AVF Upgrade Candidates

[Valkyrie Driver]

Yo dawg, I herd you liek missile launchers... So I put missile launchers on your missile launchers, so you can Itano circus while you Itano circus...

Seriously though, one can never have too many armaments (provided you aren't exceeding max t/o weight). Sketchley brought it up that FAST packs are purgeable, and Seto said that it has been shown that fast packs don't hinder the function of internal bays.

For me I'd go doctrinal with it. Much like how modern fighter doctrine says to purge your drop tanks before entering air combat, I'd expect that fast packs wouldn't be able to stand up to excessive maneuvering, given how weak the connection points look. I'd say the opening salvos would be from the fast pack armaments, until all external ordinance is expended. Purge the boosters and enter the dogfight. Conformal leg parts wouldn't need to be purged, unless the ordinance or fuel was expended. The External fuel would feed the boosters, and the pilot would use the main engines for the dogfight and return trip. Typical doctrine also says not to engage beyond-visual-range, but in space it would almost be a necessity, sing as how close you'd need to get to draw a visual.

[Seto Kaiba]

For me I'd go doctrinal with it. Much like how modern fighter doctrine says to purge your drop tanks before entering air combat, I'd expect that fast packs wouldn't be able to stand up to excessive maneuvering, given how weak the connection points look. [...]

's probably not a sound assumption to make... pretty much every Macross show has shown that FAST packs are no impediment to the frankly insane mobility most VFs enjoy. The connection points might not look all that weighty and robust, but it's worth remembering that they're made out of the same Tonka-tough material that the VFs themselves are, and they're DESIGNED to be taken into dogfights.

Take the VF-1's FAST packs as an example. Those connection points look awful insubstantial, but they're designed to hold on a pair of rocket motors fully 19 times as powerful as the VF-1's engines. Those things aren't going ANYWHERE without being deliberately detached.

[Mr March]

LOL, I can just see the Xzibit parody picture now

Unlike conventional FAST packs, the Macross FAST/Super Parts are designed to provide performance in addition to fuel and additional equipment. Like Seto said they have big engines/rockets designed specifically for propulsion, but since they are designed for aerospace craft, they also have maneuvering thrusters (and of course, weapons). So you wouldn't dump them for combat when the seem designed for it.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Yeah. They just seem kinda goofy to me. You're right of course, the shows do seem to support the idea that you dogfight with the FAST packs. I like my idea though, as it could be just as much unit SOP, as anything. Then you have the fighters that were intended to operate without the need for FAST pack boosters (Y/VF-19, YF-21/VF-22S). As I think about what I want to do with this fanfic, I want to do familiar things, but put a realistic spin on it.

When you think about it, FAST pack boosters are the same as supercruise, in my eyes. Supercruise is cool because it means your thrust to weight ratio is greater than 1, which means you have a ton of available thrust. However that means you can get to the fight quickly, but means nothing in the fight. No modern aircraft can maneuver at mach (granted Macross has better materials and some technologies to bleed off the g loads on the pilots). Even in space you have g forces to contend with, g-loading still exists, which means you still have to deal with angular momentum. The greater the speed the wider the turn radius will be, due to that pesky conservation of angular momentum.

So while fast is good, I'd rather go slower and get the good shooting solution, rather than have to try maneuvering around a furball going a million mph with my hair on fire.

Duke Cunningham, and my dad both said it, "You gotta fly one inch from out of control at all times." In the 1970's we saw a revolution in fighter design in the US. We got the F-14/15/16/18 designs. They were all designed with an eye towards maneurability, and the ability to dogfight, rather than pure straight line speed. These were air superiority fighters, designed to close with and kill the enemy. Previous designs were interceptors, designed to get to the fight, and kill the enemy from range with missiles.

Macross hasn't seemed to have learned those lessons. Though we do see plenty of dogfights (probably due to their prominence in history). Besides a standby VF-11 loaded out for a scramble would be different than a VF-11 loaded out for BARCAP.

That's just my take on it.

[Mr March]

Don't be so critical of Macross in those respects; there are more reasons than one would think for the order of battle in the franchise.

Ultimately, Macross has an emphasis on aerial/space dogfighting because as entertainment, such action can be very compelling, tense and dramatic.

In-universe, the very nature of OverTechnology, OT weaponry and variable fighters (as well as flying humanoid mecha) make it absolutely essential that vehicles prioritize dogfighting. Several major factors (high speed and extreme maneuverability, commonplace point defense beam/laser weaponry and missile-foiling gun pods) seem to prevent long-range attack beyond visual range from being viable for anything other than an "opening fusillade". Only large space craft with anti-ship weaponry commonly fight BVR in the Macross universe.

IMO despite the emphasis on dogfighting, Macross seems to have much farther engagement ranges than most mecha shows. Anime seems to revel in this romanticized concept of the honorable one-on-one melee battle; almost every mecha anime finds some way of eventually reducing the action to a fist-fight with unlikely regularity. Due to the high speed, jet fighter nature of the Macross fiction (and a lack of emphasis of any melee weaponry, at least until Frontier), most battles are at distance and more BVR combat than you would think. Until Frontier, all out hand-to-hand brawls in Macross had been rare.

I'd advise to ensure one understands all the fiction about the Macross universe when turning some key points on their head, especially those aspects that go unsaid. Despite it's age, not everything about the Macross fiction has been frequently discussed by the production staff or the many publications about the franchise. We can sometimes take them for granted

[Seto Kaiba]

Yeah. They just seem kinda goofy to me. You're right of course, the shows do seem to support the idea that you dogfight with the FAST packs.

's not so much "seem to support" as "make a meal out of explicitly showing".

Then you have the fighters that were intended to operate without the need for FAST pack boosters (Y/VF-19, YF-21/VF-22S).

Boosters are just one aspect of FAST packs though... the YF-19 and YF-21 packs don't contain booster systems, but they're still adding fuel and weapons. The VF-19 FAST pack actually went right back to having boosters. The VF-2SS Valkyrie II's Super Armed Pack also counts, since it adds weapons, fuel, and a bunch of verniers, but contains no additional boosters or engines.

When you think about it, FAST pack boosters are the same as supercruise, in my eyes. Supercruise is cool because it means your thrust to weight ratio is greater than 1, which means you have a ton of available thrust. However that means you can get to the fight quickly, but means nothing in the fight.

That's definitely at odds with what's in the show and print materials... the FAST pack boosters are there to get you to (and from) the combat zone and extend the sortie range in space. They're shown to be perfectly capable of maneuvering with the boosters on the FAST packs running, though getting the most out of it seems to take a lot of skill (e.g. Alto's remarks about Ozma flinging around an Armored VF-25 in a fashion that gave even Alto pause).

So while fast is good, I'd rather go slower and get the good shooting solution, rather than have to try maneuvering around a furball going a million mph with my hair on fire.

Different rules of engagement... high mobility is the name of the game, much more so than the real world (where stealth and long-range weapons are king). When every missile is fire-and-forget with multiple guidance systems and uncanny agility, and tracking a target for lock-on is as simple as looking at it, you can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to lining up a good shot AND moving quickly.

[Valkyrie Driver]

It's been a while since I've sat down and watched anything macross, seriously, that it's hard to remember all of these things. So yeah, my wording is a bit poor in choice, and some of the details of shows I have forgotten. I do remember Kakizaki getting owned by Britai, and Isamu taking out that power armor with the bayonet. And that was really it until frontier (the whole brawl with Britai also counts under my previous statement). So the realism of dogfighting at range is there, and that is true about the point defenses and the ability to use the gun pod like a Phalanx/Goalkeeper CWIS.

I recently went back and watched SDFM (I wasn't paying extremely close attention), and the Super parts didn't really factor in that much (grand scheme). Super Parts didn't play a huge role in M+ either, which I also watched recently (again didn't pay extremely close attention). The only productions I can think of where super parts have played a significant role was DYRL, M7, and Frontier. Granted that's a lot more total screen time than SDFM and M+, but the Valks in the earliest productions didn't seem to need those parts (unless they hadn't been developed at that point in SDFM, which just dawned on me).

I guess that the super parts just kinda bug me aesthetically. The sleek lines of the fighter just kinda get ruined by putting those bulbous boosters on them (as I have my Super Parts displayed on the toys that have them...). It just seems that it shouldn't work, but I can't really argue against it because cannon contradicts me. All I can do is throw physics at it, and that doesn't really work because OT and reasons...

[Andras]

In Plus, Guld fired about 80 missiles out of the VF22 and FAST packs ( I counted them all), and that doesn't include any missiles that might have been fired in the twisting dogfight segment with spherical explosions seen from a distance.

Isamu didn't really fire that many considering he got his leg packs blown off early and had 2 big missiles in the bays instead of micros.

YF-19- fires 2 LRM from internal leg bays, fires 6 missiles from leg FAST packs, then the packs are destroyed

YF-21- Fires 10 missiles, 1 from ea launcher? (2+2+3+3); Fires 18 missiles, 3 from each leg pack, plus 3 volleys of 4 from internal back launchers; Fires 5-7 more, 3 from leg fast pack, at least 2 and possible 4 from internal; Massive volley of 4 internal+6 FAST; 1 lone missile, 4 internal+5 FAST; 4 internal +6 FAST; 6int+5FAST; Total of 20int/30FAST. plus 1 lone missile origin that couldn't be determined. Combined totals of all missiles fired 38 internal, 37 FAST.

[Seto Kaiba]

I recently went back and watched SDFM (I wasn't paying extremely close attention), and the Super parts didn't really factor in that much (grand scheme). Super Parts didn't play a huge role in M+ either, which I also watched recently (again didn't pay extremely close attention).

By sheer bloody coincidence, you picked the two Macross shows where FAST packs have the least screen time... the FAST packs were a mid-war introduction during the original series, and in Plus the VF-11 is low-key and most of the OVA is non-combat.

The only productions I can think of where super parts have played a significant role was DYRL, M7, and Frontier.

Well, after Ep27 of the original series, FAST packs were pretty much the rule for space operations with the VF-1... and DYRL maintained that. Macross II almost never showed the VF-2SS without its FAST packs (pretty much just the eyecatch and one scene). Macross Plus doesn't have a single actual combat scene that didn't involve FAST packs, even for the Ghost. Macross 7 made FAST packs the rule for the VF-11, and prominently featured packs for the VF-17 and VF-19 in Operation Stargazer. Macross Zero made quite a meal out of the ersatz FAST packs on the VF-0 in its final episodes. FAST packs were standard hardware for the VF-25 in the Macross Frontier TV series, and the movies upped the game by including some for the VF-27 and YF-29.

It's actually less common for a VF to NOT have at least one known model of FAST pack displayed prominently at one point or other...

I guess that the super parts just kinda bug me aesthetically. The sleek lines of the fighter just kinda get ruined by putting those bulbous boosters on them (as I have my Super Parts displayed on the toys that have them...). It just seems that it shouldn't work, but I can't really argue against it because cannon contradicts me. All I can do is throw physics at it, and that doesn't really work because OT and reasons...

There's no drag in space, my friend... using FAST packs in atmosphere is a bit problematic (which is why the ones in Macross 7 are as streamlined as they could be made to be, and why the ones in Plus are minimalist), but in space there is absolutely no impediment to covering your plane in huge armored boosters with eleventy billion missile launchers, verniers, and massive fuel tanks.

Most of the time, the extra armament, verniers, and fuel of the FAST packs are actually an asset to space combat... the only case I know of where it's said that using FAST packs actually degrades performance is the VF-25, and that's just because its thrust-to-weight ratio (and therefore acceleration) without them is so completely redonkulous. (Even then, they compensate for it by covering more of the airframe and adding armor to key areas.)

[JB0]

... the Valks in the earliest productions didn't seem to need those parts (unless they hadn't been developed at that point in SDFM, which just dawned on me).

Bingo. The first animated super Valk(codename: Booby Duck(irrelevant, but I wanted to type "Booby Duck)) deployment is the first super pack deployment in Macross.

Whether they were invented on Earth or on the Macross, they were built on the Macross partway through the trip home(and personally, I believe that design didn't start until after the space fold incident).

I guess that the super parts just kinda bug me aesthetically. The sleek lines of the fighter just kinda get ruined by putting those bulbous boosters on them (as I have my Super Parts displayed on the toys that have them...).

That's fair. Personally, I think they look pretty badass, but aesthetics are just that: personal.

(I also think the closely-related strike packs are butt-ugly. People will fight me on this, but I stand by it.)

It just seems that it shouldn't work, but I can't really argue against it because cannon contradicts me. All I can do is throw physics at it, and that doesn't really work because OT and reasons...

Well, the design DOES feature concessions to the reality of physics.

If you look, the main boosters on the FAST packs aren't pointed straight back. They're angled up, in acknowledgement that the boosters are off-axis and in a sub-optimal location. If they thrusted straight back, they'd send the Valk spinning instad of traveling forward in a straight line.

But consequently, they lose performance because not all the thrust available is going into forward motion... which ties into my personal belief they were a kludge to fix the VF-1's deficiencies as a space fighter.

Canon has nothing to say on the issue as far as I know, so what follows should be taken with a grain of salt.

My personal take is this:

The VF-1 is an all-environment fighter, yes, but it was an aircraft first and a spacecraft second, and it's consequently a much better aircraft than spacecraft.

The poor, overlooked, unloved, neglected Lancer II was intended to be a dedicated space fighter, and is consequently studded with verniers and packed with internal missile launchers that the VF-1 simply doesn't have.

When the Macross was unable to link up with ARMD-01 and -02, they lost their Lancer force.

Unable to request a few hundred Lancers and trained pilots be transferred to Pluto, had to make do with what they had available, which was the VF-1s from the launch ceremony and Prometheus.

So they flew VF-1s exclusively, and created the (relatively) simple Phalanx destroid to compensate for the loss of the ARMDs' defensive weaponry.

As the VF-1's spaceworthiness was tested, it was found that it really needed more guided missiles and attitude thrusters, as well as just more thrust, if it was to be an effective space fighter.

So they developed the FAST packs to augment the VF-1's space capabilities and provide it the features a dedicated space fighter should have. They rejiggered the transformation sequence a bit to make room for fuel tanks, built some rocket boosters and missile launchers, and strapped them on. And voila, a jack of all trades becomes a dedicated space superiority fighter.

Anyways, I think the FAST packs make sense when contextualized in this manner. And, well, they DO add a lot of thrust, firepower, and attitude thrusters. There's a clear design goal there.

[Seto Kaiba]

Whether they were invented on Earth or on the Macross, they were built on the Macross partway through the trip home(and personally, I believe that design didn't start until after the space fold incident).

The most detailed version of the explanation that leaps immediately to mind is from the DYRLverse/Macross II sources... which put forward a history in which the Armored and FAST packs were designed, and the first few sets built, on Earth. The packs and some engineers from the various manufacturers were aboard the SDF-1 Macross for her shakedown cruise to carry out testing on VF-1's and their optional hardware in real operating conditions... and, after the war started, supervised production and developed the few new pieces of equipment the Macross didn't leave home with. (Their most noted innovation is identified as the VE-1, supposedly a kitbash Valkyrie made from a VT-1 with custom-fab and borrowed ELINT hardware.)

IIRC, Macross the First presents a vaguely similar version in which the Macross's chief engineer is toying with a number of designs for FAST packs on the flight back to Earth.

But consequently, they lose performance because not all the thrust available is going into forward motion... which ties into my personal belief they were a kludge to fix the VF-1's deficiencies as a space fighter.

Great Mechanics.DX 9's VF Evolutionary Theory article pretty much confirms this... the various flavors of FAST pack, as well as the Armored Pack, are stated to have been there to compensate for insufficient aspects of the VF-1's design, several of which were the result of compromises made to meet the size constraints.

[JB0]

Yes! My hypothetical is mostly right!

And lest anyone gets upset...

I know it may seem like I'm being hard on the Valkyrie, but I'm not really. It acquits itself better in the vacuum of space than any aircraft has a right to.

I'm just saying that it's operating outside it's designed optimum environment, and is in the realm where sacrifices were made(even ignoring humanity's general lack of space warfare experience when it was designed).

...

Also, I think the Lancer looked awesome and I wish it had more than ten seconds of screen time in the history of the franchise.

[Mr March]

I recolored the art and revised the whole profile for the SF-3A Lancer II with new trivia for the next update of my website. So some of us still give it some love

I don't get the impression you're hating on the VF-1 Valkyrie, just providing objective assessement.

However, I'm unclear why one may have the impression of the VF-1 Valkyrie as deficient in space. I'm not sure anything official supports that reading of the VF-1. By the same token, I don't recall anything stating it was optimized for atmospheric performance either. Everything official describes a multipurpose craft designed for the best possible performance in all-regimes, while of course not enjoying any specialized advantages within the separate operational environments.

As I understand it:

The general-purpose VF-1 can become a specialized heavy weapons platform through use of the GBP-1S Armored Pack

The general-purpose VF-1 can become a space-optimized fighter through use of the FAST/Super Packs

To me, some of the language being used to describe the VF-1 Valkyrie might give the impression of a poor-performing spacecraft that needs FAST/Super Packs just to be a spaceworthy combat craft. I'm not sure that's the case. Only thing I've read is that successor craft to the VF-1 were specialized. The VF-4 Lightning III was space optimized while the VF-5000 Star Mirage was atmosphere optimized.

I guess I'm asking do you consider "multipurpose" an inherently deficient design?

[Seto Kaiba]

I know it may seem like I'm being hard on the Valkyrie, but I'm not really. It acquits itself better in the vacuum of space than any aircraft has a right to.

I'm just saying that it's operating outside it's designed optimum environment, and is in the realm where sacrifices were made(even ignoring humanity's general lack of space warfare experience when it was designed).

...

Also, I think the Lancer looked awesome and I wish it had more than ten seconds of screen time in the history of the franchise.

You're being no harder on the Valkyrie than many sources that comment on its wartime performance are... it did an adequate job, but fell short in a lot of areas because (in part) of the assumptions made during its design that constrained its size to roughly that of a Zentradi, making size a limiting factor on performance.

That's why VFs got bigger as time went on... particularly in the AVF generations. They needed to make room for the additional fuel, internal weapons, and new technologies.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[sketchley]

The main problem the VF-1 has in space is lack of fuel - it's like one of the Russian fighters (the Su-27?) which has been derisively referred to as only being good at protecting its own base, due to its lack of internal carried fuel.

The VF-1's FAST Packs are mostly a bunch of additional fuel tanks, with a pair of limited duration large boosters strapped on top (despite them being used constantly in the anime, at max thrust they only carry 150 seconds of fuel!), and a few additional armaments - which go hand in hand with its increased endurance in combat (endurance in the sense of length of time that can be spent on the battlefield).

[Andras]

That would be the MiG-21 or the -29. The Su-27 has very large fuel reserves.

[sketchley]

That would be the MiG-21 or the -29. The Su-27 has very large fuel reserves.

Thanks!

[Valkyrie Driver]

You know, on one hand FAST packs are so cool. What with the extra armaments and boosters. On the other, they're kinda goofy. I can see their use for Standby fighters, allowing them to intercept the enemy quickly. Or using them on BARCAP fighters to increase their dwell time on patrol. There are obvious problems with fast packs in atmosphere, even with the streamlined packs, in which case the minimal packs like for the YF-19 and the VF-0 (conformal nacelle packs) would probably work better. The VF-25 style packs would probably work well in atmo as well.

If the 150 second burn time Sketchley mentioned is accurate, then it would seem that the boosters would be spent by the time they got to the fight. But again cannon kinda trumps that...

[JB0]

I recolored the art and revised the whole profile for the SF-3A Lancer II with new trivia for the next update of my website. So some of us still give it some love

!!!

<3 <3 <3

I don't get the impression you're hating on the VF-1 Valkyrie, just providing objective assessement.

However, I'm unclear why one may have the impression of the VF-1 Valkyrie as deficient in space.

The existence of the FAST packs is evidence enough they were deficient. If they weren't, there would be no reason to make FAST packs.

By the same token, I don't recall anything stating it was optimized for atmospheric performance either.

A quick look at the design strongly implies it. It's light on attitude thrusters in fighter mode, and it has wings. It's a jet plane with rocket engines strapped on.

It also seems to me that wing-mounted ordinance is a bad idea, since the plane's center of mass shifts with weapon usage, and having the missiles hanging off booms amplifies the shift. This affects attitude thruster behavior as well as primary propulsion.

Now, the wings COULD be useful in space flight. Wingtip vernier clusters would be a great idea, using the leverage afforded by the wing to get better performance. But to my recollection, there aren't any.

GERWALK mode is a comically bad idea in space, with the primary engines directing thrust tangental to the intended direction of travel, but I grant it doesn't actually detract from the functionality of F and B modes in 0G while also being to be a highly useful feature in gravity.

As I understand it:

The general-purpose VF-1 can become a specialized heavy weapons platform through use of the GBP-1S Armored Pack

The general-purpose VF-1 can become a space-optimized fighter through use of the FAST/Super Packs

To me, some of the language being used to describe the VF-1 Valkyrie might give the impression of a poor-performing spacecraft that needs FAST/Super Packs just to be a spaceworthy combat craft. I'm not sure that's the case.

That was very much not what I meant.

Just that it was not as good a space fighter as it could have been. That there was a lot of room for improvement, even. That would be expected just from it being one of humanity's first attempts at one, even without it being held back by the necessities of transformation(which, to be fair, never seems as much an impediment as it should be) and atmospheric flight.

As I said, it acquits itself far better than one would expect it to, given it's air-first design and humanity's lack of space warfare experience.

But it's a jack of all trades, master of none. And by appearances, where tradeoffs were made, they were done to the benefit of it's aerial capabilities.

Maybe the GBP makes it the equal of a dedicated ground combat unit. Maybe the FAST packs make it the equal of a dedicated space combat unit.

But without them, it falls short of a specialized machine. But it flies better in the air than any dedicated ground or space vehicle would.

I guess I'm asking do you consider "multipurpose" an inherently deficient design?

It depends on what you're doing, and how different these purposes are. In this case, yes.

It's sort of like replacing a speed boat with an amphibious vehicle. Yes, it can go on land AND on water now, but it isn't really the best boat it could be, because there's wheels sticking out of it.

If the 150 second burn time Sketchley mentioned is accurate, then it would seem that the boosters would be spent by the time they got to the fight. But again cannon kinda trumps that...

My assumption has always been that the thrusters aren't in constant thrust, we just happen to be seeing exclusively shots where they're open full-throttle(or, you know, artistic license).

Also, if the boosters are spent by the time they get where they're going, there's a problem. You still have to STOP once you get there, after all.

Speaking of stopping, that's where the battroid shines in space. Your attack vector and thrust vector don't have to be aligned in battroid mode. You can thrust in the same direction you're firing, the opposite direction, or even an entirely unrelated direction. the side.

[Seto Kaiba]

You know, on one hand FAST packs are so cool. What with the extra armaments and boosters. On the other, they're kinda goofy. I can see their use for Standby fighters, allowing them to intercept the enemy quickly. Or using them on BARCAP fighters to increase their dwell time on patrol.

Or on space fighters in general, to increase their maneuverability, endurance, and armament... because space is where the UN Spacy's most likely to run into an enemy where you'll NEED the extra armament, firepower, and range. (Zentradi sort of take the stance that quantity has a quality all its own...)

There are obvious problems with fast packs in atmosphere, even with the streamlined packs, in which case the minimal packs like for the YF-19 and the VF-0 (conformal nacelle packs) would probably work better. The VF-25 style packs would probably work well in atmo as well.

Well, yeah... but in atmospheric flight, a VF doesn't really need FAST packs. Their thermonuclear reaction turbine engines are at their most efficient flying in a planetary atmosphere, and with an effectively unlimited sortie range using just internal fuel tanks they don't need to be dragging around big fuel tanks. There's also less need for lots and lots of ordinance in atmosphere, because tactical doctrine generally says that you're going to stop a potential alien enemy in space whenever possible, and a force that's already planetside (read: "terrorists, secessionists, etc.") won't be nearly as numerous as the Zentradi, so it's odds-on a Valkyrie operating planetside won't need quite so much dakka to get its job done. Also, since they're in atmosphere, they don't need extra verniers to maintain maneuverability, since they can leverage their control surfaces instead.

If the 150 second burn time Sketchley mentioned is accurate, then it would seem that the boosters would be spent by the time they got to the fight. But again cannon kinda trumps that...

That's the endurance of the rocket engines in the VF-1's FAST packs at their (stonking huge) maximum output of 1,177kN each... obviously the fuel's going to last a lot longer if they're just flying normally and not going for balls-out there-is-a-mosquito-shaped-hole-in-my-teeth acceleration.

[Mr March]

JBO

Okay, that's a valid interpretation of the VF-1 Valkyrie. I was only concerned I may have missed something official but that's not the case. I guess that personally I'd just be more conservative interpreting the valkyrie designs.

Having said that, I think broad interpretive strokes about "wings" and the existence of FAST packs might not lead to an accurate conclusion. All the valkyries have those. Regarding the nature of a multipurpose vehicle, I don't believe a speedboat vs. hovercraft analogy works. Regardless of the VF-1 Valkyrie multipurpose design compromises, it's first and foremost designed for high-peformance air/space superiority; a hovercraft is not designed to in any way compete for high performance. One might say this is because current hovercraft technology can't compete, but apparently in Macross, VF technology can. Just flip the logic of those assumptions about wings/FAST Packs; if the VF-1 Valkyrie were so hampered by multipurpose design compromises, it'd never achieve performance necessary for a combat superiority space fighter; it's existence as such a craft would mean it excells and can only be optimized by augmentation.

It also important to remember there are many inherent design compromises in all the valkyries. By default, ALL the variable fighters are compromised as aerospace craft designed to both fly in an atmosphere and operate in space. Even further, they are compromised by default as transformable machines. Both these compromises require more complexity, more machinery and more mass/weight which negatively impacts performance. How would we benchmark the performance gap between the multipurpose vs. optimized designs? Other than official trivia stating one VF is optimized for air or space over another (ex. trivia for the VF-4 and VF-5000), there's no way to compare. I think it's a stretch even further into declaring one craft is deficient when we have no way of knowing. It's also important to keep this all in the context of the Zentradi aerospace craft that battled the VF-1 Valkyrie, none of which have wings/FAST packs nor any performance advantage for or against the theory (Q-Rau possibly excepted). That in itself makes the theory hard to reconcile.

I think my problem is just the wording. Flaws, deficiencies, or weaknesses are all words that make it sound like there are design problems with the VF-1 when in truth it's described as purpose-built and achieved excellence during service life. The VF-4 Lightning III is not flawed as an air superiority fighter just because it's optimized for space. The VF-4 is a high-performance air superiority craft, it's just a craft that won't perform as well in the air as dedicated aircraft like the VF-5000 Star Mirage. At an equal level of technology, it's impossible to build a space-optimized variable fighter that bests all air-optimized variable fighters in an atmosphere. That's purpose-built, not flawed.

[JB0]

There's also less need for lots and lots of ordinance in atmosphere, because tactical doctrine generally says that you're going to stop a potential alien enemy in space whenever possible, and a force that's already planetside (read: "terrorists, secessionists, etc.") won't be nearly as numerous as the Zentradi, so it's odds-on a Valkyrie operating planetside won't need quite so much dakka to get its job done. Also, since they're in atmosphere, they don't need extra verniers to maintain maneuverability, since they can leverage their control surfaces instead.

Also worth noting that practical engagement ranges planetside are much shorter due to visibility. There's no clouds in space, no atmospheric distortion. It skews the practical value of the gunpod lower, because you have more time to get out of the way of the bullets.

JBO

Okay, that's a valid interpretation of the VF-1 Valkyrie. I was only concerned I may have missed something official but that's not the case.

I was actually careful to note it wasn't a canon interpretation for just that reason.

I'm being responsible with my wild speculation!

Having said that, I think broad interpretive strokes about "wings" and the existence of FAST packs might not lead to an accurate conclusion. All the valkyries have those.

Granted, but the FAST packs are usually proportionally smaller and less featureful(A VF-11 has half as many additional verniers and a lot less fuel. The -19 and -22 add no thrusters or fuel.)

Most future VFs have fixed wings(though I grant that "future" real-world jets do as well), with SOME flavors of VF-19 being a notable exception(and others reworked to have fixed wings)

This seems to speak to a defocusing of atmospheric performance(since the real-world weight and maintenance penalties of the mechanism are obviously not a concern on a VF).

And again, proportionally smaller. The -14's wings are exceptionally stunted... and ADORABLE.

...

Tangentally, I'd like to see a VF inspired by the F-104 Starfighter.

Regarding the nature of a multipurpose vehicle, I don't believe a speedboat vs. hovercraft analogy works. Regardless of the VF-1 Valkyrie multipurpose design compromises, it's first and foremost designed for high-peformance air/space superiority; a hovercraft is not designed to in any way compete for high performance. One might say this is because current hovercraft technology can't compete, but apparently in Macross, VF technology can.

I was thinking of amphibious cars, actually. But the point was more that it's two environments with VERY different optimal designs, and you can't make one vehicle that does both well. I grant that "because overtechnology" can partially alleviate the situation, but it still requires knowledge and experience to apply properly, and at the time the VF-1 was designed, humanity knew very little about space warfare OR overtechnology.

Just flip the logic of those assumptions about wings/FAST Packs; if the VF-1 Valkyrie were so hampered by multipurpose design compromises, it'd never achieve performance necessary for a combat superiority space fighter; it's existence as such a craft would mean it excells and can only be optimized by augmentation.

That might be a bit of a confirmation bias there, since the only VF-1 era space combat we've seen was from a ship that had few options available. The Macross crew were limited in their ability to construct new vehicles, and had no other vessels on-hand that COULD be used as space fightercraft.

The VF-1 HAD to do the job, whether it was excellent, adequate, or marginal at the task(and my take skews more towards adequate, maybe even above-adequate. It's the "good enough" fighter).

Even were it a dedicated space fighter, I'd expect it to be somewhat less than exceptional, just from the lack of space warfare data available to it's designers. Which makes that it performed acceptably even more impressive.

It also important to remember there are many inherent design compromises in all the valkyries. By default, ALL the variable fighters are compromised as aerospace craft designed to both fly in an atmosphere and operate in space. Even further, they are compromised by default as transformable machines. Both these compromises require more complexity, more machinery and more mass/weight which negatively impacts performance. How would we benchmark the performance gap between the multipurpose vs. optimized designs? Other than official trivia stating one VF is optimized for air or space over another (ex. trivia for the VF-4 and VF-5000), there's no way to compare. I think it's a stretch even further into declaring one craft is deficient when we have no way of knowing.

And the continued existence of the variable fighter really makes me wonder about the economics of overtechnology vehicle manufacture. One would think a dedicated fighter could be produced cheaper and be more effective. "Because overtechnology" doesn't really answer the question so much as sweep it under the rug.

I hate to say it, but the Robotech novels' "magic battery" treatment at least made the variable fighter a logical design. They explicitly stated that RT-protoculture vehicles worked better if they were anthropomorphic, no matter how dumb it seemed.

It's also important to keep this all in the context of the Zentradi aerospace craft that battled the VF-1 Valkyrie, none of which have wings/FAST packs nor any performance advantage for or against the theory (Q-Rau possibly excepted). That in itself makes the theory hard to reconcile.

Well, the Reguld DOES apparently have swappable weapon packs, so saying it has no FAST packs might not be entirely true, depending on how you look at it.

The zentradi forces ARE noted early on as performing better in space than they did on Earth(in dialog, it's pretty hard to tell from animation), which makes sense given both their machines and their presumed training. The regulds and glaugs were clearly not designed for atmospheric flight.

But as far as performance-augmenting expansion units... why would you build booster packs to enhance a machine when you manufacture your hardware in a friggin' factory satellite? Design a completely new machine and then crank out six billion of them overnight and ship them to the most active front the next day.

To heck with upgrading an existing machine. NO LIMITS!

I think my problem is just the wording. Flaws, deficiencies, or weaknesses are all words that make it sound like there are design problems with the VF-1 when in truth it's described as purpose-built and achieved excellence during service life. The VF-4 Lightning III is not flawed as an air superiority fighter just because it's optimized for space. The VF-4 is a high-performance air superiority craft, it's just a craft that won't perform as well in the air as dedicated aircraft like the VF-5000 Star Mirage. At an equal level of technology, it's impossible to build a space-optimized variable fighter that bests all air-optimized variable fighters in an atmosphere. That's purpose-built, not flawed.

I don't really intend it to sound THAT negative. The VF-1 clearly acquitted itself well, just based on that anyone flying them lived to tell the tale. That there were shortcomings in the design was inevitable. No machine made by man has yet been perfect. I do think that, even as an air/space vehicle, even with identical technology, the VF-1 would've looked different had it been designed by people WITH extensive space warfare experience.

It was better than could be expected, given it was a multi-role craft designed by people with limited space warfare experience.

I was never intending to say "the VF-1 sux", just that... it could be a better spacecraft, with fairly minor changes.

But if it helps, consider the VF-1 FAST packs not as bypassing a limitation of the design, but as converting it from a general-purpose machine to a dedicated space fighter. Or even as an application of acquired knowledge.

[GuardianGrey]

Technologies of Macross & the logical comparison to Reality make for ANIME*.moments.

I will not go into the debate of that here, for this is for AVF Upgrade Candidates, not How reality can destroy Macross.

On Fleets needing to upgrade their fighters as they felt was best for them, I had to address that as a GM in a Mekton+/Macross campaign set in 2057 of Macross Continuum & hence is not Cannon.

Synopsis & setting; A long-distance research fleet (launched in 2042) that is following the paths of earlier 'lost' expeditions. They were to seed-colony worlds (for short range immigration fleets &/or scientific research). Many in the New Unity Government feel that they should be classed as 'rogue' due to apparent attempts to find 'lost' fleets (like the Megaroad-01) & Protocultural civilization/colony sites.

Main propose of the modifications/upgrades was that the units could hold there own to allow an evacuation &/or hold their own just enough for help to arrive. Replacing units can get expensive & the PR of lost lives can be more-so to moral.

VF-11; There were many VF-11B units in storage, being upgraded to C as needed. It was noted that they could not get off many world without assistance & potential hazards were greater that the systems were designed for. The VF-11-X (upgrade for C/D units) was started with upgrading the FCS to use AVF weapons/equipment, upgrading the engines to FF-2099A, a limited use Pin-point Barrier system & strengthening frame stress-point to facilitate. Some units were left with the settlement posts that were created & was slowly phasing them out of mainline fleet service.
The additional equipment of FAST packs & ABP were still at the disposal, though being reduced to defensive-line units saw only the aerospace boosters used in secured areas.

(A cheap-out version of the VF-11B/X Thunderbolt Interceptor from Macross R)

VF-17/VF-171; Began as the main unit for the Special Forces, though as time progressed & a more stealth-required sentinel was need for the fleet, the VF-17D was assigned on more fleet patrol duties. With the data dump of the VF-171, the design was looked over & many did not like the redesign. The compromise was the VF-17X, which took the Nightmare Plus, replaced the turbines to the 2110X, the lasers were placed back into the arms and frame reinforced at stress points. All VF-17X were assigned to fleet patrols along side the VF-17D that were being now phased out. The units would later be phase-upgraded to be compatible with EX-Gear interface.

The FAST packs for Super Nightmare (regular & Plus) can be used by the VF-17X, though most pilots (Player Characters) seemed to prefer Original configuration for FAST.

VF-19; Majority were F-series with a few A/S units Due to the trans-atmospheric operations, the A units were being worn out and the F/S were more designated for space operations. During a downtime of the VF-19 production area (ca..2050), information on the EX-Gear was transmitted, Proposal of the Fragarach Project (this would have been parallel development at the same time the VF-19EF was produced for the Frontier fleet) was agreed upon; were the EX-Gear was incorporated, the forward canards were reintroduced to the F/S series, upgrade of the engines & FCS with redesigning/strengthening points of the frame that would need it. The new VF-19FX then replaced the VF-17 as the standard unit for the Special Force.

Additional equipment is available for missions, though most (Player Characters) tend either not to use any, or only take the conformal leg FAST packs.

(I have a write-up on DeviantArt as the VF-19FXR "Fragarach", if you want to check it out)

Zentrondi/Meltrondi Units: Majority of the Units were completely rebuild/refurbished on a regular schedule for optimum performance.

The aging Queadluun-Rau originally assigned to the fleet (as well as the few Meltrondi flotillas that later joined with) got zero-hour rebuilds & phase-updated to the Queadluun-Rhea configuration, once data came over about field upgrades.

The few Glaug units were either being zero-hour refurbished, or converted into Variable Glaug. After information was released on the rejected VBP-1/VA-110 (Macross R), the Variable Glaug were being phase updated to Neo Glaug, with almost no complaints of the loss of the 'battroid' mode (a few designated as VA-110A were made with three mode transformation primarily for micronized Zentron warriors that had donned the Nousjadeul-Ger Battle-suits)

(* = Any Noticeable Inconsistencies May Exist)

[JB0]

Technologies of Macross & the logical comparison to Reality make for ANIME*.moments.

I will not go into the debate of that here, for this is for AVF Upgrade Candidates, not How reality can destroy Macross.

Macross isn't a documentary?

I THOUGHT orbital bombardment day seemed pretty mild. I guess it was just unusually sunny.

[BlackRose]

Also worth noting that practical engagement ranges planetside are much shorter due to visibility. There's no clouds in space, no atmospheric distortion. It skews the practical value of the gunpod lower, because you have more time to get out of the way of the bullets.

Not really. The GU-11's optimal range is what, like 1.1km in Master File? It isn't a long range gun.

You don't have air friction, crosswinds, and gravity pulling shells off course, so the shells should be moving a little faster in space.

You just have more time to see the shooter coming in space.

[JB0]

Waaaay more time, depending. Distances that'd be over the horizon on Earth are still line-of-sight in space. Didm't realize the gunpod's range, though. I guess it's more useful in space!

[Seto Kaiba]

Waaaay more time, depending. Distances that'd be over the horizon on Earth are still line-of-sight in space. Didm't realize the gunpod's range, though. I guess it's more useful in space!

At that distance, with a muzzle velocity of 2,000m/s (in Master File, anyway), an enemy would have about half a second to react to the GU-11 being fired before the bullets connected... that's not a lot of time to dodge, and the GU-11's got one of the lower muzzle velocities in Macross.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Tangentally, I'd like to see a VF inspired by the F-104 Starfighter.

I can certainly understand why. It is a sleek and sexy airplane. But it has some horrifying design flaws.

1. The T-tail. The flying t style tail has issues with causing pitch up. Which results in a loss of control. Wouldn't be as much an issue in space save for thrusters tied into the control sfc.

2. Stubby wings. Those short broad wings, while certainly providing all the lift needed, severely limited the fighter in terms of maneuverability. It could go fast, but it could not turn well. In space possibly not a big deal, but longer wings would be better for leveraging a turn (given thrusters at the wing tips). This is the same argument against the "high speed" wing configurations seen many places in Macross.

3. The stubby wings limit the amount of ordinance that could be carried. The Starfighter could carry 2 sidewinders on under the nose, 2 at the wing tips, and 2 under the wings.

4. Since VF's are intended to function in atmosphere, it's important to note, that the starfighter had high wing loading. This resulted in poor maneuverability (due to the stubby low aspect ratio wing) and also resulted in higher t/o and landing speeds.

5. Narrow landing gear. Look up f-16 langing gear on google images and you'll see what I'm talking about here. The F-104 was squirrely to land due to the narrow landing gear.

I know the F-106 could generate it, but I don't know if the F-104 had enough wing area to generate ground effect. That makes a landing very difficult to do well. I do have an idea for a single engine VF, but I'll be honest, the way I picture it in my mind, is a lot more derivative of the VF-22, and F-35 than the F-104.

[GuardianGrey]

I will have to agree on multiple points with Valkyrie Diver on the idea of using the F-104 as a VF base, JBO.

The F-104 Starfighter was an Aerial Interceptor, not a fighter, and its design reflects that.

The streamlined rocket shape was to allow it to get in the range to use the ordnance of missiles it hand & or strafe the heck out of the target with the 20 mm Vulcan cannon.

Strategy of effective use; Patrol for target, Fly fast once identified, attack them (most likely destroying target), go back on patrol or to base.

I have been also kicking the Idea of a single engine VF around. And, like Valkyrie Diver, was visioning a F-35 airframe with transformation not unlike the VF-22.

Heck I have in head a whole plausible history/development arc for single engine VF units, that (if using Cannon as a baseline) would predate the VF-X-1.

-- RANT - WARNING -- If you are up on your overall VF development history, good. If Not, bare with me.

The UN found the ASS-1 and started developing Destriods & Battriods (seeming to favor Destriods development).

Anti-UN steal copies of the Battriod designs an make a breakthrough, that then UN spies steal back (slightly chronicled in Macross ZERO)

My point is that with the stealing of intellectual properties and duel development of complicated systems, the SV-51 & VF-0/VF-1 look NOTHING alike (in aesthetics or mechanical transformation).
So, only logic in my mind is there was a 'lost' prototype that had properties of both, & a single engine VF unit Seems to it the bill.

Based off the Yakovlev YAK-141 (of which Lockheed had purchased data from before the making of the YF-35) would be my idea, with transformation like the YF-21/VF-22 with wings like the SV-52 (nose-down main body transformation like the VF-1 & stowed arms-out/legs-in like the SV-52). The reasons it was abandoned was simple, the single engine (at the time) did not have enough output to power the SWAG energy converting armor & the rest of the operating systems simultaneously. The thrust output (which would forever be the bane of the concept) also had it be slower than some conventional fighter of the time.

In my developmental path the next unit showed up for the preliminaries of the AVF(for my Mekton+/Macoss game it was called the YF-18 "Harrier III" & was the VF of the F-35 & VF-22). It had all that the UN Spacy wanted in the AVF, and even though it was cheap, the meeting the minimum requirements (in simulated dog-fights, the VF-17 lost only 3 out of 5 times to) was not enough for it to be advanced for trials. It was also felt that the development company may had stolen data from General Galaxy due to the units similarities the YF-21 prototype 1 (truth was actually the reverse).

That is enough of my rant...

[Seto Kaiba]

Anti-UN steal copies of the Battriod designs an make a breakthrough, that then UN spies steal back (slightly chronicled in Macross ZERO)

Um... that's not accurate. In Macross Zero, Nora makes a remark that the UN "stole" the Variable system from them (whatever her home nation is), and D.D. corrects her on it, reminding her that the UN Gov't policy is for new technological advances to be shared.

Also, per official backstory, it was the Anti-UN forces who stole the variable fighter research data from the UN... specifically, it was D.D. Ivanov who stole it, when he defected while head of the VF-0 test program.

My point is that with the stealing of intellectual properties and duel development of complicated systems, the SV-51 & VF-0/VF-1 look NOTHING alike (in aesthetics or mechanical transformation).

So, only logic in my mind is there was a 'lost' prototype that had properties of both, & a single engine VF unit Seems to it the bill.

'fraid not, at least not officially... the VF-0 was the first variable fighter developed, and the SV-51 was built based on the development data that D.D. Ivanov gave to the Anti-UN when he defected.

(Great Mechanics.DX 9's VF Evolutionary Theory piece makes its point about the VF-0 being the first/original VF by referring to it as the archaeopteryx of VFs.)

Variable Fighter Master File: VF-0 Phoenix also shows the VF-0 as the first transformable fighter... indicating that its immediate design ancestor was a family of modified F-14s.

[GuardianGrey]

Thank you, Seto Kaiba, I did not know those views or text.

It has been a while since I watched Macross ZERO & do not have access to those texts.

Speculatively. I still think that neither the UN or Anti-UN would have banked on only one model (be it either VF-0/VF-1 of SV-51), and a single engine design might have been originally in the works.

Though, technical limitations of a single turbine would make a two engine system all the more practical, especially with the need of power for the SWAG energy converting armor.

On a note, the Idea (of a single engine VF) would resurface every so (as I had it for my game), because they do so as well in reality.

Loved a lot of the ideas they had at the VF Research site (fan-based), though it is in Japanese & has seemed to have gone stagnant.

[Seto Kaiba]

Speculatively. I still think that neither the UN or Anti-UN would have banked on only one model (be it either VF-0/VF-1 of SV-51), and a single engine design might have been originally in the works.

Strictly speaking, the UN Government didn't bank on only one model... the VF-0 Phoenix was not a production aircraft, it was a developmental/proof-of-concept aircraft to prove that the variable system was viable and test technologies that would be incorporated into production programs. Adapting OTM for combat use with aircraft was done first with conventional fighters (the F-14A++ and F203), then the VF-0, then the VF-X-1 and -2 prototypes. Circa Macross Zero, the VF-1 was headed into mass production and the VF-0 was being used for training purposes.

Ultimately, the requirements for energy conversion armor mean that a single-engine VF is probably impractical at best, because defensive systems consume a large portion of the VF's energy output. (Something like 90%, IIRC.)

[JB0]

While the F-104 had problems as a fighter, many of them can be fixed in a variable fighter "because overtech".

I mean, it worked for the VF-4.

And I think you guys are underestimating the value of a VF with a high LCF*.

*Look-Cool Factor.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Oh no, JB0, I completely agree. It's actually one of the reasons I have the single engine VF idea stuck in my head. Because it would look dang cool. I mean could you imagine a single engine, lightweight VF powered by just one overtuned VF-19 engine? Granted, it wouldn't have the same combat performance as the VF-19, but it would be a useful supplement. It's the same line of reasoning that got us the F-16. The F-15 was big and heavy and cost a lot of money, so the call went out for a small low cost, lightweight, multi-role fighter to supplement it, and keep our Air Force well equipped and strong (the opposite reasoning of today's USAF).

The F-35 would make a better model than the F-104, IMO, because of the lower wing loading on the F-35, because the wings are slightly bigger, and the fuselage itself is designed to produce lift, meaning the wings have less work to do.

The folded up fighter look would be what I'd go for, because it's a simple transformation technique. Also that T-tail would be some horrendous kibble off the back. You'd kinda have to go for a YF-21/VF-22 type transformation since you only have one engine, it should end up on the back...

As for the VF-4, it would actually work pretty well in atmo. You'd need to fill some gaps around the arm cannons, but other than that I don't see any aerodynamic elements that are horrifying. Other than the relative lack of control surfaces, but, the F-106 made no flap landings all the time (the F-106 had no flaps). The landing speeds would be pretty high, and the design would generate a ton of ground effect lift, but so did the F-106. Not ideal for a carrier aircraft, but then again on a carrier you sort of just slam the thing down on the deck whilst simultaneously trying to grab a wire with a hook.

Aerodynamically you can't compare the F-104 and the VF-4, the lifting surface is just not the same. A more accurate comparison would be the F-106 to the VF-4, since both are essentially tail-less delta wings.

[JB0]

As for the VF-4, it would actually work pretty well in atmo. You'd need to fill some gaps around the arm cannons, but other than that I don't see any aerodynamic elements that are horrifying.

Sorry, I was going a different direction.

The point was not that the VF-4 is comparable to the Starfighter, but that basing a VF off an ineffective real-world fighter doesn't stop it from being an effective Macross fighter.

It seems based (at least partially) on the Blackbird to me, and as far as real-world combat effectiveness goes... Blackbirds didn't even have weapons except for the three YF-12s.

They also had exceptionally broad turning radiuses and leaked fuel like mad until wind resistance warmed the plane up and everything expanded. I think it's fair to say the F-12 Blackbird would've sucked in a dogfight, if only because you can't make sharp turns at mach 3 (without overtechnology).

Edited March 8, 2015 by JB0