AVF Upgrade Candidates

[Valkyrie Driver]

Because I like it that much.

I guess that's fair. I kinda was hoping for something a bit more, I guess. I mean what does the VF-5000 offer that the VF-11 doesn't?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[Sildani]

Honestly, it's the design. Lovely and streamlined and lithe, it's the only delta wing Kawamori did until the just-revealed SV-262. It transforms into a sturdy looking Battroid, and that transformation combines the best parts of the VF-1 and VF-19 (no uniboob). I just like it a bit more than the 11. It looks more advanced, even if it's not.

[anime52k8]

Sometimes I almost feel bad for how little I like the VF-5000 compared to everyone else. I don't hate it by any means, but it just doesn't capture my interest the way it seems to for other people.

[Seto Kaiba]

I guess that's fair. I kinda was hoping for something a bit more, I guess. I mean what does the VF-5000 offer that the VF-11 doesn't?

Technologically... nothing. Aesthetically? If you like blended-wing designs, the VF-5000 is practically guaranteed to be your 8,300kg, 14m long cup of tea.

Honestly, it's the design. Lovely and streamlined and lithe, it's the only delta wing Kawamori did until the just-revealed SV-262. It transforms into a sturdy looking Battroid, and that transformation combines the best parts of the VF-1 and VF-19 (no uniboob). I just like it a bit more than the 11. It looks more advanced, even if it's not.

The only delta-wing Kawamori did prior to the Sv-262? So... we're just not counting the VF-4, VF-11MAXL, VF-17, VB-6, VF-0C/D, VF-171, YF-24, and YF-30?

(Those are, respectively, a modified cranked arrow, clipped delta, sawtooth delta, ogival delta, clipped delta, sawtooth delta, clipped delta, and clipped delta.)

Edited October 30, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[Sildani]

My apologies. The 5000 has been the only one for so long, my brain didn't catch up. I've honestly never considered the 17 or 171 as deltas. Not that they're not, but they seem to be a blended wing/body more than anything else. Even a lifting body. Or I'm insane.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Sildani

[dna]

I guess that's fair. I kinda was hoping for something a bit more, I guess. I mean what does the VF-5000 offer that the VF-11 doesn't?

It's a good solid design in every mode, doesn't rely on magic folding frontier chest, and has a good 1980's vibe. To me it looks like the updated VF-1.

[anime52k8]

I still say the VF-3000 is a much better, cooler updated VF-1 than the VF-5000.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Honestly, it's the design. Lovely and streamlined and lithe, it's the only delta wing Kawamori did until the just-revealed SV-262. It transforms into a sturdy looking Battroid, and that transformation combines the best parts of the VF-1 and VF-19 (no uniboob). I just like it a bit more than the 11. It looks more advanced, even if it's not.

It does look pretty.

[Mommar]

I still say the VF-3000 is a much better, cooler updated VF-1 than the VF-5000.

I'll take three of each, please.

[Valkyrie Driver]

First step to Micro Missiles?

[Valkyrie Driver]

So, I'm curious as to what information has been released about the next gen of variable fighters the VF-31 and the SV-262? Anybody have intel on these two?

[Seto Kaiba]

So, I'm curious as to what information has been released about the next gen of variable fighters the VF-31 and the SV-262? Anybody have intel on these two?

Nothing of significance at this time, no.

[Gubaba]

I'm not sure what AVF upgrade they could get, anyway... since they're already as AVF as they come.

[Mr March]

First step to Micro Missiles?

Missed this one the first time around. It's actually much smaller than a first generation micro-missile like those on the GBP-1S (which were 28 centimeters in diameter or 11 inches). A 2 kilometer range seems really impressive for something so small. I'd be very curious about the explosive yeild on this weapon.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I'm not sure what AVF upgrade they could get, anyway... since they're already as AVF as they come.

You're right they can't be upgraded, this thread has kind of become a general VF discussion, but I can't change the title (since I'm the OP) because it either won't let me, or I don't know how.

Missed this one the first time around. It's actually much smaller than a first generation micro-missile like those on the GBP-1S (which were 28 centimeters in diameter or 11 inches). A 2 kilometer range seems really impressive for something so small. I'd be very curious about the explosive yeild on this weapon.

It's an anti vehicle weapon so I imagine it's along the lines of what the 40mm HEDP round carries.

Other Micro missile technologies that are out there are the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) which is a laser guidance upgrade for the Hydra 70 rocket that works with current Hydra launchers.

Another one is the Direct Attack Guided Rocket (DAGR) which is compaitble with current hellfire systems. It offers a lock-on before launch capability that the APKWS lacks. I can't use hydra launch systems though.

The Hydra 70 is a 70mm (2.75 inch) folding fin aerial rocket for those of you who might not be familiar with it. Standard US unguided rocket.

For comparison's sake, the FIM-92 stinger is 5 ft long, and 5 inches in diameter. Fully capable of bringing down any aircraft (provided you can get it to lock on).

All of this info is available on wikipedia, just so you don't think that this is all classified or something.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[Valkyrie Driver]

So, how does anyone think the VF-19C/D would stack up against the VF-31 or SV-262?

[kajnrig]

I have a question: What does "Advanced Variable Fighter" entail?

My first guess is taking an old design and modernizing materials/capabilities to modern specs (specifically those of the two competitors in the Super Nova Project).

My second guess is a "2.0" Super Nova Project, where the next generation of VF tech is invented with the added stipulation that said tech must be implemented in existing VF designs.

If the first, then I have a follow-up question: Haven't VFs from the Messiah on already surpassed the specs of the YF-19/21? My heart says no but my mind says possibly if not likely.

If the second, then I'd say the 17 just because I want it back to its original cool bulky self. Certainly NOT the 19 or 21, because they're default forever top-tier for all time amirite.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I have a question: What does "Advanced Variable Fighter" entail?

Kind of an evolving definition, since new tech gets added with every new installment. Currently, AVF is referring to the Current generation of Advanced Variable Fighter, the VF-31 and SV-262. However this thread started before delta so frontier era high performers were the standard. However, at that point, we definitively said that the YF-19/21 standard was the only real attainable standard since some technologies could not be integrated into older airframes (ISC, PPB generators and the like). However this thread sort of morphed into a general VF-discussion thread.

My first guess is taking an old design and modernizing materials/capabilities to modern specs (specifically those of the two competitors in the Super Nova Project).

That's what the original intent was yes.

My second guess is a "2.0" Super Nova Project, where the next generation of VF tech is invented with the added stipulation that said tech must be implemented in existing VF designs.

That's what this thread became.

If the first, then I have a follow-up question: Haven't VFs from the Messiah on already surpassed the specs of the YF-19/21? My heart says no but my mind says possibly if not likely.

In terms of engineering and numbers, yes. More thrust, less weight, inertial dampening mechanisms, and better avionics packages give the advantage to newer fighters. That's assuming pilots of similar skill and experience. If we look at the YF-19/21, they donated much to the current CF valk, the VF-171. However the Supernova valks can outperform the VF-171 due to better maneuverability, and better acceleration, due to higher thrust and lower weight. Versus the VF-25 or 29, the YF-19/21 would probably be outclassed. But then it boils down to armaments and tactics. The base YF-19 boasts superior firepower than the base VF-25, and the VF-25 is heavily reliant on super packs to carry extra armament, while the Y/VF-19 is not. We know that the Y/VF-19 is nigh uncontrollable for all but the best pilots, and we also know that the VF-25A is a cannon fodder bird, which means the VF-25 is probably more controlled than the Y/VF-19A/B/C/D. At the end of the day, it's probably going to take someone with more knowledge than I have to decide this.

If the second, then I'd say the 17 just because I want it back to its original cool bulky self. Certainly NOT the 19 or 21, because they're default forever top-tier for all time amirite.

I do like the VF-17, and an AVF version would be cool. The VF-19C/D or VF-22S could definitely use certain upgrades, like EX-gear, to really bring out the full potential of the airframes. Personally, I don't care for thee way the Frontier hero valks stow their wings, since it just makes them look top heavy and unfinished, given how cleanly things stowed on previous designs.

I hope that answers your questions!

[Seto Kaiba]

I have a question: What does "Advanced Variable Fighter" entail?

My first guess is taking an old design and modernizing materials/capabilities to modern specs (specifically those of the two competitors in the Super Nova Project).

My second guess is a "2.0" Super Nova Project, where the next generation of VF tech is invented with the added stipulation that said tech must be implemented in existing VF designs.

Originally, the term "Advanced Variable Fighter" referred to the 4th Generation craft which incorporated a number of technological advances including (but not necessarily limited to):

• The ARIEL airframe control AI
• Thermonuclear reaction burst turbine engines
• 3rd Generation active stealth systems
• Pin-point barrier defense systems
• Native support for fold boosters

Now, with 5th Generation designs on the table, the term should probably refer to any fighter which meets or exceeds those specs... as the new designs based on the YF-24 Evolution have generally surpassed the 4th Generation designs technologically and in raw performance.

If the first, then I have a follow-up question: Haven't VFs from the Messiah on already surpassed the specs of the YF-19/21? My heart says no but my mind says possibly if not likely.

If the second, then I'd say the 17 just because I want it back to its original cool bulky self. Certainly NOT the 19 or 21, because they're default forever top-tier for all time amirite.

Yes, the 5th Generation VFs developed from the YF-24 Evolution specs (e.g. VF-25, VF-27) have already exceeded the specs of the YF/VF-19 and YF-21/VF-22 by a fairly significant margin. Thrust-to-weight ratios and overall engine output more than doubled from the 4th to 5th Generation, the new inertia store converter protects the pilots from the excessive g-force loads that could cause them to lose control of the aircraft (or worse), generator output increased to the point where they can operate energy conversion armor in fighter mode in part or in full, some areas of the airframe adopted the new enhanced energy conversion armor, etc.

However the Supernova valks can outperform the VF-171 due to better maneuverability, and better acceleration, due to higher thrust and lower weight.

Yes, but that excessive maneuverability and acceleration is also their achilles heel, because it exceeds the tolerances of all but the best pilots... which is why the VF-19 and VF-22 got scrubbed and the more versatile VF-171 got the Next Main Fighter job. All that performance is worthless if you can't control it, and most pilots couldn't.

Versus the VF-25 or 29, the YF-19/21 would probably be outclassed. But then it boils down to armaments and tactics. The base YF-19 boasts superior firepower than the base VF-25, and the VF-25 is heavily reliant on super packs to carry extra armament, while the Y/VF-19 is not. We know that the Y/VF-19 is nigh uncontrollable for all but the best pilots, and we also know that the VF-25A is a cannon fodder bird, which means the VF-25 is probably more controlled than the Y/VF-19A/B/C/D. At the end of the day, it's probably going to take someone with more knowledge than I have to decide this.

Massively so... the VF-19 or VF-22 would not be able to keep pace with a 5th Gen VF because their pilots aren't insulated against the extreme g-forces, so their maneuverability and acceleration is comparatively handicapped vs. a fighter that already outclasses them in pretty much every way.

WRT the VF-19 boasting superior firepower... where's that comin' from? Depending on whether you trust Master File or not, the VF-25 either has the same number of pylons or two additional ones, its gunpod is substantially more powerful (so much so that VF-19s need their arms reinforced to use it), and it has the name number of fixed-forward guns. They're on roughly the same level there... though the VF-25 may have a slight advantage in that it can keep all of its hung weapons while transforming, and its gun pod is a good deal more potent. I'd expect even a CF VF-25A to take a VF-19 to the cleaners in a serious fight, considering the YF-24 the VF-25 was based on was noted for having won handily in a 12-on-1 simulated dogfight vs. a mixed group of VF-19's and 22's.

I do like the VF-17, and an AVF version would be cool. The VF-19C/D or VF-22S could definitely use certain upgrades, like EX-gear, to really bring out the full potential of the airframes. Personally, I don't care for thee way the Frontier hero valks stow their wings, since it just makes them look top heavy and unfinished, given how cleanly things stowed on previous designs.

In most respects, the VF-17 is already a partial AVF upgrade in its -D and -S variants. It didn't get the ARIEL system or a pinpoint barrier, but it did end up inheriting the thermonuclear reaction burst turbine engine technology and fold booster compatibility. The VF-171 derived from it took it the rest of the way.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Yes, but that excessive maneuverability and acceleration is also their achilles heel, because it exceeds the tolerances of all but the best pilots... which is why the VF-19 and VF-22 got scrubbed and the more versatile VF-171 got the Next Main Fighter job. All that performance is worthless if you can't control it, and most pilots couldn't.

The tone of my comments up to this point were discussing raw numbers. Strictly speaking I'm not wrong, but you're right I did not explicitly state that the superior performance was also the greatest shortcoming.

Massively so... the VF-19 or VF-22 would not be able to keep pace with a 5th Gen VF because their pilots aren't insulated against the extreme g-forces, so their maneuverability and acceleration is comparatively handicapped vs. a fighter that already outclasses them in pretty much every way.

If you'll note that the Me-262 outclassed the P-51 on paper, yet the P-51 accounted for a number of kills against that aircraft despite being "inferior". Perhaps that was the talent and training of the pilots, but we'll never really know. If you could take 2 identical pilots and pit them against each other, I'm sure the superior technology would determine the winner. However if we were to take 2 pilots in their respective machines, say Isamu vs Alto, I'd bet my money on Isamu and the YF-19.

WRT the VF-19 boasting superior firepower... where's that comin' from? Depending on whether you trust Master File or not, the VF-25 either has the same number of pylons or two additional ones, its gunpod is substantially more powerful (so much so that VF-19s need their arms reinforced to use it), and it has the name number of fixed-forward guns. They're on roughly the same level there... though the VF-25 may have a slight advantage in that it can keep all of its hung weapons while transforming, and its gun pod is a good deal more potent. I'd expect even a CF VF-25A to take a VF-19 to the cleaners in a serious fight, considering the YF-24 the VF-25 was based on was noted for having won handily in a 12-on-1 simulated dogfight vs. a mixed group of VF-19's and 22's.

I should have stated that I was comparing internal armaments. We don't know what the Y/VF-19 had in terms of gun, it could have been a 57mm 5 barrel cannon for all we know. We don't get a good look at the ammo in scale with a person to really tell. The 19 simply has a larger internal weapons load, with the ability to mount 2 pallets of missiles in the leg bays as well as the root mounted guns and gunpod. As shown in animation the VF-25 is outgunned by the 19, as long as were talking base craft. Ever so slightly, but there it is.

[Seto Kaiba]

The tone of my comments up to this point were discussing raw numbers. Strictly speaking I'm not wrong, but you're right I did not explicitly state that the superior performance was also the greatest shortcoming.

Context is ever-vital in comparisons like those. Having fantastic maneuverability and acceleration is all to the good, but if you can't actually maintain control of the craft under those conditions then it really avails you nothing.

The VF-171 Nightmare Plus is one we have to be extremely careful about comparisons with, because not only are there enhanced variants kicking around (VF-171EX) that rival VF-19 performance but there are also supposed to be loads of local variations in the specs on that aircraft. The VF-171's used by Colony Fleet X may not have the same performance as Planet Y's or Patrol Fleet Z's, and the fighter's long service lifespan and the upgrade potential that entails only muddies the waters further. We could potentially have differences every bit as severe as the VF-17A vs. VF-17D, or VF-19A vs. VF-19 Custom.

If you could take 2 identical pilots and pit them against each other, I'm sure the superior technology would determine the winner. However if we were to take 2 pilots in their respective machines, say Isamu vs Alto, I'd bet my money on Isamu and the YF-19.

It's an article of faith in Macross that a superior pilot can make up a LOT of the distance between two Valkyrie in performance terms, but if we're comparing we ought to assume two pilots of equal talent.

Mind you, I'd probably bet on Alto on the basis of the 25's better armor, weapons, and active stealth system... he could probably tank quite a few more shots than Isamu could because of those differences.

I should have stated that I was comparing internal armaments. We don't know what the Y/VF-19 had in terms of gun, it could have been a 57mm 5 barrel cannon for all we know.

You mean the gun pod? That's not internal, but while we don't know its caliber we do know that the difference in firepower vs. the VF-25's GU-17A was so severe that VF-19's needed their arms reinforced to be able to fire it without damaging themselves (per Macross R).

In terms of actual internal guns, the VF-25's got an edge there with a pair of ROV-25 beam machine guns vs. the VF-19's pair of REB-23 laser cannons.

The 19 simply has a larger internal weapons load, with the ability to mount 2 pallets of missiles in the leg bays as well as the root mounted guns and gunpod. As shown in animation the VF-25 is outgunned by the 19, as long as were talking base craft. Ever so slightly, but there it is.

If we're only counting internally-mounted weapons that's one thing, but the VF-25's better active stealth system means it doesn't take a hit to its stealthiness carrying hung ordinance the way the VF-19 does (which was the reason for the internal bays). Your criteria for comparison are only realistic operating conditions for one of the two aircraft in question.

Mind you, the VF-25 is only one of several 5th Generation VFs... and it's easily the most lightly armed of the lot because a lot of its firepower is tied up in FAST packs. Against the VF-27, YF-29, YF-30, or VF-31 it'd be a MUCH different story on internal weaponry only.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Context is ever-vital in comparisons like those. Having fantastic maneuverability and acceleration is all to the good, but if you can't actually maintain control of the craft under those conditions then it really avails you nothing.

I agree. You'll get no argument from me on that point.

The VF-171 Nightmare Plus is one we have to be extremely careful about comparisons with, because not only are there enhanced variants kicking around (VF-171EX) that rival VF-19 performance but there are also supposed to be loads of local variations in the specs on that aircraft. The VF-171's used by Colony Fleet X may not have the same performance as Planet Y's or Patrol Fleet Z's, and the fighter's long service lifespan and the upgrade potential that entails only muddies the waters further. We could potentially have differences every bit as severe as the VF-17A vs. VF-17D, or VF-19A vs. VF-19 Custom.

That's certainly true, and I had not taken that into account.

It's an article of faith in Macross that a superior pilot can make up a LOT of the distance between two Valkyrie in performance terms, but if we're comparing we ought to assume two pilots of equal talent.

Yes it is. I did also state that we usually made comparisons assuming similar pilots.

That's assuming pilots of similar skill and experience.

Mind you, I'd probably bet on Alto on the basis of the 25's better armor, weapons, and active stealth system... he could probably tank quite a few more shots than Isamu could because of those differences.

I don't know, Isamu is ruthless, something I wouldn't ascribe to Alto. I also believe that Isamu's familiarity with his air frame, and his combat experience, coupled with his ruthless style (he likes to go for the kill shot), and quick tactical thinking would allow him to beat Alto, despite the technology gap. But that's a conversation for another thread.

You mean the gun pod? That's not internal, but while we don't know its caliber we do know that the difference in firepower vs. the VF-25's GU-17A was so severe that VF-19's needed their arms reinforced to be able to fire it without damaging themselves (per Macross R).

True it's not internal, but it isn't exactly considered optional equipment for a VF. As for the difference in firepower, well, all we can say is that the GU-17 gun generates more recoil, but that doesn't correspond to more destructive force. Of the two guns we're only given a muzzle velocity for the GU-15 unit. Unless you have a source that states the GU-17's performance. The greater recoil of the GU-17 very likely could be the result of the GU-17 being a substantially lighter pod than the GU-15. After all, less mass means less inertia, which means more force will be transferred in the opposing reaction. It could very well be that the guns have similar damage profiles, hell it could be the same gun in side the pod, and the shell and support mechanisms are the determining factor for the need to reinforce the VF-19 arms to handle the GU-17 pod. Fact is we don't know.

In terms of actual internal guns, the VF-25's got an edge there with a pair of ROV-25 beam machine guns vs. the VF-19's pair of REB-23 laser cannons.

Well, which packs more damage output per shot? And which has the Higher rate of fire? Is rof sufficient to offset lower damage output? Higher rof means higher probability of hit but more damage means higher probability of kill. Do we have the sufficient data to make that call?

If we're only counting internally-mounted weapons that's one thing, but the VF-25's better active stealth system means it doesn't take a hit to its stealthiness carrying hung ordinance the way the VF-19 does (which was the reason for the internal bays). Your criteria for comparison are only realistic operating conditions for one of the two aircraft in question.

Granted, the VF-25 can hide it's external stores (hung ordnance, btw, means ordnance that failed to separate, and is a bad thing. The phrase external stores is used to indicate expendable munitions on wing mounted pylons. That's just FYI, as the phrase hung ordnance usually indicates the increased potential for a life threatening mishap), better given the active stealth. Thing is, that really helps BVR, not so much if the fighter can be seen. As long as the sensors are using the electromagnetic spectrum to sense targets, the closer you are the more accurate the sensor, due to decreased attenuation, and that increases the probability for a lock. Also, the gun doesn't need to get a lock, it's a pretty simple point and click interface.

Mind you, the VF-25 is only one of several 5th Generation VFs... and it's easily the most lightly armed of the lot because a lot of its firepower is tied up in FAST packs. Against the VF-27, YF-29, YF-30, or VF-31 it'd be a MUCH different story on internal weaponry only.

Very true. The YF-29 absolutely trounces the Y/VF-19 on weapon count. But then the VF-27, YF-29, and YF-30 all have different mission profiles from the Y/VF-19 and VF-25.

[Seto Kaiba]

I don't know, Isamu is ruthless, something I wouldn't ascribe to Alto. I also believe that Isamu's familiarity with his air frame, and his combat experience, coupled with his ruthless style (he likes to go for the kill shot), and quick tactical thinking would allow him to beat Alto, despite the technology gap. But that's a conversation for another thread.

I don't know if I'd call Isamu ruthless... he's a thrill-seeker, but that's about all.

If we were to accept Macross 30's story as evidence, it seems a safe bet that Isamu in a YF-19/VF-19A wouldn't be a match for a capable enemy with a 5th Generation VF. (He upgraded to a YF-29 about 2/3 of the way through after getting spanked by a Guld and Brera co-op and losing an air race to the YF-30.)

True it's not internal, but it isn't exactly considered optional equipment for a VF. As for the difference in firepower, well, all we can say is that the GU-17 gun generates more recoil, but that doesn't correspond to more destructive force. Of the two guns we're only given a muzzle velocity for the GU-15 unit. Unless you have a source that states the GU-17's performance. The greater recoil of the GU-17 very likely could be the result of the GU-17 being a substantially lighter pod than the GU-15. After all, less mass means less inertia, which means more force will be transferred in the opposing reaction. It could very well be that the guns have similar damage profiles, hell it could be the same gun in side the pod, and the shell and support mechanisms are the determining factor for the need to reinforce the VF-19 arms to handle the GU-17 pod. Fact is we don't know.

Well, which packs more damage output per shot? And which has the Higher rate of fire? Is rof sufficient to offset lower damage output? Higher rof means higher probability of hit but more damage means higher probability of kill. Do we have the sufficient data to make that call?

I've not seen anything that would lead me to suspect that the GU-17A wasn't head and shoulders above the GU-15 in firepower... being that a main part of the reason the YF-24 program was carried forward was that it was felt that existing fighters didn't have a level of combat performance capable of opposing the Vajra. (Great Mechanics DX 9)

It's also said in Chronicle that the GU-17 is markedly larger than the previous models of gun pods, so assuming the materials stayed roughly comparable I would have a hard time buying that the greater recoil is down to the gun pod being lighter. In Macross R, when the SMS VF-19EF Caliburns were outfitted, the GU-17 was considered a not-insignificant upgrade from the standard issue GU-15 in Chelsea Scarlett's case.

Granted, the VF-25 can hide it's external stores, better given the active stealth. Thing is, that really helps BVR, not so much if the fighter can be seen. As long as the sensors are using the electromagnetic spectrum to sense targets, the closer you are the more accurate the sensor, due to decreased attenuation, and that increases the probability for a lock. Also, the gun doesn't need to get a lock, it's a pretty simple point and click interface.

Eh... there's some evidence to suggest it helps close range combat as well. Look back to Plus and how effective the YF-21's active stealth was against the VF-11B's radar. Made the YF-21 invisible to radar at a range of only a few plane lengths.

If we're talking a gunfight, that means the key advantages are maneuverability, defensive capability, and raw firepower... and that would tend to give the 5th Generation VFs a huge advantage by leading in all three categories considering they were designed to oppose enemies whose capabilities exceed the VF-19's in all respects. That greater agility, firepower, and armor is gonna pay big dividends up close. We already know the YF-24 Evolution prototype was capable of spanking a mixed unit of a dozen VF-19 and VF-22's with a capable pilot at the stick... that's kind of a ringing endorsement in its own right.

Very true. The YF-29 absolutely trounces the Y/VF-19 on weapon count. But then the VF-27, YF-29, and YF-30 all have different mission profiles from the Y/VF-19 and VF-25.

Strictly speaking, the VF-19 and VF-25 also have different mission profiles... the VF-19 (and VF-22) were developed for an orbit-to-surface strikes against the leadership of various anti-government forces (as Millard puts it in Plus when he introduces Isamu to the Project Super Nova group), while the VF-25 was created as the next general-purpose all-regime fighter with performance sufficient to oppose the Vajra.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I don't know if I'd call Isamu ruthless... he's a thrill-seeker, but that's about all.

We know he's tenacious, and yes he's a bit reckless, but he demonstrates an ability to "go for the throat", as evidenced by his fight with Guld that resulted in his injury. He was vicious in that fight, the damage to both machines was proof enough. Still, I can buy more reckless than ruthless.

If we were to accept Macross 30's story as evidence, it seems a safe bet that Isamu in a YF-19/VF-19A wouldn't be a match for a capable enemy with a 5th Generation VF. (He upgraded to a YF-29 about 2/3 of the way through after getting spanked by a Guld and Brera co-op and losing an air race to the YF-30.)

I'm not aware of anything that happens in M30, so I can't speak to any of that, so I was unaware of him upgrading to a YF-29. I still feel that an experienced combat pilot would figure out how to use the machine he was given to affect the best results in a dogfight, even against a superior machine.

I've not seen anything that would lead me to suspect that the GU-17A wasn't head and shoulders above the GU-15 in firepower... being that a main part of the reason the YF-24 program was carried forward was that it was felt that existing fighters didn't have a level of combat performance capable of opposing the Vajra. (Great Mechanics DX 9)

Combat performance include much more than armament. Still I can understand why you're saying the GU17A is more powerful, considering the threat that the gun was designed for. However we don't have enough information to determine exactly how much more powerful that gun might be, there is a point of diminishing returns with regards to caliber.

However, looking at this image it would appear that the GU15 cannon is a 30x173mm, similar to the GAU-8A, but that could just be anime scaling issues.

It's also said in Chronicle that the GU-17 is markedly larger than the previous models of gun pods, so assuming the materials stayed roughly comparable I would have a hard time buying that the greater recoil is down to the gun pod being lighter. In Macross R, when the SMS VF-19EF Caliburns were outfitted, the GU-17 was considered a not-insignificant upgrade from the standard issue GU-15 in Chelsea Scarlett's case.

As I've not got access to the chronicle or MtR, I don't have any of the information to draw from those sources. If it is explicitly stated that the GU-17A is a superior weapon, then I guess that settles it.

Eh... there's some evidence to suggest it helps close range combat as well. Look back to Plus and how effective the YF-21's active stealth was against the VF-11B's radar. Made the YF-21 invisible to radar at a range of only a few plane lengths.

I had forgotten that Isamu was inside visual range, but also let's not forget that the Supernova valks also integrated Passive stealth construction techniques, which may have aided in that effect. Also, that could have been an effect to make the story more interesting to the uninitiated viewer or a lack of understanding regarding electromagnetic sensors. Unless you have a source that explicitly states that the Supernova Valks were all but invisible to previous generation sensors.

If we're talking a gunfight, that means the key advantages are maneuverability, defensive capability, and raw firepower... and that would tend to give the 5th Generation VFs a huge advantage by leading in all three categories considering they were designed to oppose enemies whose capabilities exceed the VF-19's in all respects. That greater agility, firepower, and armor is gonna pay big dividends up close. We already know the YF-24 Evolution prototype was capable of spanking a mixed unit of a dozen VF-19 and VF-22's with a capable pilot at the stick... that's kind of a ringing endorsement in its own right.

Not necessarily, The MIG-15/17 had those in spades, and yet they were consistently defeated by heavier, faster, less maneuverable, US jets. I'm not saying that the Y/VF-19/A/B/C/D is faster, just that tactics and doctrine can make a huge difference as well. When you consider the conditions the YF-24 was likely tested in, the odds would have been heavily stacked in the YF-24's favor.

Strictly speaking, the VF-19 and VF-25 also have different mission profiles... the VF-19 (and VF-22) were developed for an orbit-to-surface strikes against the leadership of various anti-government forces (as Millard puts it in Plus when he introduces Isamu to the Project Super Nova group), while the VF-25 was created as the next general-purpose all-regime fighter with performance sufficient to oppose the Vajra.

That's certainly true. However of the VF-25, VF-27, YF-29, and YF-30, the 25 and 19 have the closest mission profile. Considering that the 19 was slated to be the next main variable fighter (though it didn't pan out).

So that leaves the question of whether or not the 19 or 22 series could be upgraded to be a viable (albeit cheaper) alternative to 5th gen Variable fighters. I know that the E/F/S variants were more controllable than the Y/VF-19/A/B/C/D and yet offered more thrust and maneuverability (unconfirmed), and outperform the known variants of the VF-171, how would that compare to 5th gen VF's?

[Seto Kaiba]

We know he's tenacious, and yes he's a bit reckless, but he demonstrates an ability to "go for the throat", as evidenced by his fight with Guld that resulted in his injury. He was vicious in that fight, the damage to both machines was proof enough. Still, I can buy more reckless than ruthless.

Well, yeah... he and Guld did a lot of reckless, irresponsible things and smashed up two very expensive prototypes, but those two had a serious grudge going on that went way, WAY beyond line of duty combat into at least one genuine attempt at premeditated murder. There was real hate there, which motivated them both to go a lot further than they normally would.

I'm not aware of anything that happens in M30, so I can't speak to any of that, so I was unaware of him upgrading to a YF-29. I still feel that an experienced combat pilot would figure out how to use the machine he was given to affect the best results in a dogfight, even against a superior machine.

He does OK in his YF-19 in Macross 30: Voices Across the Galaxy, but he does upgrade to a custom YF-29 (arguably the second best-looking DX of the YF-29, IMO) in one of the later chapters of the game when you go up against a Vajra Bishop-class ship and Sharon Apple.

An experienced pilot can make up a lot of the difference in technological performance if he's up against a less experienced enemy, but he was up against two pilots who are at least as talented as he is (Guld and Brera), one of whom was sporting the sizable tech advantage that is the VF-27. (Amusingly, the game actually puts the VF-171 higher on the tech tree than the VF-19 or VF-22.)

Combat performance include much more than armament. Still I can understand why you're saying the GU17A is more powerful, considering the threat that the gun was designed for. However we don't have enough information to determine exactly how much more powerful that gun might be, there is a point of diminishing returns with regards to caliber.

However, looking at this image it would appear that the GU15 cannon is a 30x173mm, similar to the GAU-8A, but that could just be anime scaling issues.

Powerful enough to exceed the design limits of the VF-19 is something impressive all on its own... that suggests a significantly more powerful weapon in the GU-17. Though muzzle velocity is only one factor, there's the larger round's greater explosive charge would also be a significant factor. Uniquely, of all gun pods, the GU-17 is the only one in which alternate types of ammo that offer superior penetrating power are mentioned. (More are mentioned for older models in Variable Fighter Master File.)

On VFs, the point of diminishing returns seems to hover right around 60mm, which is the single largest gun pod firing projectile shells (on the VA-3). (Bores above that seem to be the exclusive provenance of beam weapons, like the YF-27-5's 75mm beam rifle, or the Strike Valkyrie's 180mm beam cannons.

WRT the GU-15's caliber, I would expect it to be larger than 30mm... 30mm is the smallest caliber employed in a gun pod by the (New) UN Spacy, and the GU-15 is not exactly small. My theory is that it's likely a higher caliber than the 40mm cannon used by General Galaxy's VF-17. Possibly a return to 55mm, considering Master File suggests that the GU-15 actually holds fewer rounds than a GU-11 in each magazine.

I had forgotten that Isamu was inside visual range, but also let's not forget that the Supernova valks also integrated Passive stealth construction techniques, which may have aided in that effect. Also, that could have been an effect to make the story more interesting to the uninitiated viewer or a lack of understanding regarding electromagnetic sensors. Unless you have a source that explicitly states that the Supernova Valks were all but invisible to previous generation sensors.

The passive stealth construction explicitly helps, per Chronicle, as the YF-19 and YF-21's active stealth systems were not nearly as potent as those on the 2nd Mass Production Types, VF-171, or 5th Generation Valkyries. Still, Isamu has a crystal-clear picture of the YF-21 until the active stealth system goes live, at which point the fighter he's practically sitting on the tail of becomes a thing his radar insists doesn't exist.

Not necessarily, The MIG-15/17 had those in spades, and yet they were consistently defeated by heavier, faster, less maneuverable, US jets. I'm not saying that the Y/VF-19/A/B/C/D is faster, just that tactics and doctrine can make a huge difference as well. When you consider the conditions the YF-24 was likely tested in, the odds would have been heavily stacked in the YF-24's favor.

There are a lot of design differences that that's attributed to... one of which bears mentioning in that "heavier weapon" doesn't always mean "bigger shell". The MiG-15 and MiG-17 were laboring with low-velocity large-bore guns with a low rate of fire and very limited ammunition. Their western opponents were working with more numerous, higher-velocity guns with more rounds per gun.

WRT the test conditions, it's worth noting that the test was explicitly NOT designed by the manufacturer... it was designed and set up by the potential buyer (the New UN Spacy), so in all likelihood it was a fair test (or stacked slightly against the YF-24).

That's certainly true. However of the VF-25, VF-27, YF-29, and YF-30, the 25 and 19 have the closest mission profile. Considering that the 19 was slated to be the next main variable fighter (though it didn't pan out).

So that leaves the question of whether or not the 19 or 22 series could be upgraded to be a viable (albeit cheaper) alternative to 5th gen Variable fighters. I know that the E/F/S variants were more controllable than the Y/VF-19/A/B/C/D and yet offered more thrust and maneuverability (unconfirmed), and outperform the known variants of the VF-171, how would that compare to 5th gen VF's?

*shrug* Even so, if we compared them under their respective normal operating conditions, the VF-19 is going to be in a very bad place.

Oh that's no question at all... we know the answer to that one, courtesy of Great Mechanics.DX 9. The VF-19 can be upgraded to take an inertia store converter and EX-Gear cockpit system, though the far greater performance of the 5th Generation Valkyries in the face of the Vajra threat was considered justification for the extra cost of engineering a new fighter generation instead of using upgraded 4th Generation Valkyries. It's doubtful many VF-19's were upgraded that way, though, as the excess performance was simply not necessary for most foes (hence the VF-171) and the fleets that were headed into Vajra territory opted for the 5th Gen Valkyries because their performance was considered sufficient to rival the Vajra.

However, as the ISC is one of the more expensive parts of a 5th Generation VF, that'd eradicate a good chunk of the "cheaper" aspect of the upgrade (and the VF-19 doesn't have cost-reducing technologies like the linear actuator tech the 5th Gen Valkyries use, so the cost of maintenance would likely be higher).

[d3v]

*shrug* Even so, if we compared them under their respective normal operating conditions, the VF-19 is going to be in a very bad place.

Oh that's no question at all... we know the answer to that one, courtesy of Great Mechanics.DX 9. The VF-19 can be upgraded to take an inertia store converter and EX-Gear cockpit system, though the far greater performance of the 5th Generation Valkyries in the face of the Vajra threat was considered justification for the extra cost of engineering a new fighter generation instead of using upgraded 4th Generation Valkyries. It's doubtful many VF-19's were upgraded that way, though, as the excess performance was simply not necessary for most foes (hence the VF-171) and the fleets that were headed into Vajra territory opted for the 5th Gen Valkyries because their performance was considered sufficient to rival the Vajra.

However, as the ISC is one of the more expensive parts of a 5th Generation VF, that'd eradicate a good chunk of the "cheaper" aspect of the upgrade (and the VF-19 doesn't have cost-reducing technologies like the linear actuator tech the 5th Gen Valkyries use, so the cost of maintenance would likely be higher).

Even if the 19/22 could be upgraded, I doubt it would be cheaper. The production lines and tooling for the the YF-24 derivatives has, at this point, have likely already been well established, so there's already alot of cost savings there, compared to having to revive the old lines for the 19/22. Actually, you can likely say the same thing for the 17/171, in that the former probably had more established production lines than either AVF competitor, which made continuing with the 171 much cheaper.

[kajnrig]

Even if the 19/22 could be upgraded, I doubt it would be cheaper. The production lines and tooling for the the YF-24 derivatives has, at this point, have likely already been well established, so there's already alot of cost savings there, compared to having to revive the old lines for the 19/22. Actually, you can likely say the same thing for the 17/171, in that the former probably had more established production lines than either AVF competitor, which made continuing with the 171 much cheaper.

Does anyone know if they reused F/A-18 facilities for production of the Super Hornet? The 17-to-171 lineage seems to mirror (in reverse) that of the Hornet/Super Hornet, what with both being superficially similar to their immediate predecessors but being considerably smaller/bigger in almost every way.

[Valkyrie Driver]

How did the VF-19EF compare to the VF-19A/C in terms of maneuverability? More or less? I know the EF was a monkey model of the E variant, so was it more controllable than the other VF-19's?

The E/F/S models were supposed to be more controllable than the A/B/C/D models, so did that mean less maneuverable, or simply better airframe control systems? If it is done by better airframe control systems, then would the EF also have that?

[Seto Kaiba]

Even if the 19/22 could be upgraded, I doubt it would be cheaper. The production lines and tooling for the the YF-24 derivatives has, at this point, have likely already been well established, so there's already alot of cost savings there, compared to having to revive the old lines for the 19/22. Actually, you can likely say the same thing for the 17/171, in that the former probably had more established production lines than either AVF competitor, which made continuing with the 171 much cheaper.

Actually, I'd expect the VF-171 line to be a new build... they only made 718 VF-17's... but still, my view was one more geared toward upgrading existing aircraft, since building new VF-19s or 22's was supposedly prohibitively expensive even before the thought of turning them into Generation 4.5 aircraft came along.

How did the VF-19EF compare to the VF-19A/C in terms of maneuverability? More or less? I know the EF was a monkey model of the E variant, so was it more controllable than the other VF-19's?

The E/F/S models were supposed to be more controllable than the A/B/C/D models, so did that mean less maneuverable, or simply better airframe control systems? If it is done by better airframe control systems, then would the EF also have that?

Compared to the VF-19 Excalibur's 1st mass production type, the VF-19EF Caliburn had roughly the same mass but a substantial improvement in engine power. Not to VF-19F levels (about 7% less), but a hair shy of 20% improvement vs. the VF-19A. Like all "monkey model" variants built aboard the emigrant fleets, it had limiters on some aspects of its performance (target acquisition, etc.). They don't say one way or the other whether it was actually more maneuverable than the earlier type, but I would assume so based on its superior control, more stable engines, addition of a vernier ring, etc.

The recurring theme of the VF-19's entire history has been one of getting the aircraft's incredible maneuverability under control. The YF-19 was about as stable as a biscuit raft, and the VF-19A and its family of variants refined the design enough that a skilled ace pilot could potentially get to grips with the aircraft, but not enough for it to be viable as next main fighter. Shinsei's second try with the VF-19E/F type refined the design enough that average pilots could keep it in the air, but not enough for them to make the most of the design. Based on the descriptions in Macross the Ride, the VF-19EF Caliburn achieved the long sought-after happy medium with a less overkill engine, the prototype EX-Gear, and a new (almost 20 years newer) airframe control AI.

[Mazinger]

.. they only made 718 VF-17's...

Maybe the following question belongs in newbie's thread, but here goes:

Where do you get such precise information from?

It's been less than a year since I watched M7 and I don't recall that number being thrown out. That said, I can't be sure that it wasn't spoken.

I don't read Japanese and so haven't absorbed the details in the master files and chronicles, but in general, is that ultimately where most of the Manual information comes from?

I know the compendium is referenced a lot, and I might be committing MWF forum heresy by saying this, but since there are no footnotes in the compendium, I can't help wondering where all the details actually originate from.

[Seto Kaiba]

Maybe the following question belongs in newbie's thread, but here goes:

Where do you get such precise information from?

"Various publications" is the short answer... there's no One Source to Rule Them All (though Macross Chronicle is damn close), but it's a mixture of Chronicle, official series and franchise art books, liner notes, official interviews and coverage in magazines like Great Mechanics, Newtype, B-Club, Hobby Japan, Dengeki Hobby, and so on. Mr March and I each maintain our own personal collections of reference material, though his is oriented more around the highest possible quality line art and mine more around the detail level of the text. Mine is currently sprawling across most of two of the large Sauder shelf units in my study and threatening to annex a shelf or two on the third between all the Delta stuff coming out and the rare old books we're importing to track down specific rare pieces of art.

In the case of the particular detail you quoted, that's out of Macross Chronicle's Mechanic Sheet coverage of the VF-17D/S Nightmare from Macross 7. I believe that one changed sheet numbers between 1st and 2nd Edition (Macross 7 UN Sheet 7A in 1st and 8A in 2nd).

The Macross Mecha Manual draws on all of those sources, with pains taken to note where old trivia has been supplanted by newer material (most often from Chronicle), additional or contradictory data exists in sources of dubious validity or technical novelty like Master File, and the rare occasions where the official trivia contradicts itself or presents an obvious error in math or logic (such notes usually being explained in detail in the "For Fans Only" section).

[sketchley]

Maybe the following question belongs in newbie's thread, but here goes:

Where do you get such precise information from?

And here's my translations of a lot of the sources Seto mentioned: http://monkeybacon.mywebcommunity.org/

[Mazinger]

"Various publications" is the short answer... there's no One Source to Rule Them All (though Macross Chronicle is damn close), but it's a mixture of Chronicle, official series and franchise art books, liner notes, official interviews and coverage in magazines like Great Mechanics, Newtype, B-Club, Hobby Japan, Dengeki Hobby, and so on. Mr March and I each maintain our own personal collections of reference material, though his is oriented more around the highest possible quality line art and mine more around the detail level of the text.

Ok, I should have known better than to have any doubts. Thanks for the awesome work. It had been a nagging question in the back of my mind for a while now, but I've only seriously been reinvested in Macross for a year or so now.

And here's my translations of a lot of the sources Seto mentioned: http://monkeybacon.mywebcommunity.org/

Jackpot! Very cool. I'd recently gotten into the various publications, but hadn't come across a translation source. This will help plenty. Might actually learn a few kanji characters in the process.

[Mr March]

Maybe the following question belongs in newbie's thread, but here goes:

Where do you get such precise information from?

It's been less than a year since I watched M7 and I don't recall that number being thrown out. That said, I can't be sure that it wasn't spoken.

I don't read Japanese and so haven't absorbed the details in the master files and chronicles, but in general, is that ultimately where most of the Manual information comes from?

I know the compendium is referenced a lot, and I might be committing MWF forum heresy by saying this, but since there are no footnotes in the compendium, I can't help wondering where all the details actually originate from.

The vast majority of all the trivia I write for my Macross Mecha Manual website is taken from (and properly credited to) the Macross Compendium. There are some fan-translated pieces added to various profiles, but they are indicated in each with a citation at the bottom just for those fans keeping track.

As my book collection grows, I am "trying" to write about the official trivia with citations whenever there is some kind of change/adjustment/revision in a piece of Macross trivia from one official source to the next. For such a long-running IP, Macross trivia has been surprisingly consistent, especially considering the vast gaps of time in between Macross animated productions. Most of the trivia has been published multiple times over the last 30 years and has even remained consistent across different publishers and different creative teams for each Macross era. However, the Macross Chronicle - while being a treasure trove of collected Macross fact - has introduced a few weird changes here and there, as well as more than a few outright errors. That's where you'll see the most notes on the M3. I try to chronicle the whole thing for the sake of the reader. Even though I might draw my own conclusions, the idea is to always provide the reader with the "how and why", so that if some interpret the trivia changes/revisions/contradictions differently, everyone will have access to how it all came about to make an informed descision.

But more pairs of eyes are better than just one, so always feel free to chime in if you have a question or see something that might need correction

[JB0]

Do we know WHY the Chronicle is changing stuff? Ignoring the errors, is it a lack of editorial oversight, or an active intent to change things?