The Newbie and Short Questions thread

[VF5SS]

Lets them use AMBAC to save on propellant

[GMANIFESS]

OK. Was there ever a tactical explanation for the mass production VF-1's (aka Cannon Fodder) to be that tan color instead of a traditional shade of aircraft grey? I know the reasons animation wise to distinguish between the heroes & the zeroes. But was there ever an 'technical' reason explained anywhere?

In my head i just figured the UN SPACY wanted a fighter color to distinguish itself differently from all the various fractured nations and since the new threat was extraterrestrial that low visibility/camoflague would probably be pointless.

[azrael]

OK. Was there ever a tactical explanation for the mass production VF-1's (aka Cannon Fodder) to be that tan color instead of a traditional shade of aircraft grey?

Nope. This is a cartoon about transforming airplanes. Why can't they be different colors? It's the same reason we have a white VFs with red strips. Or a blue VFs with white highlights. Or a grey/white commander VF with white skulls on black. This level of high visability doesn't make any sense and isn't suppose to.

[VF5SS]

VF-0A and VF-0D regular are the best cuz they're gray.

[VF-15 Banshee]

same reason why Star Wars has white X-Wings with red stripes.

[Seto Kaiba]

Erm, armaments and endurance (we don't have definite mission duration times) aside, there is one way: Engine output & sustained G loading.

[...]

Clearly, the VF-2SS is outmanoeuvred and out-accelerated.

An outcome that, I think, surprises nobody...

I'm going to guess then that the Valkyrie II's lack of advancement was probably due to the complacency of UN Spacy in the M2 timeline?

Eh? Lack of advancement? Engine output and g-force loadings aren't the only measures of technological advancement in Macross. The Valkyrie II and the other "DYRLverse" mecha are more advanced than the main Macross universe's mecha in some areas, and less so in others. For instance, while the main universe's VFs have far greater advances in engine output, their weapons technology has lagged behind compared to the Macross II mecha, which have advanced railgun tech to the point where they've outright replaced rotary gun pods, etc.. There are also a couple areas wherein technologies overlap, like a "smart" anti-g seat/frame with integrated controls, improvements to the transformation system that dramatically increase durability, etc.

Hopefully the resident MII experts will chime in on this at some point...

Better late than never, right? ^^; (It's been a hectic month.)

If memory serves, in the MII timeline, the VF-1 was basically considered sufficient. There were some upgrades over the years, namely the ~R series, which is in use in 2036. Pictures here: http://www.mahq.net/...s2036/index.htm

The VF-4 doesn't appear to have replaced the VF-1.

More or less, yeah... the Macross II universe's UN Spacy seems to have judged the VF-1 sufficient to continue in operation as a main VF during the reconstruction of Earth, serving alongside the VF-4 before eventually receiving a major overtechnology upgrade and becoming the VF-1 Kai (known also as the VF-1R "Refined Valkyrie" family). The VF-4 got a similar upgrade around the same time, which gave it a lot of new tech that'd eventually end up being developed further in VF-XX/VF-2 generation and show up on the Valkyrie II's space-optimized version. (Funnels becoming bits, etc.)

Eventually the VF-2SS is developed, but it doesn't get mass produced until the mid 2080's.

Actually... the VF-2SS wasn't developed until the early 2080s. Depending on how you want to split it, it's either the 4th or the 7th VF in Macross II's universe to see large-scale mass production. (It depends on whether you wanna count the refined versions as separate planes in their own right or variants of a basic platform... ie. whether the VF-1 and VF-1R, VF-4 and VF-4S, or VF-2S and VF-2SS are the same planes despite the significant changes in their hardware and airframe design. It's a lot like whether you wanna count the Hornet and Super Hornet as the same or separate planes.)

[Heron]

I would prefer to purchase MACROSS FRONTIER GALAXY TOUR FINAL IN BUDOKAN (Macross Frontier Live? ) DVD/Blu-Ray if possible rather than torrent. Do you have a recommended site for such a purchase?

[eugimon]

I wouldn't say that the mainline continuity is lagging behind MII in terms of weaponry. By 2059, the NUNS is fielding rail gun gunpods and beam weapon gunpods, they still have another 30 years to catch up with MII's, "my gun is so big that I need to have a blast shield for my face", weapons.

[Seto Kaiba]

I would prefer to purchase MACROSS FRONTIER GALAXY TOUR FINAL IN BUDOKAN (Macross Frontier Live? ) DVD/Blu-Ray if possible rather than torrent. Do you have a recommended site for such a purchase?

Sure thing. I've had consistently good experiences with HMV.co.jp's English side.

I wouldn't say that the mainline continuity is lagging behind MII in terms of weaponry. By 2059, the NUNS is fielding rail gun gunpods and beam weapon gunpods, they still have another 30 years to catch up with MII's, "my gun is so big that I need to have a blast shield for my face", weapons.

Actually, they're lagging pretty far behind Macross II's universe in both respects. The designated marksman railgun (SSL-9B Dragunov) used on the VF-171 and VF-25G in the Macross Frontier series isn't a true ("pure") railgun, its ammunition uses chemical cartridges to get the round moving and then accelerates it further with the linear driver in the barrel. Also, the Macross II universe had beam weapon gun pods as early as the 2030s, which were seen in the Macross II prequel game Macross: Eternal Love Song.

[eugimon]

Well, the yf-21 is sporting beam weapons in 2039 as well and the main continuity valks have a much wider variety of built in weapon systems including internal missile bays that the vf-2 lacks without it's SAP system

[Seto Kaiba]

Well, the yf-21 is sporting beam weapons in 2039 as well and the main continuity valks have a much wider variety of built in weapon systems including internal missile bays that the vf-2 lacks without it's SAP system

Erm... what? The YF-21 had beam weapons, yes... but not beam gun pods. If you check the Compendium (or anywhere else), you'll find that the YF-21's gun pods are listed as "Two external Howard/General GV-17L new standard cartridge-less gatling guns". Internal beam weapons weren't anything new when the YF-21 came out, that'd been a thing since the VF-4 in both universes. As far as internal missile bays, that's not really that advanced... its only indicative of the fact that the VF-19, VF-22, etc. are about twice the size of a VF-2SS.

EDIT: Pretty much the only type of built-in weapon main timeline Valks have that M2 ones don't is miniaturized converging beam guns, MDE weapons not counting because they're just different ammunition in an existing machine gun or an externally-mounted beam gun.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Seto Kaiba

[eugimon]

Erm... what? The YF-21 had beam weapons, yes... but not beam gun pods. If you check the Compendium (or anywhere else), you'll find that the YF-21's gun pods are listed as "Two external Howard/General GV-17L new standard cartridge-less gatling guns". Internal beam weapons weren't anything new when the YF-21 came out, that'd been a thing since the VF-4 in both universes. As far as internal missile bays, that's not really that advanced... its only indicative of the fact that the VF-19, VF-22, etc. are about twice the size of a VF-2SS.

I didn't say they were beam gunpods just that it had beam weapons. And while they weren't anything new, prior to the 21, beam weapons were nearly always limited in their usage while the 21 is shown using its beam weapons as a primary offensive weapon.

How long is the vf-2ss in fighter mode? I ask because MMM lists the vf-2ss as 14m in battroid while the yf-21 is 15.5m in battroid.

[Seto Kaiba]

I didn't say they were beam gunpods just that it had beam weapons. And while they weren't anything new, prior to the 21, beam weapons were nearly always limited in their usage while the 21 is shown using its beam weapons as a primary offensive weapon.

*cough* Um... remember that thing I just said about the VF-4 doing it first?

How long is the vf-2ss in fighter mode? I ask because MMM lists the vf-2ss as 14m in battroid while the yf-21 is 15.5m in battroid.

Yeah, the Valkyrie II's weird in that it goes against the usual convention of the battroid being shorter than the fighter is long. The Valkyrie II's 14m in battroid mode, and only 13.5m in fighter... a full 14m if you factor in the Super Armed Pack's big damn railgun.

[VF5SS]

Oh man, those rail guns sure did a lot of cool things like shoot bullets.

We've never seen that kind of capability from other Valkyrie weapons.

[Seto Kaiba]

Oh man, those rail guns sure did a lot of cool things like shoot bullets.

We've never seen that kind of capability from other Valkyrie weapons.

Oh, absolutely... we've never seen a gun pod in the main Macross universe that could do what the gun pods in Macross II do. Even the railgun on the VF-25G needs a propellant of some description to get the bullet moving, and almost all of the gun pods in the main Macross universe need a cartridge case to keep the whole affair together. Macross II's railguns need neither, reducing the materials requirements to manufacture ammunition and letting them operate without the limitations of a conventional gun... and opening up possibilities like significantly greater velocities than what can be achieved with chemical propellants, faster rates of fire, etc.

[VF5SS]

Does any of that come into play ever

ever?

[Seto Kaiba]

Does any of that come into play ever

ever?

Oh, absolutely it does. Just for starters, the practical advantages of railgun technology over conventional guns is an area being avidly explored by real national milities including the US Navy. It's also been a factor in the program histories multiple Macross mecha like the Monster destroids, the Defender EX, and was a factor in the (re)design of the Valkyrie II platform as a space-optimized variable fighter. In a limited fashion, it also comes into play in the VF-25G's choice of armament. (In the last case, the particular emphasis is on the increase in ballistic velocity over what chemical propellant can make possible and the resulting improvement in accuracy and penetration power, whereas the Valkyrie II's case is focused more on the excessive power that made it possible for a Valkyrie to pose a real threat to enemy ships without resorting to reaction ordinance.)

[VF5SS]

So

not at all

[eugimon]

So, okay, but going back to the original idea that the mainline valks are behind the MII valks in terms of firepower.

mainline valks have integrated offensive beam weapons, integrated missile delivery systems as well as PPB systems. And yeah, at 2059 their railgun tech isn't as advanced as the MII rail guns in 2089... I still don't see how that means that mainline valk weapons are behind the curve set by MII.

I mean, if you compare what the yf-29 is packing versus what the metal siren is packing, the 29 has far more unique weapon system... a heavy beam gunpod, two machine guns, the head mounted lasers, two beam cannons, the micro-missile launchers, the PPB knife... versus the MS's two gunpods and the two lasers...

[VF5SS]

I think my point is that in Macross II they never make a point to showing much of why the change in weaponry is better.

With Plus and 7, we get an idea of why each robot is better than its predecessor for the most part.

Or why Gamlin's new beam adapter works every time~

[Seto Kaiba]

mainline valks have integrated offensive beam weapons, integrated missile delivery systems as well as PPB systems. And yeah, at 2059 their railgun tech isn't as advanced as the MII rail guns in 2089... I still don't see how that means that mainline valk weapons are behind the curve set by MII.

Um, the Macross II: Lovers Again OVA is set in 2092, not 2089. I've been trying for a while now to track down which American-side entity originated the 2089 thing, and thus far the finger seems to be pointed squarely at US Renditions.

Anyhoo... I'm not denying that the Valkyries in the main Macross universe are, in most respects, more advanced than those of the Macross II parallel universe. What I'm saying is that engine power isn't the only metric for measuring technological advancement, and that the Macross II valks did have certain areas where they were more advanced than the VFs in the main universe. Both universes had integrated beam weapons turn up at the same time and on the same plane (the VF-4), while things like internalized micro-missile launchers aren't an indicator of technological progression so much as they're an indicator of simply having a larger airframe and thus more internal space. Things like pinpoint barriers, fold wave radar, and all of that jazz... heck yes, that's more advanced than what's on the Valkyrie II. Then again, there are areas where the Macross II valks have a leg-up on their counterparts: like the widespread use of railguns in place of conventional guns, every Valkyrie II being able to act as a mothership for drones rather than just recon variants, the much earlier emergence of those drone-support and beam rifle technologies, etc..

Skipping right to the moral of the story, the question of which timeline's Valkyries are superior depends largely on what criteria you're applying when you're judging what superiority means. As a result, it can easily go either way.

I mean, if you compare what the yf-29 is packing versus what the metal siren is packing, the 29 has far more unique weapon system... a heavy beam gunpod, two machine guns, the head mounted lasers, two beam cannons, the micro-missile launchers, the PPB knife... versus the MS's two gunpods and the two lasers...

Well, let's examine this in detail... the YF-29 has a beam rifle, two machine guns, two beam cannons, its internal micro-missile launchers, and a big damn knife. On the other hand, the VA-1SS has a pair of railguns, two laser cannons, two beam cannons, its internal micro-missile launchers, and what's essentially a big damn energy spear on one arm. All told, they're on pretty level ground in terms of dakka except for the question of missile capacity (the Durendal's lead is by about 36 missiles). Heck, their armament is surprisingly similar in terms of where it's placed on the airframe too, 'cept for the gunpods.

I think my point is that in Macross II they never make a point to showing much of why the change in weaponry is better.

With Plus and 7, we get an idea of why each robot is better than its predecessor for the most part.

Talk about a failure of context... Macross II is a six-episode OVA about a war, while Macross Plus is a four-episode OVA exclusively about the development of new variable fighters, and Macross 7 is a 49+ episode TV series. That's not exactly a fair comparison to make. Macross II does discuss certain aspects of the technological improvements (e.g. railguns) in the published material, the same as Macross Plus and others do.

[sketchley]

while things like internalized micro-missile launchers aren't an indicator of technological progression so much as they're an indicator of simply having a larger airframe and thus more internal space.

Nope.

Internal micro-missile launchers and other weapon pallets (usually in the engine nacelles, used for such things as (non-micro) missile launchers, gun pod storage, etc), is a sign of interest in stealthiness.

This is backed up by official setting information. It's also a trend that started in the VF-4 and is not indicative of enlarged air-frames per se. Micronization of things like engines, perhaps.

[VF5SS]

Talk about a failure of context... Macross II is a six-episode OVA about a war, while Macross Plus is a four-episode OVA exclusively about the development of new variable fighters, and Macross 7 is a 49+ episode TV series. That's not exactly a fair comparison to make. Macross II does discuss certain aspects of the technological improvements (e.g. railguns) in the published material, the same as Macross Plus and others do.

I don't think you understand good storytelling.

Cuz a robit having kewl new stuff is worthless without the story to back it up.

Sorry.

[eugimon]

Um, the Macross II: Lovers Again OVA is set in 2092, not 2089. I've been trying for a while now to track down which American-side entity originated the 2089 thing, and thus far the finger seems to be pointed squarely at US Renditions.

Anyhoo... I'm not denying that the Valkyries in the main Macross universe are, in most respects, more advanced than those of the Macross II parallel universe. What I'm saying is that engine power isn't the only metric for measuring technological advancement, and that the Macross II valks did have certain areas where they were more advanced than the VFs in the main universe. Both universes had integrated beam weapons turn up at the same time and on the same plane (the VF-4), while things like internalized micro-missile launchers aren't an indicator of technological progression so much as they're an indicator of simply having a larger airframe and thus more internal space. Things like pinpoint barriers, fold wave radar, and all of that jazz... heck yes, that's more advanced than what's on the Valkyrie II. Then again, there are areas where the Macross II valks have a leg-up on their counterparts: like the widespread use of railguns in place of conventional guns, every Valkyrie II being able to act as a mothership for drones rather than just recon variants, the much earlier emergence of those drone-support and beam rifle technologies, etc..

Skipping right to the moral of the story, the question of which timeline's Valkyries are superior depends largely on what criteria you're applying when you're judging what superiority means. As a result, it can easily go either way.

Okay, well you're going to have to get Mr. March to update his MII information then! But yeah, I accept that MII and the mainline have pretty divergent evolutionary paths for how the technology advances... I'm just saying that given there's 30+ years between when frontier takes place and when MII takes place, it's a little premature to say that the mainline is lagging.

[anime52k8]

like the widespread use of railguns in place of conventional guns,

I'm still not fallowing why that's an improvement. I mean, the logic behind a railgun is that it lets you throw projectiles at higher valocities which means greater acuracy, longer range and more kinetic energy on delivery. All this of course comes at the cost of the need for huge amounts of power available all at once, thereby requireing very powerful generators and large capasitors. You're reducing the size of your ammo but your negating that savings buy increasing the bulk of the weapon itself, and I fail to see how you're going to increase rates of fire when you have to charge a battery between each shot fired.

I can see how this makes sense on a heavy gun like the main gun of the SAP pack, where you've got a massive backpack plugged directly into the airframe and you're shooting single shots at large, slow moveing targets. What I don't see is any way this is going to be advantageus as a short range, volume fire weapon (i.e. a gunpod) over using propelent based systems.

Edited January 28, 2012 by anime52k8

[Seto Kaiba]

Internal micro-missile launchers and other weapon pallets (usually in the engine nacelles, used for such things as (non-micro) missile launchers, gun pod storage, etc), is a sign of interest in stealthiness.

Naturally. All I said was that the presence of internal launcher systems and/or ordinance stowage space is not, in and of itself, representative of any sweeping technological advancement. It can, as you've pointed out, be a function of technological advancement in other areas (passive stealth, for instance), but it can also just as easily not be a factor at all... like how improvements in active stealth on the VF-19 eliminated the need to keep the plane's weapons close to or completely inside the airframe (the Super Pack being the particular focus of that remark).

(In general terms, you're absolutely right... I'm just being very specific.)

Okay, well you're going to have to get Mr. March to update his MII information then! But yeah, I accept that MII and the mainline have pretty divergent evolutionary paths for how the technology advances... I'm just saying that given there's 30+ years between when frontier takes place and when MII takes place, it's a little premature to say that the mainline is lagging.

Oy... now that is a tall order. I've been trying to corner him for a while now to talk updates, but we keep missing each other like ships in the night. I'm loathe to do any updates without him, since my art-fu is weak and M3 is his baby. I know the 2092 thing is up there, and has been for a while, but I've got a boatload of material for the Macross II section and I'm slowly accumulating a pile of art stock and material to go into the Macross Frontier movie area and a little stuff that's tentatively for Game and Advanced Valkyrie. It's just a matter of catching him. (Anyone wanna loan me a really big net?)

Macross II... yeah, that's a timeline that wildly diverges from where the main timeline is. The influence of Gundam is much stronger and rather more overt and conspicuous there. I had a couple LOL moments reading B-Club 73 and seeing that some of the technological advances which were built into the Valkyrie II family (VF-XX, VF-2A/J/S, VF-2SS, VF-2JA) would probably sound suspiciously familiar to our boy Amuro Ray. No doubt it has lots and lots to do with Macross II's mechanical designers having largely come from Gundam projects like Zeta Gundam and Char's Counterattack. (It's even more blatant if you look at how Chronicle dates it, with Macross II set in what would be "New Era" 0079-0080.)

I'm still not fallowing why that's an improvement. I mean, the logic behind a railgun is that it lets you throw projectiles at higher valocities which means greater acuracy, longer range and more kinetic energy on delivery. All this of course comes at the cost of the need for huge amounts of power available all at once, thereby requireing very powerful generators and large capasitors. You're reducing the size of your ammo but your negating that savings buy increasing the bulk of the weapon itself, and I fail to see how you're going to increase rates of fire when you have to charge a battery between each shot fired.

You'd be absolutely bang-on accurate with your counterargument here if it weren't for one little thing... you're assuming that these railguns are using internal batteries as their power source. True, a railgun is going to need huge amounts of energy to achieve a level of accuracy, range, and lethality exceeding that of a more conventional cannon, but energy is one commodity that the Valkyrie II has in spades. It's one of only two VFs in Macross to have a stated reactor output, the other being the VF-1, and that output is huge. Each of its two main reaction turbines has a power output that's just shy of 2,000MW... and since the Valkyries in the "DYRLverse" are armored with ersatz-Gundarium instead of a combination of composite armor and energy conversion armor*, all of that output is free for things like flight and weaponry.

So, when your power source is external and frankly excessive, you can achieve the greater destructive potential without having to make the gun pod unmanagably large or aggressively curtailing the magazine capacity to make room for large capacitor banks.

EDIT: * It occured to me to clarify this only after I had posted. Macross Chronicle's glossary section asserts that energy conversion armor doesn't exist in the Macross II universe. It's not that they're voluntarily not using it, it's that it flat-out doesn't exist.

I can see how this makes sense on a heavy gun like the main gun of the SAP pack, where you've got a massive backpack plugged directly into the airframe and you're shooting single shots at large, slow moveing targets. What I don't see is any way this is going to be advantageus as a short range, volume fire weapon (i.e. a gunpod) over using propelent based systems.

As a brief aside, the notion of supplying power from an external source for a particularly energy-intensive gun pod isn't unique to Macross II's parallel universe. IIRC, that's how the VF-0's gun pod motor was powered, and the equipment for the YF-27-5 prototype from Macross the Ride makes it look very probable that the VF-27's gun pod is also powered by a tap into the mecha's four engines. (In that case, it's also highly probable that the SSL-9 railgun used by the VF-25 is powering its linear driver off the mecha's engines too.)

Edited January 28, 2012 by Seto Kaiba

[frothymug]

Last I checked, railguns need something to accelerate to ultra high speeds. Are they not accelerating depleted-uranium slugs of some sort? Just checking, in case there's something that says there is no physical object needed and it's just pure energy-based.

[Seto Kaiba]

Last I checked, railguns need something to accelerate to ultra high speeds. Are they not accelerating depleted-uranium slugs of some sort? Just checking, in case there's something that says there is no physical object needed and it's just pure energy-based.

Well, yeah... that's true. I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise. The chief advantage(s) of a railgun are that accelerating a kinetic round using electromagnetic force frees the weapon from the limitations imposed by conventional technologies like chemical or pneumatic propellant. With a railgun, you can accelerate a kinetic round to much greater velocities, the practical upshot of which is that (all other things being equal) you get longer effective ranges, greater stopping power, and tighter accuracy. As a side benefit, the materials requirement to produce ammunition are decreased, as you only need the actual projectile... not the projectile, a chemical propellant, a primer, and a cartridge case to hold it together, which is accompanied by a reduction in the weapon's mechanical complexity since it wouldn't need to extract and eject spent cartridge cases. The downsides to railgun tech (in the real world) are the sizable energy requirements needed to one-up chemical propellants (not an issue in this case) and the need for a suitably high strength material for the accelerator rails so they can stand up to repeated high-energy firings (also probably not an issue in this case).

EDIT: There's also the question of greater recoil forces generated by those higher velocities, but the defense industry in Macross II seems to have that under control too.

Sources for Macross II: Lovers Again don't describe the ammunition used in the ubiquitous railguns of the series, though the SSL-9B Dragunov rifle from Macross Frontier is described a using an ultra-hard metal-jacketed alloy bullet.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Seto Kaiba

[sketchley]

Naturally. All I said was that the presence of internal launcher systems and/or ordinance stowage space is not, in and of itself, representative of any sweeping technological advancement. It can, as you've pointed out, be a function of technological advancement in other areas (passive stealth, for instance), but it can also just as easily not be a factor at all... like how improvements in active stealth on the VF-19 eliminated the need to keep the plane's weapons close to or completely inside the airframe (the Super Pack being the particular focus of that remark).

(In general terms, you're absolutely right... I'm just being very specific.)

My focus was the dimensions of the airframe:

VF-1: 14.78 m

VF-5000: 14.03

Indicative of interest in stealthiness, yes, but also strongly implying developments in the micronization of engine and other internal systems. Something that hasn't apparently occurred in the MII timeline (ie: more engine power from something smaller in size).

You've indicated that the MII engines have an increased power (MW) generation capability, but not necessarily more thrust nor a reduction in engine size.

Edited January 29, 2012 by sketchley

[frothymug]

Right. That's what I thought, anyway. I basically had to point that out to object to the argument that "railguns don't need to carry ammo packs." I was more or less wondering if they were just going to "magic" that away with some kind of technical explanation using the technology in the Macross universe.

I mean, look at the Macross cannons. They're essentially designed to collect, collimate, direct, and discharge enormous amounts of super-dimensional energy. IIRC, the Dragunov helps dispel the recoil forces by redirecting it into super-dimensional space. That's also how the ISC system works.

But, like you said, they haven't actually explained that part. We can only speculate at this point.

[Seto Kaiba]

Indicative of interest in stealthiness, yes, but also strongly implying developments in the micronization of engine and other internal systems. Something that hasn't apparently occurred in the MII timeline (ie: more engine power from something smaller in size).

You've indicated that the MII engines have an increased power (MW) generation capability, but not necessarily more thrust nor a reduction in engine size.

Only in that one isolated case, really... and even then, the change in engine size isn't something that was really a function of the internalized micro-missile weapons. IINM, the VF-5000's engine isn't all that much smaller than a VF-1's, nor is it any better than the higher-tuned version of the FF-2001 in the VF-1S.

As to the miniaturization of the engine tech, that's hard to say whether it's been done or not in the Macross II universe. If they'd given the thrust rating and/or energy output for the Valkyrie II's sub-engine systems (the two smaller, dorsally-mounted engines) then we could say something. It's been implied that their output is roughly comparable to that of a VF-1, but I have yet to find a source that either corroborates that lone implication or says it flat-out, so I'm unwilling to treat it as entirely reliable.

Right. That's what I thought, anyway. I basically had to point that out to object to the argument that "railguns don't need to carry ammo packs." I was more or less wondering if they were just going to "magic" that away with some kind of technical explanation using the technology in the Macross universe.

Who was making that argument?

I mean, look at the Macross cannons. They're essentially designed to collect, collimate, direct, and discharge enormous amounts of super-dimensional energy. IIRC, the Dragunov helps dispel the recoil forces by redirecting it into super-dimensional space. That's also how the ISC system works.

Has that actually been established somewhere, about the Dragunov? If so, I'd dearly love to know where. Throw a writer a bone?

Also, the ISC system doesn't, IIRC, actually dissipate the g-forces into super dimension space... it just temporarily displaces the g-forces beyond a certain safe level and returns them to the airframe in a controlled manner that won't turn the pilot into a tight bag full of chunky human soup like what happened to Guld.

[VF-15 Banshee]

Well, I think that pretty much answers my question about the VF-2SS and the VF-25.

[Seto Kaiba]

Well, I think that pretty much answers my question about the VF-2SS and the VF-25.

Glad someone got something outta this mess...

[sketchley]

Only in that one isolated case, really...

Dude, if you're going to base your arguments on the "one isolated incident" that MII is and it's limited portrayal of technology, then you can't use it against others to dismiss their arguments 'cuz you've effectively negated yours. Dude.

Edited January 30, 2012 by sketchley

[VF-15 Banshee]

I'm still a little fuzzy on how fold quartz works. Can anyone use it to broadcast thoughts/emotions? Is there enough of it left to make super fold drives common?