary manufacturer, Sukhoi. (The Russians have always preferred to build less sophisticated, more robust aircraft capable of launching from primitive airfields.) The SV-51 does evoke the Russian Design paradigm. The VF-0 has the upper hand in versatility and medium-range weaponry. If we carry over current NATO doctrine however, the medium range weaponry is moot, as engagement beyond-visual-range is not allowed under the ROE, to prevent friendly-fire accidents. The Medium range weapons would only allow longer visual range fire, which is still better than trying to have the proverbial knife-fight-in-a-phone booth, with AIM-9's (or Macross equivalent).

Now as for which would win a competition, it would be the VF-0. Better fuel consumption, expandability (FAST Packs, CFT's), Excellent performance (maybe not as good as the SV-51, but still excellent), Ease of manufacture, Ease of Maintenance, Parts Supply (I'm betting that the Anti-UN doesn't have as many resources as the UN Spacy), and Relative Simplicity.

The SV-51 may be Superior as the YF-21 was many years later, sheer superiority of performance doesn't always guarantee the contract.

(I see the results of the lowest bidder every day I work, my tools are not the greatest out there, The computers at work still use Windows XP, and The Radar terminals date back to the Mid -90's almost 20 years old. It's similar with weapons systems, There are literally 10 other weapons that are better than the M4 but that's what can be made the cheapest that meets the specs.)

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

I am not sure if the mid range missile comparison is valid. I am pretty sure I saw the SV-51 "mid range missile" explode a destroyer(Just a guess, I know nothing about the Navy) sized boat in Zero. I highly doubt the AIM-200A AMRAAM 2 would have had the same effect. Your micro missile point remains quite valid though.

Off topic point:

As a M4 end user, I feel there may be about 1 or 2 weapons that are marginally better, for a substantial greater cost (Sig 551 comes to mind). There is probably about 100 carbines though that claim superior performance due to one gadget or another but offer no statistically relevant improvement and come with their own draw backs. Gun technology has hardly changed since WWII. Optic and ballistic technology though...

End off Topic

[anime52k8]

I am not sure if the mid range missile comparison is valid. I am pretty sure I saw the SV-51 "mid range missile" explode a destroyer(Just a guess, I know nothing about the Navy) sized boat in Zero. I highly doubt the AIM-200A AMRAAM 2 would have had the same effect. Your micro missile point remains quite valid though.

The official stats for the SV-51 describe them as "R-33D Amos+ medium-range maneuvering missiles" which is a little odd in of itself as the R-33 Amos is a Long range missile of similar size and performance to the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. It could be that this "D" variant trades range for maneuverability.

...and the ability to be used as an air-to-surface missile.

Edited January 14, 2011 by anime52k8

[Valkyrie Driver]

I am not sure if the mid range missile comparison is valid. I am pretty sure I saw the SV-51 "mid range missile" explode a destroyer(Just a guess, I know nothing about the Navy) sized boat in Zero. I highly doubt the AIM-200A AMRAAM 2 would have had the same effect. Your micro missile point remains quite valid though.

It's possible that the Mid range missile you refer to isn't in the same category as the AIM-200A (which seems to be an update of the AIM-120). I took the comparison to mean only Air to Air Missiles. Even in Macross, Missiles had to evolve, So I tend to think that at the Time of Macross Zero, Missiles were regime specific. By regime I mean Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground, anti-shipping, stand-off cruise, all of those various categories and sub categories. It's hard to build a missile that can target and kill anything you aim it at. The missile would be huge, and expensive.

There is a certain amount of artistic license taken with the pilots. Fighter pilots don't actually yell, "TAKE THIS!" when they fire off a missile, instead the call out the brevity code for the missile type, Fox 1 for semi active radar homing, Fox 2 for IR homing, Fox 3 for active radar homing. To make the show more accessible to a wider range of viewers, a lot of the technicality has to be sacrificed so you don't lose the viewers. The missile that struck the ship, was probably an anti ship missile like the Harpoon or Matra Magic.

[miles316]

It's possible that the Mid range missile you refer to isn't in the same category as the AIM-200A (which seems to be an update of the AIM-120). I took the comparison to mean only Air to Air Missiles. Even in Macross, Missiles had to evolve, So I tend to think that at the Time of Macross Zero, Missiles were regime specific. By regime I mean Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground, anti-shipping, stand-off cruise, all of those various categories and sub categories. It's hard to build a missile that can target and kill anything you aim it at. The missile would be huge, and expensive.

There is a certain amount of artistic license taken with the pilots. Fighter pilots don't actually yell, "TAKE THIS!" when they fire off a missile, instead the call out the brevity code for the missile type, Fox 1 for semi active radar homing, Fox 2 for IR homing, Fox 3 for active radar homing. To make the show more accessible to a wider range of viewers, a lot of the technicality has to be sacrificed so you don't lose the viewers. The missile that struck the ship, was probably an anti ship missile like the Harpoon or Matra Magic.

My linkSwing role sidewinder

It only required the software to be changed that was like two years ago.

As Integrated circuits get more sophisticated Missiles will be able to do more things than just hitting planes, ground targets, or ships.

I'm not sure when the military will equip the duel role AIM-9X that article was from 2009. I don't know what entailed in altering the missile if they were able to change the software through a service connection or changing a circuit board, or if the change was on the planes avionics part, but the line is blurred.

The military has a ongoing flirtation with Duel role missiles that Can be used in anti air and land attack role with a single missile.

Though I do agree that the SV-51 used a anti ship cruise missile though even they are able to hit land targets. The Bhramos missile of India can his land and sea targets and can be used on helicopters, ships, planes, and land based launchers.

Edited January 14, 2011 by miles316

[Valkyrie Driver]

My linkSwing role sidewinder

It only required the software to be changed that was like two years ago.

As Integrated circuits get more sophisticated Missiles will be able to do more things than just hitting planes, ground targets, or ships.

I'm not sure when the military will equip the duel role AIM-9X that article was from 2009. I don't know what entailed in altering the missile if they were able to change the software through a service connection or changing a circuit board, or if the change was on the planes avionics part, but the line is blurred.

The military has a ongoing flirtation with Duel role missiles that Can be used in anti air and land attack role with a single missile.

Though I do agree that the SV-51 used a anti ship cruise missile though even they are able to hit land targets. The Bhramos missile of India can his land and sea targets and can be used on helicopters, ships, planes, and land based launchers.

I stand corrected, however, a missile the size of an AIM-9 or AIM-120 lacks a warhead of proper size to sink a ship, cigarette boat sure, but not a destroyer. That's still interesting about the AIM-9 test though, I wonder how long until we have an AIM/AGM dual regime missile.

[SchizophrenicMC]

"You know what bothers me about that rocket? It was built by the lowest bidder."

-Rules to Remember

[Valkyrie Driver]

We're also not that far from making the micro missiles. We already have the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System for the Hydra 70 2.75 inch rocket, and a similar system in the works for the old 5.0 inch Zuni, with some tweaking we could easily adapt those systems to use on small high-yield warheads for small missiles. Heck if we can change the software out and make a Sidewinder kill, boats, we can make a javelin kill aircraft.

[anime52k8]

We're also not that far from making the micro missiles. We already have the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System for the Hydra 70 2.75 inch rocket, and a similar system in the works for the old 5.0 inch Zuni, with some tweaking we could easily adapt those systems to use on small high-yield warheads for small missiles. Heck if we can change the software out and make a Sidewinder kill, boats, we can make a javelin kill aircraft.

Technically the Javelin can already engage aircraft of the slow, low flying variety.

[Talos]

Technically the Javelin can already engage aircraft of the slow, low flying variety.

So can the 120mm cannon on an Abrams.

Actually, VD, a Sidewinder is based on a 5" rocket frame anyway, so with folding fins you could easily get a micromissile pod. The only problem is targeting, but the AIM-9X supports LOAL (lockon after launch).

The Sidewinder's been used against ground targets for years. Just look at the AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radiation missile, made out of obsolete AIM-9C bodies.

[Valkyrie Driver]

So can the 120mm cannon on an Abrams.

Actually, VD, a Sidewinder is based on a 5" rocket frame anyway, so with folding fins you could easily get a micromissile pod. The only problem is targeting, but the AIM-9X supports LOAL (lockon after launch).

The Sidewinder's been used against ground targets for years. Just look at the AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radiation missile, made out of obsolete AIM-9C bodies.

Very good points, I was just trying to illustrate the technology is developing, and the laser guided zuni is a bit big for the imagined micro missile, you'd need to cut about a foot off the Hydra 70 and give it something better than laser guidance, not to mention better maneuverability before micro missiles would be viable.

[miles316]

Well unless they develop more powerful propellants and or explosives shortening the length of missiles, and keeping their existing range, yield, and maneuverability won't be possible.

[Product9]

AIM-9X upgrade is supposedly software only. The small warhead won't be useful against much aside from soft targets, but the key is versatility.

I don't know much avout the Javelin, but a close friend was part of one of the two platoons to use them in the USMC so I can ask him. Javelin was phased out due to high cost, but they used them in Iraq.

The SV-51 utilized anti ship missiles. Such missiles are powerful, but incapable of engaging fighters for myriad reasons.

To stay on topic, my vote is with the VF-0. Its a simpler design, and during a time where VF technology was in its infancy, I think that's important.

Posted via T-Mobile G2

Edit after some sleep:

So can the 120mm cannon on an Abrams.

Actually, VD, a Sidewinder is based on a 5" rocket frame anyway, so with folding fins you could easily get a micromissile pod. The only problem is targeting, but the AIM-9X supports LOAL (lockon after launch).

The Sidewinder's been used against ground targets for years. Just look at the AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radiation missile, made out of obsolete AIM-9C bodies.

Sidewinders are also 10 feet long, and 190 lbs. There's nothing micro about that...

The Sidearm was an interesting development. They don't produce them anymore (and the stores have supposedly been depleted), but the idea was that it would be used against SAM radars since having a large warhead wasn't necessary to knock them out. I'm pretty sure the Hellfire can do the job better nowadays, though, but the Sidearm had an advantage in range.

In for reals life a 'micro-missile' isn't all that useful when one can do the job just as well. However, if you really wanted to make one, then why not go with the AIM-92 Stinger platform as a basis? It's small and lightweight... but not very powerful.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Product9

[Valkyrie Driver]

Product 9,

You bring up some good points, my interest in micro missiles is the ability to carry a lot of them, giving the ship longer time on target. If you can build a smaller missile that is just as powerful as today's missiles, you can pack the bays with the things and take out a large number of enemy aircraft.

[Product9]

I suppose that's true. Kinda like the philosophy behind the small diameter bomb.

[Devil 505]

The CRV7 70mm rocket can penetrate the armor of a T-72 tank. There are also various real-life programs to turn 70mm rockets into micro-missiles by adding seeker heads (IR, electro-optical, and/or laser guidance).

[Product9]

There are programs to give limited guidance to rockets, but what they're doing is far from what one would consider an 'all purpose missile.' Rather, the programs are designed to increase the accuracy of said rockets, because they generally suck against small targets. They won't be firing these things at nimble targets from high off-boresight angles like air-to-air missiles are capable of, but rather as direct fire weapons that can adjust their course just enough to ensure a hit, or at least make one more likely. I doubt if they can turn more than a few degrees without losing their target lock, especially in the very short time of flight.

Also, is that the armor of a REAL T-72? Or just those pathetic Iraqi copies?

I'm not saying its not possible - but rather just prohibitively expensive. Though as a kid, I always wanted something like that...

About the -29, didn't someone say it would make use of fold quartz technology more heavily or something like that? What does that mean, exactly?

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

About the -29, didn't someone say it would make use of fold quartz technology more heavily or something like that? What does that mean, exactly?

I think it will mean whatever they want it to conveniently mean. Faster planes, more powerful weapons, smarter computers...everything will be explained away with it.

[Product9]

Ah, yes. They've installed the plot device.

[SchizophrenicMC]

M-M-MINOVSKY!

[Devil 505]

Also, is that the armor of a REAL T-72? Or just those pathetic Iraqi copies?

They say it can penetrate the armor of a Russian T-72 and can be used for anti-shipping, depending on the warhead. Also, I forgot to add anti-radiation as one of the guided rocket projects.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Devil 505

[azrael]

Can we get back to the VF-0 vs. the SV-51? Thank you. Come again.

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

I am not sure what else hasn't been covered. Surely the forward canards of the SV-51 have to count for something in the contest. Field changeable mags has been covered I think but is still advantageous. Also the arm tail fins can act very much like a shield in battroid mode when the ECA is operating (kinda like the YF-21 sans the pin point barrier). Especially in low speed flight (like GERWALK), I don't think the advantages of a periscope have been truly appreciated. Think about the giant ball atop the apache longbow and the benefits that provides. Perhaps in fighter mode the Zero beats the SV-51, but in terms of versatility I think the SV-51 takes it.

[David Hingtgen]

The Sv-51 is certainly much more capable in the multi-role aspects. It seems equipped for air/land/sea, in all 3 modes. VF-0 seems more like "battroid for ground, fighter for air".

[nexxstrait]

I couldn't care less about numbers and so on bla bla bla , so my vote goes to the coolest looking machine. And VF0 it is!

[azrael]

Also the arm tail fins can act very much like a shield in battroid mode when the ECA is operating (kinda like the YF-21 sans the pin point barrier). Especially in low speed flight (like GERWALK),

Yeah, but ECA doesn't automatically make it act like a shield. Another layer of armor? Yes. But a shield? No. I haven't seen anything indicate that they act like shields. The tail fins would be the same as adding another layer of kevlar on top of a kevlar armor.

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

Yeah, but ECA doesn't automatically make it act like a shield. Another layer of armor? Yes. But a shield? No. I haven't seen anything indicate that they act like shields. The tail fins would be the same as adding another layer of kevlar on top of a kevlar armor.

Agreed. I understand your point but perhaps the extra layer of kevlar can prevent a catastrophic failure that just one layer wouldn't. Its a little more functional then just robot kibble was my point. And since it is two wing panels folded over each other it is like "2" extra pieces of kevlar. The VF-0 has no such option, though to be fair, three layers of "kevlar" didn't save DD from a protoculture super weapon anyway.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX

[anime52k8]

Agreed. I understand your point but perhaps the extra layer of kevlar can prevent a catastrophic failure that just one layer wouldn't. Its a little more functional then just robot kibble was my point. And since it is two wing panels folded over each other it is like "2" extra pieces of kevlar. The VF-0 has no such option, though to be fair, three layers of "kevlar" didn't save DD from a protoculture super weapon anyway.

The biggest problem I see with trying to use the tail fin as some sort of shield is that it *might* save the mech, but you'll probably loose the tail fins which ould drastically decrease the usability of fighter mode if not completely restrict the mech to battroid/Gerwalk.

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, but if you didn't sacrifice the tailfins, then you've lost the arm(s) in battroid--making IT useless. Kinda gotta pick which mode you want to save. Of course, if you lose the TORSO in battroid because you didn't use the tailfins as shields, you've lost everything...

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

Yeah, but if you didn't sacrifice the tailfins, then you've lost the arm(s) in battroid--making IT useless. Kinda gotta pick which mode you want to save. Of course, if you lose the TORSO in battroid because you didn't use the tailfins as shields, you've lost everything...

My point exactly.

Anyway, not the end all be all, but definitely a point in the SV-51's favor that hadn't been commented on.

[anime52k8]

Yeah, but if you didn't sacrifice the tailfins, then you've lost the arm(s) in battroid--making IT useless. Kinda gotta pick which mode you want to save. Of course, if you lose the TORSO in battroid because you didn't use the tailfins as shields, you've lost everything...

My point was more that a combination Tailfin/shield will have a major draw back compared to a dedicated shield like the VF-11 or VF-19a. If either of those craft where to loose their shield, the effect on Fighter mode would be minimal.

[SchizophrenicMC]

My point was more that a combination Tailfin/shield will have a major draw back compared to a dedicated shield like the VF-11 or VF-19a. If either of those craft where to loose their shield, the effect on Fighter mode would be minimal.

But the shields of those VFs seem to take up a large part of the aft fuselage. Surely that'd affect aerodynamics, too.

I'm still Zero for the greater simplicity of design and lighter, apparently-cheaper airframe.

[Product9]

Can we get back to the VF-0 vs. the SV-51? Thank you. Come again.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Believe it or not, I forgot what thread I was in... that's what I get for posting on a mobile phone.

So, back OT (assuming I'm in the right thread here...): doesn't the VF-0 have the ability to use ECA in fighter mode due to surplus power from the turbofans? Does the -51 have this ability?

One thing that bothered me about the -51 was the naming convention for the weapons. Sounds like Kawamori tried to sound all Russian without actually knowing how they designate their weapons. Forgot the specifics - I'll edit this post when I get to a PC.

Oh, another thing for the Zero - it can have Ghosts on its back, the so-called Angel configuration. Made me wonder if it could jetison the Ghost as a remote weapon. Sorta like funnels from Gundam, except, you know, not stupid.

Here be my edit:

The SV-51's gunpod is named Gsh-371, according to Mr. March's brilliant M3. It is a 55mm gunpod with (I believe) one barrel. Now, the naming convention comes from other Russian cannons, ie the GSh-301 that is so prevalent in Russian fighters.

At first glance this looks savvy, but it's wrong. The GSh-301 (aka GSh-30-1) is a single barrel 30mm cannon designed by Gryazev-Shipunov. That's where the name comes from, Gryazev Shipunov-30mm, 1 barrel. This is how they are all named. GSh-6-23, GSh-6-30, etc. The name describes the weapon.

So, shouldn't the SV-51's gunpod's name be GSh-551? That would make a lot more sense.

This this really doesn't have much relevance to the argument. Just bugs me. Just like how it bugs me that in video games Gattling guns need time to 'spin up' before firing. People who make things need to read more books. Or at least Wikipedia...

Edited January 21, 2011 by Product9