AVF Upgrade Candidates

[Valkyrie Driver]

I DID probably come off ruder than I intended, really.

But there won't be ice accumulation in a vacuum, because there's nothing to be icing the wings up. Anything that could has long since precipitated out onto something else or been blown away by the solar wind.

Large asteroids don't retain an atmosphere. Not even Ceres.

Ice accumulation in Saturn's rings would most likely be from running into the ice, at which point ice on the wings is probably not a primary concern.*

But Pluto has an atmosphere, and the mass needed to keep any spontaneous release of water/nitrogen/methane/carbon monoxide vapors around long enough to start accumulating on planes. So weapons fire impacting the ground would rapidly make atmospheric conditions favorable for icing. The same is probably true of, say, Europa or Tethys.

*Tangentally, it really bugs me how very wrong SDF Macross's portrayal of Saturn's ring system is. But to be fair, Pioneer 11 only flew by in 1979, with the V'gers right behind it in '80 and '81. Knowledge of the ring structure was understandably scant among non-astronomers in 1982, and I can't really fault them for not knowing the rings were so incredibly thin. I SHOULD just give them points for knowing they're largely made of water ice and move on with my life, instead of worrying about the ring system being thinner than the ships hiding within it.

I'm not going to lie, my knowledge of astronomy is very limited. Mostly limited to the impacts of astronomical phenomena on the atmosphere of our world. So I'm much more qualified to answer questions about the impact that solar radiation is going to have on pilots and electronic equipment, than if and/or how ice would accumulate in a vacuum.

As far as we know large asteroids don't retain atmosphere, but then we really only have our solar system and whatever nearby systems we can see to study, so who knows there may be a sufficiently massive or dense enough asteroid to have an atmosphere (maybe not as we think of it, but a low lying layer of elemental gasses and/or water, probably microscopic ice crystals).

Icing can accumulate in a number of ways, if there was enough fine crystals cast off from an explosion or collision and the fighter flew through it, it is possible (however unlikely) that it may collect, on the wing surface. Like I said, unlikely, but then I've seen unlikely things happen in my 5 years of predicting weather.

It's definitely a consideration even if the probability is remote.

[sketchley]

I'm not going to lie, my knowledge of astronomy is very limited. Mostly limited to the impacts of astronomical phenomena on the atmosphere of our world. So I'm much more qualified to answer questions about the impact that solar radiation is going to have on pilots and electronic equipment, than if and/or how ice would accumulate in a vacuum.

As far as we know large asteroids don't retain atmosphere, but then we really only have our solar system and whatever nearby systems we can see to study, so who knows there may be a sufficiently massive or dense enough asteroid to have an atmosphere (maybe not as we think of it, but a low lying layer of elemental gasses and/or water, probably microscopic ice crystals).

Icing can accumulate in a number of ways, if there was enough fine crystals cast off from an explosion or collision and the fighter flew through it, it is possible (however unlikely) that it may collect, on the wing surface. Like I said, unlikely, but then I've seen unlikely things happen in my 5 years of predicting weather.

It's definitely a consideration even if the probability is remote.

I think it's easier to say that there are atmospheric de-icing capabilities built into these aircraft, and those capabilities also work in outer space, and leave it at that.

You are not wrong (ie if the temperature is below the material's triple point, and there is enough of it for some deposition/de-sublimation action to happen on the exposed surfaces), it's just something that most people don't associate as happening in the vacuum of space. And that is despite there being places in the atmosphere, like the thermosphere and exosphere, being the destination of most real world space flights to "outer space".

Edited July 26, 2015 by sketchley

[Valkyrie Driver]

I think it's easier to say that there are atmospheric de-icing capabilities built into these aircraft, and those capabilities also work in outer space, and leave it at that.

You are not wrong (ie if the temperature is below the material's triple point, and there is enough of it for some deposition/de-sublimation action to happen on the exposed surfaces), it's just something that most people don't associate as happening in the vacuum of space. And that is despite there being places in the atmosphere, like the thermosphere and exosphere, being the destination of most real world space flights to "outer space".

True enough. Shouldn't get bogged down, and start making mountains out of mole hills.

[Valkyrie Driver]

So, I'm really hung up on the VF-19 Advance from the second frontier movie, what if any advancements over the YF-19/VF-19A/B/C/D do you think there would be? Speculation on the additional super parts?

Also what are the tube things along the side of the torso in battroid mode?

Edited July 30, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[Seto Kaiba]

So, I'm really hung up on the VF-19 Advance from the second frontier movie, what if any advancements over the YF-19/VF-19A/B/C/D do you think there would be? Speculation on the additional super parts?

Well, the VF-19 ADVANCE from Macross Frontier: Sayonara no Tsubasa isn't actually a VF-19 first mass production type... it's a remodeled VF-19EF Caliburn export model. The full designation Macross Chronicle gives it is the VF-19EF/A "Isamu Special", because it's a one-off aircraft produced specifically for our Mr. Irresponsible by Shinsei Industry, pitched as a demonstrator for VF-19 service life extension.

Still, I'd imagine we'd see a fairly similar path for updates... improvements to engine reliability, reinforcement of the airframe, adoption of improved materials, avionics improvements, etc. Isamu's VF-19EF/A actually had its flight control software downgraded to the original ARIEL system used on the YF-19, though.

We'd probably also see the adoption of EX-Gear in the cockpit in the late 2050's, though Isamu apparently skipped that one too.

Also what are the tube things along the side of the torso in battroid mode?

Just aesthetic, IIRC.

[Valkyrie Driver]

So did the VF-19EF have EX gear, or did it use a conventional cockpit? Were the armaments different from the other VF-19 variants?

[Seto Kaiba]

So did the VF-19EF have EX gear, or did it use a conventional cockpit?

Some do, some don't. Isamu's VF-19EF/A is in the latter category, while SMS equipped its Frontier fleet VF-19EF Caliburn units with EX-Gear.

Were the armaments different from the other VF-19 variants?

Doesn't look like they were, no.

[mickyg]

So back to heat for a moment - all the discussion so far seems to focus on atmospheric operation. What happens when we're dealing with space operation? Or more specifically, what happens when the valk is sporting armor parts? In the case of the VF-25 for instance, the intakes are not only closed, but completely blocked off with super/armor parts. That goes for the main intakes as well as the upper sub intakes.

I guess no air, no point in having an airflow system to allow cooling to work. So how is waste heat dealt with in space? Apologies if that's already been dealt with, I must've missed it.

Edited July 30, 2015 by mickyg

[Seto Kaiba]

So back to heat for a moment - all the discussion so far seems to focus on atmospheric operation. What happens when we're dealing with space operation? Or more specifically, what happens when the valk is sporting armor parts? In the case of the VF-25 for instance, the intakes are not only closed, but completely blocked off with super/armor parts. That goes for the main intakes as well as the upper sub intakes.

One thing noted on that front in the Macross Frontier portions of the VF Evolutionary Theory article in Great Mechanics.DX 9 is that the VF-25's wings are used as heat sinks to dispose of waste heat after combat. I would assume that this is probably not a new feature...

As far as FAST packs go... the VF-25's SPS-25S Super Pack leaves most of the wing surface exposed, so it can continue to be used to dispose of waste heat. The APS-25A Armored Pack is noted as having four armored heat sinks built into the engine pods (the "ribbed" portions on the top and bottom), and the TW1 Tornado Pack is also noted as having dedicated coolant systems for its heavy quantum beam gun turret.

[Valkyrie Driver]

* As a housekeeping note, I'd love to edit the title of this post to be more of a general VF discussion thread as that's what it's become, but I don't know how, or even if I can. If I can't could a mod please do so.*

I'm curious, what role was the YF-30 designed to fill?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[grigolosi]

One thing noted on that front in the Macross Frontier portions of the VF Evolutionary Theory article in Great Mechanics.DX 9 is that the VF-25's wings are used as heat sinks to dispose of waste heat after combat. I would assume that this is probably not a new feature...

As far as FAST packs go... the VF-25's SPS-25S Super Pack leaves most of the wing surface exposed, so it can continue to be used to dispose of waste heat. The APS-25A Armored Pack is noted as having four armored heat sinks built into the engine pods (the "ribbed" portions on the top and bottom), and the TW1 Tornado Pack is also noted as having dedicated coolant systems for its heavy quantum beam gun turret.

OK so the heat being dissipated into the integral fuel cells won't work according to you..........and where are those fuel cells at.........in the wings. If you look at the cut away in the VF master file you can see the what appears to be tightly run coolant lines concentrated in the wing near its root, the heat would be dissipated first through the fuel and then out through the wing surface, so the wing can act as a large heat sink. Also according to the drawing on pg 24, air is taken in through the Boundary layer sub inlet and then it is routed out through rear variable vane slit for the wing. This is where it takes heat from the heat exchanger.

[Sildani]

I'm curious, what role was the YF-30 designed to fill?

Looking good.

It it harder to dissipate heat in space than in atmosphere?

[JB0]

Looking good.

Also to sell toys.

It it harder to dissipate heat in space than in atmosphere?

Much harder. In the atmosphere, you can dump a lot of heat into the air around you.

In space, the only wayss to get heat out are infrared radiation and ejection of heated mass. Conduction and convection cease to be viable cooling mechanisms.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Much harder. In the atmosphere, you can dump a lot of heat into the air around you.

In space, the only wayss to get heat out are infrared radiation and ejection of heated mass. Conduction and convection cease to be viable cooling mechanisms.

Which explains why spacecraft use a lot of cryogenic agents. Makes a ton of sense to me now.

Looking good.

Also to sell toys.

I meant in universe... (smartasses... )

[grigolosi]

Very true what JB0 said. The system I was talking about would work extremely well in an atmosphere. But I can bet that is where the system dissipates through the fuel cells since liquid hydrogen has to be kept at around -200 or so degrees. I noticed in the cut away drawing what appears to be either another heat exchanger or it could even be a form of JFS or APU. But judging from the size of the lines that run to it i would say more than likely it is a heat exchanger that uses some form of bleed air/exhaust to flow the heat out of the frame. I would post the pic but i am having a hard time posting pics I have saved from my computer to the forums. The picture in in my gallery though and the component is highlighted.

[Seto Kaiba]

I'm curious, what role was the YF-30 designed to fill?

The YF-30 is nominally just a multi-role variable fighter... but the real purpose behind it, according to the Macross 30 novelization, is testing technologies for breaking through fold faults.

OK so the heat being dissipated into the integral fuel cells won't work according to you..........and where are those fuel cells at.........in the wings.

Go back and read that post, mac... because I didn't say that or anything like it.

What I did say was that you couldn't dump a lot of heat into the fuel tanks in the wings. Why? Because we're dealing with an engine that produces a LOT more heat than a rocket motor, and the fuel tanks are pressure vessels full of cryogenic fuel slush. I don't have tons of experience with cryogenic fuel handling, but I've worked with the stuff enough to know that the last thing you want to be doing is adding a high-heat source to a cryogenic fuel tank for long periods of time. It'll put a lot of extra stress on the tank itself, and if the amount of energy being introduced to the sealed system rises too quickly, you've got a good chance of the tank turning into a bomb.

If you look at the cut away in the VF master file you can see the what appears to be tightly run coolant lines concentrated in the wing near its root, the heat would be dissipated first through the fuel and then out through the wing surface, so the wing can act as a large heat sink. Also according to the drawing on pg 24, air is taken in through the Boundary layer sub inlet and then it is routed out through rear variable vane slit for the wing. This is where it takes heat from the heat exchanger.

All I see is some crosshatching that appears to be over, rather than under, the structural members inside the wing. IF that is a heat exchange system, that would point to it being outside the tank, adjacent to the wing surface, rather than inside the tanks.

Also, it's page 34, not 24... and the BLCS extends into the empennage as well, which makes it less likely that the heat is introduced inside the wing surface. (pg.36)

Looking at the cutaway, it looks more like the heat is introduced to the system in the sub-intake as it runs over the body of the Stage II turbine's precompressor stage. There's what looks like several high-gauge coolant lines running through the back of the joints of the knee.

[GuardianGrey]

Since the conversation has moved on, I shall as well.

On the idea of the VF-11 Thunderbolt-series getting an AVF upgrade; I see evidence in cannon that production of said has happened (possibility of at least a thousand), though dispersed throughout all the fleets that would be low numbers.

The VF-19 may have had continued developments &/or customizations in separate fleets (like the VF-19EF/A for Isamu, or my earlier posting of VF-19FX).

On the YF-30, in the same thread as the VF-11MAXL & VF-17, I feel it was designed as a a multi-use SOG (Special Operations Group) craft utilizing the best/latest technologies.

Now reading Seto Kaiba's posting on mostly confirms that view in my opinion.

Edited July 31, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Valkyrie Driver]

The YF-30 is nominally just a multi-role variable fighter... but the real purpose behind it, according to the Macross 30 novelization, is testing technologies for breaking through fold faults.

I ask, because it looks like it would make a really good attacker, rather than a fighter, with the big gun, large wing surface for carrying lots of ordnance, and that canister, which on the CG models and toys I've seen only carries small missiles, but seems to me that it could be used for all sorts of missionized payloads, bomb bay, radome, EW suite, photo-reconnaissance gear, or other stuff.

Honestly I hate multi-role fighters, if you build a jet to do multiple things it will end up doing nothing very well. That aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 are good at air to ground missions is by happenstance. They're better fighters than they are bombers. F-15E not included, as it was optimized for the strike mission, and the F-16 CJ/DJ are also optimized for the SEAD mission, so they don't count either. I suppose that's the key though, they set out to build good, decently fast (though not the Mach 2+ aircraft that were prevalent during the 2nd and 3rd generations), maneuverable fighters. The ability to turn and escape is a hallmark of good ground attack aircraft, like the A10, AV-8B, Su-25 and others. The downside the F-15 and F-16 have compared to dedicated ground attack aircraft is their small payload.

[grigolosi]

I quit........its been a crappy day and week................VF's all work off of magically fusion fairy dust....................................................

Edited July 31, 2015 by grigolosi

[Valkyrie Driver]

I quit........its been a crappy day and week................VF's all work off of magically fusion fairy dust....................................................

Don't feel bad. That's about how I feel when all of my computer scientist/engineer friends start talking about stuff. Also electricity:

[Seto Kaiba]

On the idea of the VF-11 Thunderbolt-series getting an AVF upgrade; I see evidence in cannon that production of said has happened (possibility of at least a thousand), though dispersed throughout all the fleets that would be low numbers.

's possible... though, taking the known examples into account, I suspect it would probably not have been done as part of any kind of official plan to improve the Thunderbolt. Most likely, they would be like the ones we know about: one-off craft for aces or elite units, and secondhand airframes modified by air racers.

The VF-19 may have had continued developments &/or customizations in separate fleets (like the VF-19EF/A for Isamu, or my earlier posting of VF-19FX).

That's certainly demonstrable. The only catch is that it appears that the new developments are mostly being applied to the export "Monkey Model" variants whose performance suffers at the hands of arms export restrictions. On the whole, they seem to be a lot less intent on improving the VF-19's flight performance than they are on improving its stability and avionics. (Which is an entirely worthy goal... were it not for the economics of the defense industry and fear of the Vajra's capabilities, many of the refinements that went into the YF-24 would have been applied to the VF-19.)

I ask, because it looks like it would make a really good attacker, rather than a fighter, with the big gun, large wing surface for carrying lots of ordnance, and that canister, which on the CG models and toys I've seen only carries small missiles, but seems to me that it could be used for all sorts of missionized payloads, bomb bay, radome, EW suite, photo-reconnaissance gear, or other stuff.

Well, it's not really a "big" gun... the heavy quantum gun pod is more or less the same type used by the YF-29, rather than the huge BFG used by the VF-27 or even more colossal one used by the YF-27-5.

WRT the ordinance container... your guess is entirely correct. The spec. mentions that the micro-missile container can be swapped for a variety of other mission-specific packages, which is where a fair bit of its multi-role-ness comes from. (It's like having all of the versatility of a FAST pack without the extra mass.)

Honestly I hate multi-role fighters, if you build a jet to do multiple things it will end up doing nothing very well.

Pretty much every VF is a multi-role fighter by definition... on account of the variable system and how the tactics of the era employ that advantage. The YF-30 is, in most respects, a pretty typical Variable Fighter design of the VF-25's generation. It shares a lot of features with the YF-29 as well.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[Valkyrie Driver]

Well, it's not really a "big" gun... the heavy quantum gun pod is more or less the same type used by the YF-29, rather than the huge BFG used by the VF-27 or even more colossal one used by the YF-27-5.

It's certainly bigger than most gun pods, though you're right not as big as the VF-27 gun. Also, I'm not really all that familiar with how the quantum gun pods are supposed to work.

Pretty much every VF is a multi-role fighter by definition... on account of the variable system and how the tactics of the era employ that advantage. The YF-30 is, in most respects, a pretty typical Variable Fighter design of the VF-25's generation. It shares a lot of features with the YF-29 as well.

That's certainly true to a degree, but most variable fighters seemed designed to kill enemy mecha first and foremost. The YF-30 seems like it's supposed to take out much bigger targets.

[grigolosi]

The F-16 CJ Blk 50 isn't necessarily optimized for the SEAD mission soley. All it takes is mounting an HTS pod to station 5L or 5R to for that mission. It can be fitted for the air to mud mission just as easily by fitting a Sniper pod or even LATIRN pod and it performs extremely well at low altitude. I have seen F-16's with large ordinance loads i.e. Harpoon missiles, GBU12's and 15's . The big issue you run into with any fighter when loading heavy weapons loads is your wing loading and landing gear loading. Remember the landing gear also have to be able to bear the weight load especially when it comes to getting off the ground. Fighter aircraft are and have been evolving since WWII. Even during WWII the best fighter s we had were also used quite often in the ground attack role. In the past 70 yrs there have been very few built specifically as as a fighter. Most have been built with the multirole versatility in mind. It is good though to have a dedicated attack frame but that single mission mentality is what has led to disappearance of that frame from a lot of military's. The original purpose of the VF design dictates that the aircraft be multirole.

[Valkyrie Driver]

The F-16 CJ Blk 50 isn't necessarily optimized for the SEAD mission soley. All it takes is mounting an HTS pod to station 5L or 5R to for that mission. It can be fitted for the air to mud mission just as easily by fitting a Sniper pod or even LATIRN pod and it performs extremely well at low altitude. I have seen F-16's with large ordinance loads i.e. Harpoon missiles, GBU12's and 15's . The big issue you run into with any fighter when loading heavy weapons loads is your wing loading and landing gear loading. Remember the landing gear also have to be able to bear the weight load especially when it comes to getting off the ground. Fighter aircraft are and have been evolving since WWII. Even during WWII the best fighter s we had were also used quite often in the ground attack role. In the past 70 yrs there have been very few built specifically as as a fighter. Most have been built with the multirole versatility in mind. It is good though to have a dedicated attack frame but that single mission mentality is what has led to disappearance of that frame from a lot of military's. The original purpose of the VF design dictates that the aircraft be multirole.

I'm not going to argue with your experience. I didn't know that it was just the HTS pod that was the difference. Still, yes it can carry a large payload for a plane it's size and the excellent low altitude handling is one of the things that makes it good at ground attack, It's still not as good at it as say the A10. I agree that keeping the multi-role versatility in mind is part of the design process, and you're always going to have that. It's designing a fighter to specifically be multi-role that kills it. The F-16 excels as a fighter, but it's only adequate for close air support (using the A10 as the bar for excellence) because it lacks the payload and the proper gun. The F-16 isn't as good at air interdiction as the F-15E or the older F-111, due mostly to payload restrictions, but it's satisfactory (better than adequate). It is however as good a fighter as the F-15C/D if not better. I know you're always going to have those multi-role considerations in a conventional aircraft. I was mostly referring to the F-16's supposed replacement, the F-35. The F-35 lacks the internal payload to be effective at any of it, and they don't want to hang missiles on the wings, even though it's capable, because it will ruin the stealth characteristics. I'm not saying that an aircraft can't be versatile, just that you need to design it to do one thing better than anything else.

The same applies to variable fighters. Most are designed to kill enemy mecha, with anti-ship being a secondary concern. The fact that they can transform makes them radically different from modern aircraft, so let's just look at fighter mode. The VF-1 was designed to be maneuverable, and fast, to counter enemy fighters. It's less effective on the ground because of it's light armaments, having only a gun pod and head lasers, while the destroids were heavily armed with a multitude of weapons.

I may not have made my opinion as clear as it could have been. It's not the consideration of versatility in the airframe that I dislike, it's trying to design an airframe to fit all mission considerations, that I disapprove of. Case in point, the F-35 tries to be all of it at once and fails. Internally it can't carry enough weapons to make a good fighter, interceptor, or bomber, it can however carry enough munitions between the bays and wing stations. That however ruins the stealth profile, and then it can't be a stealth fighter anymore. No one man is good at everything, so too is this true for our creations, so since we need a bunch of people who are collectively good at everything, so too must we make a bunch of things that are collectively good at everything.

[GuardianGrey]

I agree with you, Valkyrie Driver, on the multi-role 'trap' of fighter design.

Heck, I think the VA-3M is a great design (ugly as sin on looks, but that doesn't change operational performance).

Only shortfall I see is that it can not get orbital under its own power, though the 4th & 5th generation variable crafts seems to be addressing that.

No sense in doing an operation and not be able to extract with equipment from, and easier logistics if you can do it with less personnel.

's possible... though, taking the known examples into account, I suspect it would probably not have been done as part of any kind of official plan to improve the Thunderbolt. Most likely, they would be like the ones we know about: one-off craft for aces or elite units, and secondhand airframes modified by air racers.

Some of those examples, through a different interpretation gives me a different conclusion, though I do also see your point.

I agree that their was no official UN plan, though the ground work may have been laid by Shinsei Industry.

That, along with my speculative belief in the relation of the VF-11MAXL to the VF-16 is on par with the F-5G to the F-20.

Though if you would like to debate/discuss more on VF-11 series, we can continue in Private Message, considering it would be no longer an Upgrade topic.

That's certainly demonstrable. The only catch is that it appears that the new developments are mostly being applied to the export "Monkey Model" variants whose performance suffers at the hands of arms export restrictions. On the whole, they seem to be a lot less intent on improving the VF-19's flight performance than they are on improving its stability and avionics. (Which is an entirely worthy goal... were it not for the economics of the defense industry and fear of the Vajra's capabilities, many of the refinements that went into the YF-24 would have been applied to the VF-19.)

Agreed on trying to improve the avionics/stability of the VF-19 series.

Heck, on my write-up on for the VF-19FX Fragarach flight control was a priority. That was why I based the fuselage off the M7 VF-19F model (most stable frame of the 19 series at the time) and then worked on having it be trans-atmospheric instead of space optimized.

Although, that was for my MZ+/Macross RPG, and nothing (I could see) was out of line for it. I only attempted to dialed it to 9.5 (of the 11) that is found in extreme cannon craft.

Also, not all fleets/planets may (or may ever) have encounter with the Vajra.

So, the developments pioneered by the YF-24 still might be incorporated into their variation of the 19 series.

[grigolosi]

Driver and Grey you are correct. Nothing beats a dedicated ground attack aircraft but a lot of fighters that have excelled in the multirole arena were never intended as multirole. The F-4 was designed as a fleet defense fighter but as always with the continuing development engineers and the military would ask the question "hey would it be plausible to drop a MK-82's for use against ground targets". Where the real failure in design falls is when they try to design a bird for use by all branches of the military. The F-111 was designed under that idea and it turned out to be too heavy for Naval use. The F-4 on the other hand was designed for the Navy like I said. The AF saw it and started doing flight test with it and decided to adopt it. It only took a few small modifications and a change to a bigger main tire for the USAF to use it. Forced design in either area has rarely ever brought forth good designs.

Also what Seto said is also the prevailing influence on both design and upgrading of aircraft. Current threat assessment is always massive influence on the industry and military even if the threat is very localized. The idea is that the emigrant fleet or colony would have to make due and hold out until bigger and better reinforcements can reach them. Budgets have a big influence on the current designing of aircraft. The more bang for your buck is the prevailing ideal right now just like it is in the world of Macross. That is probably one reason you see more multirole capable VF's than dedicated mission versions like the VA-3. Unfortunately dedicated heavy hitters have never been the apple of most military leaders eyes.

Yeah Driver for the F-16, the current CCIP (Common Configuration Implementation Program) mod has allowed the Blk 50 to be able to interchange between the SEAD and mud moving mission with the pod changes. Think about it, it took an entire frame 35 yrs ago to house all the components for the SEAD mission when the F-4G was flying it. They were able to take all the required systems for the Wild Weasel mission and put it in a pod 4 ft long.

[Seto Kaiba]

It's certainly bigger than most gun pods, though you're right not as big as the VF-27 gun. Also, I'm not really all that familiar with how the quantum gun pods are supposed to work.

It's a dimension weapon... similar, in principle, to the other forms of super dimension energy weaponry used as "main gun" systems and turrets aboard most ships. It's lobbing bolts of extradimensional, super-massive matter at the enemy.

That's certainly true to a degree, but most variable fighters seemed designed to kill enemy mecha first and foremost. The YF-30 seems like it's supposed to take out much bigger targets.

I'm not really sure I follow your logic as to why the YF-30 seems to be made for attacking bigger targets.

Most Variable Fighters are, as noted previously, multirole by their very nature and can be used for attacking ships as easily as they can be used for taking out enemy fighters and battle pods. Dedicated Variable Attackers basically just turn the weaponry aspect of the Attack role up to 11. The YF-30's default armament is extremely light by the standards of the fighters of its generation... just a pair of beam guns on the monitor turret, a heavy quantum beam gun pod, the ordinance container (typically with 18 micro-missile launchers, but other options for the package correspond to the standard FAST pack varieties), an assault knife, and what appears to be four pylon stations on the wings.

The one remark in Chronicle about the YF-30's ordinance container being especially suited to low-speed attacks makes it sound a little like the YF-30 might be a good choice for close-air support, but in general the implication of the descriptions seems to be that the YF-30 was designed to 1. evaluate technologies to penetrate fold faults, and 2. meet the specific needs of combat on the often isolated world of Uroboros.

I agree that their was no official UN plan, though the ground work may have been laid by Shinsei Industry.

While it's undeniable that Shinsei had a hand in the development of some of the one-off or limited production enhanced versions of the VF-11 or VF-19's "monkey models", the groundwork seems to have mostly been laid by various emigrant fleets who each had a different view of how they wanted their military equipped.

The VF-11 seems to have been left mostly alone, except for one-off enhancements produced for specific ace pilots or "aftermarket" modifications once the military started selling off the VF-11's that weren't being converted into target drones. Export restrictions the UN Government imposed on AVF's and AVF technologies probably did a lot to limit improvement of older fighters with AVF tech as well. The VF-19EF/A's mechanic sheet notes that those laws made it all but impossible for SMS to legally use a VF-19A.

General Galaxy had an upgrade plan for the VF-19 in the Macross Galaxy fleet as a calculated snub aimed at their rival, but Shinsei itself seems to have given up on the VF-19 after the VF-171 was made next main fighter. The VF-19EF/A was proposed as a SLEP upgrade trial on paper, but its background in Macross Chronicle notes that it was really a vanity project with little-to-no support from Shinsei's management. It was a proposal Dr. Jan Neumann cooked up in an effort to get Isamu to stop trying to coerce him illegally selling him a VF-19A piece by piece, bankrolled mostly by Isamu's own savings.

[Andras]

Driver and Grey you are correct. Nothing beats a dedicated ground attack aircraft but a lot of fighters that have excelled in the multirole arena were never intended as multirole. The F-4 was designed as a fleet defense fighter but as always with the continuing development engineers and the military would ask the question "hey would it be plausible to drop a MK-82's for use against ground targets".

That's not entirely correct. The F-4 started as the AH-1 attack airplane concept and it never lost that ability when redesigned for fleet intercept. The first Marine F-4 squadrons were All Weather VMFA fighter/attack squadrons. Ground attack capability isn't something that was back-fitted to the F-4, it was something it never lost in the first place.

The P-47 was a high-altitude fighter that eventually became the premier fighter-bomber and ground-attack plane for the US Army in WWII and proved exceptional in both roles.

[grigolosi]

The F-4 was the further development of the of the McDonnell line of fighters. If you look at the the family line. You can see the evolution of the F-4. The F-4 traces its lineage from the F3H Demon and the F-101 Voodoo. The F-4 was designed as a Fleet defense fighter equipped with missiles only armament since the USN had the A-4 Skyhawk for ground attack and the F-8 Crusader which mounted 4 20 mm cannons for dogfighting. Yes it was originally being designed to carry bombs also but that was scratched when the USN decided to make it a fleet defense fighter. It wasn't until Vietnam that the bomb capability was used. Any Marine Squadron is also a ground attack squadron. The primary function of USMC aviation is to support the Marines on the ground. They didn't receive their Phantoms until 2 yrs after the USN had deployed it.

[Valkyrie Driver]

The F-4 was the further development of the of the McDonnell line of fighters. If you look at the the family line. You can see the evolution of the F-4. The F-4 traces its lineage from the F3H Demon and the F-101 Voodoo. The F-4 was designed as a Fleet defense fighter equipped with missiles only armament since the USN had the A-4 Skyhawk for ground attack and the F-8 Crusader which mounted 4 20 mm cannons for dogfighting. Yes it was originally being designed to carry bombs also but that was scratched when the USN decided to make it a fleet defense fighter. It wasn't until Vietnam that the bomb capability was used. Any Marine Squadron is also a ground attack squadron. The primary function of USMC aviation is to support the Marines on the ground. They didn't receive their Phantoms until 2 yrs after the USN had deployed it.

Indeed, my dad, who flew both the F-101 and F-4, described the F-4 as an F-101 with the problems taken out, and also as a patchwork of aerodynamic fixes...

[JB0]

The VF-19EF/A was proposed as a SLEP upgrade trial on paper, but its background in Macross Chronicle notes that it was really a vanity project with little-to-no support from Shinsei's management. It was a proposal Dr. Jan Neumann cooked up in an effort to get Isamu to stop trying to coerce him illegally selling him a VF-19A piece by piece, bankrolled mostly by Isamu's own savings.

I love Isamu.

[grigolosi]

LOL he loves the bird so much he wanted one of his own...LOL. Sounds like that Johnny Cash song where the guy sneaks a part home one day at a time to build his own Cadillac....

Ironically enough Driver I have been told by Eagle pilots and their crew chiefs (the few i could tolerate, they have horrible ego's) that the F-15 was a mechanically upgraded F-4.

[Valkyrie Driver]

It's a dimension weapon... similar, in principle, to the other forms of super dimension energy weaponry used as "main gun" systems and turrets aboard most ships. It's lobbing bolts of extradimensional, super-massive matter at the enemy.

So essentially a fighter sized Macross cannon? Which would be more powerful than the typical fighter gun pod? Sounds like a good thing for punching through ship armor.

I'm not really sure I follow your logic as to why the YF-30 seems to be made for attacking bigger targets.

With the gun pod previously mentioned, and the container system, not to mention the large wing surface (which can doubtlessly accommodate larger payloads), it just seems a prime candidate for a gunship. It's battroid profile also seems a bit unweildy for a fighter (but I said the same thing about the VF-25 with it's wing storage). When I look at it, I just want to hang the biggest missiles available on it and run it at an enemy capital ship...

[Seto Kaiba]

So essentially a fighter sized Macross cannon?

A technological cousin of the Macross Cannon, at least... it's unclear whether it's actually fusing the heavy quantum the way that a Macross Cannon does, or if it's just lobbing bolts of the stuff around and letting the impossible mass do the talking.

Which would be more powerful than the typical fighter gun pod? Sounds like a good thing for punching through ship armor.

That much is unclear/debatable. The "beam grenade" mode is certainly packing more oomph than a conventional gun pod, but as far as how the regular beam machine gun mode compares to something like a GU-17, I couldn't say. (Specialty ammo such as the MDE rounds muddies the water still further.) In the novelization, the YF-30's gun pod was converted to a MDE beam gun, so really all bets are off there as well.

With the gun pod previously mentioned, and the container system, not to mention the large wing surface (which can doubtlessly accommodate larger payloads), it just seems a prime candidate for a gunship. It's battroid profile also seems a bit unweildy for a fighter (but I said the same thing about the VF-25 with it's wing storage). When I look at it, I just want to hang the biggest missiles available on it and run it at an enemy capital ship...

The gun pod is debatable at best. The container system is an asset, but more suited to dogfighting or ground attack with its micro-ordinance, beam cannon, or reconnaissance options. The wing... well... based on official spec, the difference in wingspan between the VF-25 and YF-30 is about 4 3/4 inches. To make room for the ordinance container, the YF-30 has a much wider body, and the limbs are built into the wing surface... so it has fewer pylons than a VF-25. (It appears to have four, while the VF-25 has either six or eight depending upon whether you trust CG models or Master File.) It could probably carry a few especially heavy missiles, but no more than any other large VF.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[Valkyrie Driver]

Just because it's one hardpoint, doesn't mean it's only one station. It is possible that the wings and hardpoints might be able to support more weight (like the F-15E, or F-16XL).