RMS-1

[Aurel Tristen]

New translation.... more text coming soon

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...siles/rms1.html

FYI....Enjoy

[eugimon]

Has anyone come up with a little arm bracket for our 1/48's so we can mount two more of these guys in fighter mode? Heh... I wanna see a missile only variant.

[Commander McBride]

Has anyone come up with a little arm bracket for our 1/48's so we can mount two more of these guys in fighter mode? Heh... I wanna see a missile only variant.

I'm more interested in seeing one with five gunpods.....

Edited January 1, 2004 by Commander McBride

[David Hingtgen]

I'm fairly certain it should be made by Bofors, not Beforse. Since Bofors is a major missile manufacturer, and they are listed as making weapons for Macross 0.

[Aurel Tristen]

I'm fairly certain it should be made by Bofors, not Beforse. Since Bofors is a major missile manufacturer, and they are listed as making weapons for Macross 0.

Are you talking about the VF-0's Raytheon/Beforse AIM-200A AMRAAM 2? : )

What you speak of is not a mistake. The text says 'Befose' (ƒxƒtƒHƒ‹ƒZ) not Bofors. (ƒ{ƒtƒHƒ‹ƒX)

(Egan uses 'Bifors', see: http://www.anime.net/macross/endnotes/inde...tml#LittleNote)

It is the name of the weapons manufacturer in the world of Macross. Yes, in real life their counterpart would be Bofors. But, Macross isn't real. Touchy issue.

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, but it's still inconsistent. You see Raytheon and Hughes used, not Raitheon or Haghes. So why not Bofors? And Northrop-Grumman is used correctly, for both real and fake planes.

Edited January 1, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Aurel Tristen]

Yeah, but it's still inconsistent. You see Raytheon and Hughes used, not Raitheon or Haghes. So why not Bofors? And Northrop-Grumman is used correctly, for both real and fake planes.

Its about what is officially published.

Howard is used for several things. 'Hughes' however is only listed as for the VF-11's FAST Pack micro missile launchers (HMMM Mark 6) and nothing more. Consistent or not. Personally, I would prefer it if the Macross creators did use only real life names, but they don't.

[1st Border Red Devil]

Personally, I would prefer it if the Macross creators did use only real life names, but they don't.

I don't think they can. Im not certain about the laws concerning such name usage...but I think its forbidden in anything officially published (anywhere) to make reference to a military-industrial company in a totally ficticious setting without their permission. There are cases where fictional representation is ok (like how Grumman might be referred to on the program JAG because the F-14 is their baby).

[Aurel Tristen]

Personally, I would prefer it if the Macross creators did use only real life names, but they don't.

I don't think they can. Im not certain about the laws concerning such name usage...but I think its forbidden in anything officially published (anywhere) to make reference to a military-industrial company in a totally ficticious setting without their permission. There are cases where fictional representation is ok (like how Grumman might be referred to on the program JAG because the F-14 is their baby).

Yes, I agree with you.

[JB0]

Personally, I would prefer it if the Macross creators did use only real life names, but they don't.

I actually like the semi-fictional names.

It's kind of like the real world, but not really.

...

Of course, Macross has been a lot less like the real world since 1999 came and went without any alien spaceships crashing to Earth.

[Aurel Tristen]

New translation. More text added--refresh:

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...siles/rms1.html

[Anubis]

Damn, a gerwalk valk with 14 reaction missles? That could kick some serious ass.

[Graham]

0.5kt or even 1.5kt seems a very low explosive yield for the RMS-1, compared with 'real world' nuclear missiles.

Consider, the DOUGLAS AIR-2A "Genie" used on the F106 Delta Dart interceptor had a yield of 1.5kt and that nuclear missile was developed way back in 1955 and is much smaller than the RMS-1! See here.

The more modern AGM-86A nuclear cruise missile developed in the 1970s is the same length (14ft) as the RMS-1, yet has a much higher explosive yield of 250kt! see here.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Well, you are getting into tactical vs strategic nukes here. RMS-1's are decidedly tactical, while AGM-86's (so cool on a B-1) could definitely be considered strategic, if a bit small for that role (but then again, they have to be, to be air-launched).

The Genie was anti-aircraft. (Bombers, specifically) No need to be any more powerful than it is. Same as a nuclear torpedo (SUBROC/ASROC)---don't need a 10-mile destruction radius for single small targets. Same with the RMS-1. It's not supposed to nuke cities, it's anti-ship.

Edited January 2, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Graham]

I'm not saying the RMS-1 needs to be super powerful, but it seems rather large for in size considering it only has a 0.5kt yield.

Also, a 0.5k yield seems rather low for taking out armored 4km long battleships.

I'm just wondering, will the RMS-1 will be more effective in space as there is no atmosphere to slow down the blast wave.

Graham

[Britai 7018]

Maybe they have the option of giving it a much higher yield warhead and just wanted the flexibiilty in design. The .5 kT yield might have been chosen because it would be strong enough to significantly damage warships, if not cripple the big 4km ones, at least significantly damage the smaller ones, while not causing friendly damage.

[Aurel Tristen]

I'm not saying the RMS-1 needs to be super powerful, but it seems rather large for in size considering it only has a 0.5kt yield.

Also, a 0.5k yield seems rather low for taking out armored 4km long battleships.

I'm just wondering, will the RMS-1 will be more effective in space as there is no atmosphere to slow down the blast wave.

Graham

Well, in the text (refresh) there is mention of varied warhead yields upwards of 100s of kilotons.

[Zentrandude]

Well, you are getting into tactical vs strategic nukes here. RMS-1's are decidedly tactical, while AGM-86's (so cool on a B-1) could definitely be considered strategic, if a bit small for that role (but then again, they have to be, to be air-launched).

The Genie was anti-aircraft. (Bombers, specifically) No need to be any more powerful than it is. Same as a nuclear torpedo (SUBROC/ASROC)---don't need a 10-mile destruction radius for single small targets. Same with the RMS-1. It's not supposed to nuke cities, it's anti-ship.

dont you love the military for making 2 words that are basicly the same but use it so differntly.

[ewilen]

A couple thoughts. First, I think of "reaction warheads" as advanced thermonuclear devices, which may not even require a fission reaction to initiate the fusion reaction. I'd expect the yield to be based primarily on operational need, as opposed to technological/physical size limitations. (Basically, what David said.)

Second, maybe the weight of the RMS-1 missiles is because they carry more propellant. More propellant provides greater maneuverability for homing on targets and dodging countermeasures, as well as greater/longer acceleration so that the missile gets to its target faster.

Edited January 2, 2004 by ewilen

[Zentrandude]

also more effient that you dont have as much waste/fallout so you can use a smaller glob of glowing stuff.

[David Hingtgen]

Avoiding self-fragging/friendly fire is definite concern with these. I mean, you don't want to launch a Sidewinder from .3 miles away--the exploding enemy plane probably WILL take you down too. Same with a nuke--bad idea to have a HUGE explosion, when you can just cripple it. I mean, look how BIG the Zentran ships are. In a fight, there could easily be an entire friendly air wing zipping around it---you do not want to zap everything in a 1-mile radius. You just want a nice big "boom" at the bridge, or the engines, etc.

As to why it's so big: 'cuz it looks cool on screen, and we want to be able to identify the STRIKE valks easily on a 19inch TV. People expect nukes to be big. Even if they are much smaller than most bombs in real life. (The most common USAF one is the B61 "Silver Bullet"---looks like a fat sparrow if anything, with no forward fins---not some giant of a weapon) But, the B61 can range from 0.3 to 350 kiltons. RMS-1 is likely the same. The actual material takes up very little space in a weapon, you can use the same weapon to delivery many various payloads.

Edited January 2, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[JELEINEN]

dont you love the military for making 2 words that are basicly the same but use it so differntly.

If you're refering to "strategic" and "tactical," they don't mean basically the same thing.

[JELEINEN]

Hmm... My understanding is that outboard would mean away from the center of the plane and inboard towards the center. That article says that the outboard pylon had one missile and the inboard two (if it weren't for someone being really anal, I'd cut and paste the exact quote, but anyway...), but every picture, toy, and model I've seen is the opposite. Now either I have the two terms backwards, or something isn't right.

[Aurel Tristen]

Hmm... My understanding is that outboard would mean away from the center of the plane and inboard towards the center. That article says that the outboard pylon had one missile and the inboard two (if it weren't for someone being really anal, I'd cut and paste the exact quote, but anyway...), but every picture, toy, and model I've seen is the opposite. Now either I have the two terms backwards, or something isn't right.

Apologies. That is an error on my part. I will correct it just as soon I am able to connect to my server to upload the file again.

[Uxi]

Hmm...  My understanding is that outboard would mean away from the center of the plane and inboard towards the center.  That article says that the outboard pylon had one missile and the inboard two (if it weren't for someone being really anal, I'd cut and paste the exact quote, but anyway...), but every picture, toy, and model I've seen is the opposite.  Now either I have the two terms backwards, or something isn't right.

Hmm... well the Yamato 1/60 Hikaru Super VF-1J had the paired RMS-1's inboard. I always thought this made more sense to have more mass towards the center of the plane as possible.

How do real planes do it? And that outboard weapons would fire first leaving the mass towards the center as individual missiles fire...

David?

Edited January 2, 2004 by Uxi

[Mr March]

That's some great stuff. It's great to finally see a yeild given for the RMS-1 Reaction Warheads. It's nice to see there is some variable yeild for the missiles, since onscreen there are some rather spectacular effects for 0.5 kiloton weapons

I'm curious, was there ever a yeild given for the Large-Type Reactive Missile? I'd be very interested to know what yeilds are given for capital ship grade warheads in the Macross universe. Given the incredible power of the Macross Main Guns (which I've seen rated in Teratons by a few independant analysis) I'd suspect the yields would be quite high.

[David Hingtgen]

Hmm... well the Yamato 1/60 Hikaru Super VF-1J had the paired RMS-1's inboard.  I always thought this made more sense to have more mass towards the center of the plane as possible. 

How do real planes do it?  And that outboard weapons would fire first leaving the mass towards the center as individual missiles fire...

David?

Heavy stuff goes inboard, no exceptions. I've always thought one of the "stupidest" things in all of Macross canon is to have the dual RMS-1's outboard. That's just WRONG for any aircraft. I put them inboard without a second thought. I mean, just go have a look at your "standard" F-16 SEAD mission load-out (one of the most common weapon loadings in the USAF in the 90's)---you have the huge heavy fuel tanks occupying the inboard pylon, the big HARM missile in the middle, the medium AMRAAM missile outboard, and the light Sidewinder on the tip. Now, you will also see the AMRAAM and Sidewinder swap places, because it's been found the AMRAAM is picky about it's line of sight, and likes to be outboard. Since there's less than 100lb difference between the two, it makes little difference. But you'll never see a heavy weapon outboard---they just won't take it. Putting a light weapon inboard is pointless, since the inboard ones are the ONLY ones which can take a heavy weapon. Most planes have every pylon rated differently, even if the pylons are physically identical---it's the wing itself which is the issue.

And you have to take into account G-loading for the pylons, as well. An F-15 will NOT be pulling 9G's if there's drop tanks on its wings. (One of the prime factors for F-15 FAST pack design was that it must be able to maintain 9G's with them attached--few fuel tanks can take that stress)

Here's an F-16 with a SEAD loadout (not typical SEAD, but illustrates my point better):

PS-- SEAD: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses. Basically extended patrol/air combat, with anti-SAM added in.

Edited January 3, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Aurel Tristen]

That's some great stuff. It's great to finally see a yeild given for the RMS-1 Reaction Warheads. It's nice to see there is some variable yeild for the missiles, since onscreen there are some rather spectacular effects for 0.5 kiloton weapons

I'm curious, was there ever a yeild given for the Large-Type Reactive Missile? I'd be very interested to know what yeilds are given for capital ship grade warheads in the Macross universe. Given the incredible power of the Macross Main Guns (which I've seen rated in Teratons by a few independant analysis) I'd suspect the yields would be quite high.

Warhead yield amounts for reactive weapons have only been specified by Masahiro Chiba (MAT)for the following:

RMS-1

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...siles/rms1.html

RHV-1

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...ea_sparrow.html

SRMH-03

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...les/srmh03.html

[Aurel Tristen]

Heavy stuff goes inboard, no exceptions. I've always thought one of the "stupidest" things in all of Macross canon is to have the dual RMS-1's outboard. That's just WRONG for any aircraft.

The dual-ejector rack for the underwing pylon which loads the RMS-1 is inboard. The single RMS-1 is mounted outboard.

[Mr March]

Thanks Nan.

[Nied]

Heavy stuff goes inboard, no exceptions. I've always thought one of the "stupidest" things in all of Macross canon is to have the dual RMS-1's outboard. That's just WRONG for any aircraft. I put them inboard without a second thought. I mean, just go have a look at your "standard" F-16 SEAD mission load-out (one of the most common weapon loadings in the USAF in the 90's)---you have the huge heavy fuel tanks occupying the inboard pylon, the big HARM missile in the middle, the medium AMRAAM missile outboard, and the light Sidewinder on the tip. Now, you will also see the AMRAAM and Sidewinder swap places, because it's been found the AMRAAM is picky about it's line of sight, and likes to be outboard. Since there's less than 100lb difference between the two, it makes little difference. But you'll never see a heavy weapon outboard---they just won't take it. Putting a light weapon inboard is pointless, since the inboard ones are the ONLY ones which can take a heavy weapon. Most planes have every pylon rated differently, even if the pylons are physically identical---it's the wing itself which is the issue.

And you have to take into account G-loading for the pylons, as well. An F-15 will NOT be pulling 9G's if there's drop tanks on its wings. (One of the prime factors for F-15 FAST pack design was that it must be able to maintain 9G's with them attached--few fuel tanks can take that stress)

Here's an F-16 with a SEAD loadout (not typical SEAD, but illustrates my point better):

PS-- SEAD: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses. Basically extended patrol/air combat, with anti-SAM added in.

Well the only time we really see dual RMS outboard is in DYRL, and then they don't apear to be loaded with heavy nuclear warheads. Instead they're being used as BVR missiles to take out Battlepods. It's possible that in this configuration the two RMS-1s are actually lighter than the micro missile boxes. In the TV series, when the RMS-1s apear it looks almost like they're on three individual hardpoints.

[Pat Payne]

Personally, I would prefer it if the Macross creators did use only real life names, but they don't.

I don't think they can. Im not certain about the laws concerning such name usage...but I think its forbidden in anything officially published (anywhere) to make reference to a military-industrial company in a totally ficticious setting without their permission. There are cases where fictional representation is ok (like how Grumman might be referred to on the program JAG because the F-14 is their baby).

I don't think so, though: The companies would rather that they didn't, and certainly, if the association could harm their business (for instance, a TV show's plotline implying that United Airlines was unsafe), the company could sue. But there's no law forbidding the use of real-life names in fiction (outside of normal trademark protections), just a whole lot of lawyers.

[Aurel Tristen]

Hmm...  My understanding is that outboard would mean away from the center of the plane and inboard towards the center.  That article says that the outboard pylon had one missile and the inboard two (if it weren't for someone being really anal, I'd cut and paste the exact quote, but anyway...), but every picture, toy, and model I've seen is the opposite.  Now either I have the two terms backwards, or something isn't right.

Apologies. That is an error on my part. I will correct it just as soon I am able to connect to my server to upload the file again.

Edit: oops..... hold on a minute.... the two missiles _are_ on the outboard pylon.... what am I talking about? >_< @_@

[Aurel Tristen]

Heavy stuff goes inboard, no exceptions.  I've always thought one of the "stupidest" things in all of Macross canon is to have the dual RMS-1's outboard.  That's just WRONG for any aircraft.  I put them inboard without a second thought.  I mean, just go have a look at your "standard"  F-16 SEAD mission load-out (one of the most common weapon loadings in the USAF in the 90's)---you have the huge heavy fuel tanks occupying the inboard pylon, the big HARM missile in the middle, the medium AMRAAM missile outboard, and the light Sidewinder on the tip.  Now, you will also see the AMRAAM and Sidewinder swap places, because it's been found the AMRAAM is picky about it's line of sight, and likes to be outboard.  Since there's less than 100lb difference between the two, it makes little difference.  But you'll never see a heavy weapon outboard---they just won't take it.  Putting a light weapon inboard is pointless, since the inboard ones are the ONLY ones which can take a heavy weapon.  Most planes have every pylon rated differently, even if the pylons are physically identical---it's the wing itself which is the issue. 

And you have to take into account G-loading for the pylons, as well.  An F-15 will NOT be pulling 9G's if there's drop tanks on its wings.  (One of the prime factors for F-15 FAST pack design was that it must be able to maintain 9G's with them attached--few fuel tanks can take that stress) 

Here's an F-16 with a SEAD loadout (not typical SEAD, but illustrates my point better):

PS-- SEAD: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses. Basically extended patrol/air combat, with anti-SAM added in.

Well the only time we really see dual RMS outboard is in DYRL, and then they don't apear to be loaded with heavy nuclear warheads. Instead they're being used as BVR missiles to take out Battlepods. It's possible that in this configuration the two RMS-1s are actually lighter than the micro missile boxes. In the TV series, when the RMS-1s apear it looks almost like they're on three individual hardpoints.

Yes, I think it wasn't until Do You Remember Love? that the VF-1's design was given its two hardpoints per wing. There was a belief by some people that it had three hardpoints per wing (because of the TV series 3 RMS-1 loaded). Hasegawa choice to give its version of the Valkyrie 5 hardpoints so that it could effectively have both the 2 and the 3 configuration. I believe this is incorrect however... Kawamori has only drawn the VF-1 with 2 hardpoints per wing.

[David Hingtgen]

I would guess that people who thought VF-1's had 3 hardpoints because of having 3 RMS-1's didn't know much about how missiles are carried, and just assumed 1 missile per pylon.

Most planes only have 2 hardpoints (thus pylons) per wing. If it's got 3, the outboard one is almost certainly AIM-9-only. (Or nowadays, AMRAAM). It's the pylons themselves which carry multiple bombs or missiles. I mean, you always see F-15's carrying 4 Sidewinders, but it's 2 per pylon on just 2 pylons.

Boy, could I (and would I love to) get into a discussion about pylons, stub-pylons, multi-ejector racks, launch rails, pallet adapters, and the like. :)