Macross Δ (Delta) Mecha/Technology Thread - READ 1st POST

[sketchley]

It always makes me curious what we're missing out on seeing when we have these gaps in the numbering on fighters in Macross.

Presumably there's is a VF-23, VF-26, and VF-28 that exist but have gone unseen. I'd figure the 26 and 28 are additional variants on the basic 24 frame, but the 23 could be anything.

What about the VF-2? 3? 5? Or even the VF-16? Some of those have been mentioned, but aside from foot notes about being competing fighters or engines being used in other VFs, that's all we know.

[anime52k8]

What about the VF-2? 3? 5? Or even the VF-16? Some of those have been mentioned, but aside from foot notes about being competing fighters or engines being used in other VFs, that's all we know.

There's probably more VF designs that should exist that we haven't seen than there are designs we actually have seen. I imagine a lot of them (i.e. all the single digit VF's) are victims of being from that period between 2012 and 2040 where there's little to no official fiction.

[Zinjo]

What about the VF-2? 3? 5? Or even the VF-16? Some of those have been mentioned, but aside from foot notes about being competing fighters or engines being used in other VFs, that's all we know.

I doubt we'll ever see those unless they were needed for a production.

It always makes me curious what we're missing out on seeing when we have these gaps in the numbering on fighters in Macross.

Presumably there's is a VF-23, VF-26, and VF-28 that exist but have gone unseen. I'd figure the 26 and 28 are additional variants on the basic 24 frame, but the 23 could be anything.

Not necessarily. They could have only made it to the design or prototype stages. Designators are not re-used regardless of whether the fighter gets produced.

[RedWolf]

We have a new term for civilian destroids. Workroid.

[anime52k8]

I doubt we'll ever see those unless they were needed for a production.

Not necessarily. They could have only made it to the design or prototype stages. Designators are not re-used regardless of whether the fighter gets produced.

Even if they were only prototypes, that's still a jet that transforms into a robot that we've never gotten to see.

[Nekko Basara]

Don't forget that the US Tri-Service aircraft designation system, on which Valkyrie designations seem to be based, is full of skipped numbers due to dropped projects, manufacturer requests, and even superstition. An "empty" number doesn't necessarily mean a valk we haven't seen.

On a side-note, I enjoy that Kawamori has so frequently used the YF-x to VF-x+1 formula, even though in actual history I think that is limited to the very special case of the YF-17 to F-18, where the prototype was completely re-designed for a new requirement. I'm curious what his basis - if any - is for the VF-17 to VF171 name progression. I feel like that would have been a better real-world way to handle the "Super Bug" than the misleading "F-18E" designation (although I think some funding shenanigans are behind that story).

[d3v]

Don't forget that the US Tri-Service aircraft designation system, on which Valkyrie designations seem to be based, is full of skipped numbers due to dropped projects, manufacturer requests, and even superstition. An "empty" number doesn't necessarily mean a valk we haven't seen.

On a side-note, I enjoy that Kawamori has so frequently used the YF-x to VF-x+1 formula, even though in actual history I think that is limited to the very special case of the YF-17 to F-18, where the prototype was completely re-designed for a new requirement. I'm curious what his basis - if any - is for the VF-17 to VF171 name progression. I feel like that would have been a better real-world way to handle the "Super Bug" than the misleading "F-18E" designation (although I think some funding shenanigans are behind that story).

I believe it was easier for them to convince Congress that the Super Hornet was just a low-risk "derivative" (rather than something that's 80% new) by keeping the designation.

[Seto Kaiba]

It always makes me curious what we're missing out on seeing when we have these gaps in the numbering on fighters in Macross.

Presumably there's is a VF-23, VF-26, and VF-28 that exist but have gone unseen. I'd figure the 26 and 28 are additional variants on the basic 24 frame, but the 23 could be anything.

Dunno 'bout any VF-23, but we have had mentions of a YF-26 and YF-28.

Specifically, Variable Fighter Master File: VF-25 Messiah mentions that the "Project Triangler" program, the joint development program shared by Macross Frontier, Olympia, and Galaxy, had a design submitted by each fleet for consideration. Obviously Frontier had the YF-25 Prophecy, Galaxy had the YF-27 Shahar (a smokescreen for their actual development plans), and Macross Olympia supposedly submitted the YF-26.

There is mention of a YF-28 in Macross the Ride (IIRC in Ch.9 "Peace Children") in connection with the YF-27 program. LAI supposedly furnished Macross Galaxy with the YF-29 specs under the table, which led to the VF-27's four-engine configuration. Based on what's said, the YF-28 seems to be either an incremental step from the YF-25 to YF-29 or Galaxy's spin on the YF-29 spec.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Seto Kaiba

[anime52k8]

that's some awesome knowledge. I really want to see a YF-26 now.

[Zinjo]

I believe it was easier for them to convince Congress that the Super Hornet was just a low-risk "derivative" (rather than something that's 80% new) by keeping the designation.

Most likely an "F-181" would have been treated as a new design and thus subject to all the red tape associated with the procurement of a new fighter craft.

Building the "Rhino", as Bug derivative was easier and faster to deploy to the Navy. Gotta admire MD's ingenuity...

Edited April 11, 2016 by Zinjo

[grigolosi]

This is a little off the current thread flow but I spotted this little throw back to current aircraft. I saw it last night when i was watching episode 2.........tridaire fasteners on one of the quick release maintenance panels on the VF-31....I guess you can't replace something that works do well..

Edited April 12, 2016 by grigolosi

[ManhattanProject972]

I just noticed a lack of Fold quartz on the VF-31A. I wonder if its because its the mass production model and they didn't want to use all their fold quartz on them or it could just be a protective cover used for when the 31's are just sitting on deck.

[RedWolf]

I do have to wonder. In Macross Plus this technology is never elaborated upon. Which makes me wonder if Walkure uses it.

[Graham]

I've been thinking about ammunition storage for the VF-31 arm cannons, specifically where the heck is the ammunition stored?

We know that the arm cannons are shell firing, not beam weapons. This has already been confirmed by Kawamori.

Initially I thought the ammunition magazine for the arm cannons may be stored inside the arm shields, but this has since been discounted by the recent 1/72 Bandai model kit CAD renders which show that the folding knife is in fact stored inside the shield.

So, this got me to thinking where else could the ammunition be stored?

Now even though the arm cannons are only single barreled weapons, I doubt very much that there is room inside the slender white color arm cannon nacelles for a helical wrap-around-the-barrel magazine like in the VF-1's GU-11 Gunpod.

To me, assuming the VF-31's arm cannon is between calibre 30mm to 55mm I doubt there is room for more than just the barrel and breach/firing/extraction/ejection mechanism inside the arm cannon nacelle.

Initially, this left me a bit stumped, but then I remembered that the hands do not actually retract into the forearms on the VF-31, so a portion of the forearm interior could possibly serve as the storage location for the ammunition for the arm cannons.

Graham

[d3v]

Single barreled cannons have a lower rate of fire than rotary/gatling cannons and make up for it with a larger caliber a lack of a need to spin the cannon up to speed allowing for less rounds to kill.

Compare the Mauser BK-27 in the Typhoon and Gripen uses a 27mm round, has a rate of fire of 1,000 - 1,700 rpm versus your bog-standard USAF M61 Vulcan which uses a 20mm round and fires at 6,000 rpm. The former can spit out 4kg of projectiles in the first second of firing compared to 2kg for the Vulcan.

This means that the 32's arm cannons possible need to carry less ammo than a normal rotary gunpod. The fact that it carries two of them possibly helps as well.

[Graham]

Single barreled cannons have a lower rate of fire than rotary/gatling cannons and make up for it with a larger caliber a lack of a need to spin the cannon up to speed allowing for less rounds to kill.

Compare the Mauser BK-27 in the Typhoon and Gripen uses a 27mm round, has a rate of fire of 1,000 - 1,700 rpm versus your bog-standard USAF M61 Vulcan which uses a 20mm round and fires at 6,000 rpm. The former can spit out 4kg of projectiles in the first second of firing compared to 2kg for the Vulcan.

This means that the 32's arm cannons possible need to carry less ammo than a normal rotary gunpod. The fact that it carries two of them possibly helps as well.

Yep, I know, understand and agree with all that. But I'm still curious where the ammunition is physically stored though and I'm hoping Kawamori actually did factor space for ammunition storage in his design.

[Graham]

Even though there could be a certain amount of ammunition miniaturization due to advances in more efficient propellants, telescopic cased ammo or caseless ammo etc, there is only so much you can shrink a large calibre shell. A 30mm shell is a 30mm shell after all and takes up a certain amount of physical space even if the VF-31 is only carrying say 120rds or 150rds per gun for example and those arm guns just don't look big enough to be holding the ammoin the external part of the gun on the arm.

[d3v]

Yep, I know, understand and agree with all that. But I'm still curious where the ammunition is physically stored though and I'm hoping Kawamori actually did factor space for ammunition storage in his design.

Yes, what I'm saying is that, whether or not they're in the arms, the 31 doesn't need to carry as much as, say a 25, meaning it could possibly pack it all along side all the extra machinery in the arms.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Single barreled cannons have a lower rate of fire than rotary/gatling cannons and make up for it with a larger caliber a lack of a need to spin the cannon up to speed allowing for less rounds to kill.

While you are correct that single barrel cannons necessitate a lower rate of fire to avoid melting the barrels, the rate of fire is still respectable. Also, the M61 and GAU-8A do not need to spin up. Those cannons use a linkless feed, and are primed to fire before they take off. The spin up time you see with multibarrel guns is only on the M134 Minigun, as it needs to de-link the ammo and the barrels must be spun up to speed. It also has to do with the fact that the minigun is electrically driven, whereas the M61 is pneumatically driven, and the GAU-8A is hydraulically driven.

It should also be mentioned that cannons like the Mauser BK-27 are revolver cannons, which are still relatively bulky. They still consume ammunition at a high rate, and 120-150 rounds is not a lot of ammo. We have seen this in some real world examples like the F-35. Even the F-16 carries 511 rounds for it's gun, and that seems sufficient for a dogfight.

We can also assume that after frontier and the introduction of better materials, smaller caliber cannons are becoming more and more prevalent, after all, the gunpod calibers have been shrinking as the franchise progressed. The VF-11 and VF-19 both used 30mm guns, while the VF-25 used a 25mm, and both are much smaller than the 55mm gun used by the VF-1. Not unreasonable to assume the VF-31 might use a 20mm cannon.

I just wanted to clear that up. If we're going to discuss this topic, we need to make sure that we have our facts straight.

[d3v]

While you are correct that single barrel cannons necessitate a lower rate of fire to avoid melting the barrels, the rate of fire is still respectable. Also, the M61 and GAU-8A do not need to spin up. Those cannons use a linkless feed, and are primed to fire before they take off. The spin up time you see with multibarrel guns is only on the M134 Minigun, as it needs to de-link the ammo and the barrels must be spun up to speed. It also has to do with the fact that the minigun is electrically driven, whereas the M61 is pneumatically driven, and the GAU-8A is hydraulically driven.

The M61 still has spin up time, even if it can fire as soon as the trigger is pushed, it's still not firing at the full rate of fire. The A1 takes 0.4 seconds to reach full rate of fire, while the A2 which is lighter and has a more powerful motor cuts this down to about 0.25 (sources differ on the actual time, but it's there). During this time, they're still spitting out less rounds than a single barrel cannon which is firing at max rpm from the start. A one second burst from the A1 fires only 70-75 rounds as opposed to the 100 rounds per second at full rate of fire.

[Nekko Basara]

Speaking of assumptions, are we sure we understand the propellant situation in these weapons? Sure, they fire physical projectiles that will require storage space near the weapon, but that's typically only a fraction of a modern cased round's bulk and mass. What if Macross slugthrowers finally have a workable caseless propellant? What if the propellant they use is significantly smaller for a given amount of expansion/force? What if they don't use a traditional chemical propellant at all, but something like electrothermal or gauss propulsion to throw shells? These would all lower the size of the ammunition that needs to be stored near and fed into the gun.

[Valkyrie Driver]

The M61 still has spin up time, even if it can fire as soon as the trigger is pushed, it's still not firing at the full rate of fire. The A1 takes 0.4 seconds to reach full rate of fire, while the A2 which is lighter and has a more powerful motor cuts this down to about 0.25 (sources differ on the actual time, but it's there). During this time, they're still spitting out less rounds than a single barrel cannon which is firing at max rpm from the start. A one second burst from the A1 fires only 70-75 rounds as opposed to the 100 rounds per second at full rate of fire.

That's true. There is some lag in the rate of fire until it gets going. I thought you were referring to the spool up time as you see it on the minigun. Many people who have never been around these weapons assume they all work like the M134 minigun (I have to make certain assumptions, this is the internet after all...).

I see what you're saying about the single barrel cannons not being as ammo hungry, and thus requiring less stored ammo, however the primary reason the US military went to the multibarrel cannon was that it allowed a higher rate of fire, in a single cannon, and thus allowed you to get a pattern (ever tried to shoot a moving target with a single round? It's exceedingly difficult), which increased your probability of kill. Truth be told, you probably use up as much ammo, proportionally, regardless of what cannon you use.

Speaking of assumptions, are we sure we understand the propellant situation in these weapons? Sure, they fire physical projectiles that will require storage space near the weapon, but that's typically only a fraction of a modern cased round's bulk and mass. What if Macross slugthrowers finally have a workable caseless propellant? What if the propellant they use is significantly smaller for a given amount of expansion/force? What if they don't use a traditional chemical propellant at all, but something like electrothermal or gauss propulsion to throw shells? These would all lower the size of the ammunition that needs to be stored near and fed into the gun.

We know that up until the VF-25, we were still using chemically propelled projectiles in the gunpods, and we know that it was cased ammo. Some earlier posts by graham have seen Kawamori-sama confirm that the VF-31's guns use cased ammo. Still a good line of reasoning, given that we just don't know.

[d3v]

That's true. There is some lag in the rate of fire until it gets going. I thought you were referring to the spool up time as you see it on the minigun. Many people who have never been around these weapons assume they all work like the M134 minigun (I have to make certain assumptions, this is the internet after all...).

I see what you're saying about the single barrel cannons not being as ammo hungry, and thus requiring less stored ammo, however the primary reason the US military went to the multibarrel cannon was that it allowed a higher rate of fire, in a single cannon, and thus allowed you to get a pattern (ever tried to shoot a moving target with a single round? It's exceedingly difficult), which increased your probability of kill. Truth be told, you probably use up as much ammo, proportionally, regardless of what cannon you use.

Defintely not the line of thinking used by European and Central Asian air forces which favor revolver cannons to full on rotary gatlings. The thinking is that the time that the pipper is on the target is so small that you don't get a lot of time to get the gatlings up to full speed.

Here's an excerpt from a 2009 article by Tony Williams.

An interesting comparison can be made between the two principal Western fighter guns, the M61A1 and the BK 27. The rotary clearly has the advantage in rate of fire, but it fires much smaller and lighter shells. Another difference between the two is that the externally-powered rotary gun takes time to spin up to its maximum rate of fire, whereas the revolver has an instant response. In the first 0.5 second, the M61 fires 18 rounds totalling 1.8 kg: whereas the BK 27 fires 14 rounds weighing over 3.7 kg. In the first second, the M61 fires 68 rounds weighing 6.9 kg, the BK 27 fires 28 rounds weighing over 7.4 kg. In weight of fire, as well as the destructiveness of the individual projectiles, the Mauser clearly has an advantage, albeit one that the faster-accelerating M61A2 reduces somewhat. This is significant in that dogfights frequently permit only the briefest of firing opportunities, and although a skilled pilot anticipating a firing opportunity can 'spin up' a rotary in advance, such notice cannot always be guaranteed. The Mauser projectiles are also heavier, which means they will retain their initial velocity out to a greater range.

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/ModFighterGuns.htm

Of course, the argument could be made that having 2 guns also helps negate the lower rate of fire, even if they're not using a bigger round. For reference, the Russian GSh-3-2 cannon can actually match and even exceed the rate of fire of the GAU-22 rotary gatling due to the fact that it has 2 barrels, effectively making it two cannons in one.

Edited April 12, 2016 by d3v

[anime52k8]

We can also assume that after frontier and the introduction of better materials, smaller caliber cannons are becoming more and more prevalent, after all, the gunpod calibers have been shrinking as the franchise progressed. The VF-11 and VF-19 both used 30mm guns, while the VF-25 used a 25mm, and both are much smaller than the 55mm gun used by the VF-1. Not unreasonable to assume the VF-31 might use a 20mm cannon.

That's not really an equal comparison though. The 25mm guns on the 25 only refer to the hip guns, which can be either shell firing or beam based depending on how the craft is outfitted. Those are most analogous to the REB-20/REB-23 beam cannons in the wing roots of the VF-19, which are presumably 20mm or 23mm bore based on the model number. The VF-25's actual gunpod is a 58mm.

:edit:

That said, the arm guns on the 31 seem (to me anyways) to be more functionally analogous to the hip guns on the VF-19/25 series than the gunpods anyways. The smaller bore internal guns are the main fixed-forward armament for fighter mode, but are secondary to the gunpod (which is presumably more powerful but shorter ranged) in battroid mode.

it does seem a little odd that they'd go for a shell firing gun in that position when pretty much every other valk ever has had that equivalent roll filled by some form of beam weapon.

:edit:2

BTW, I actually can't find a reference to the bore of the GU-15, so I'm not sure what size round that uses. the 30mm gunpod of the VF-11 is actually unusually small though. the VF-17 uses a 40mm gunpod and the VA-3 is noted as having a 60mm gunpod.

:edit:3

honestly the VF-11 has always been kind of an odd craft since it's the only VF that has zero internal offensive weaponry when it's a jet. The only integral weapon is the head laser which has a super limited rearward firing arc in fighter mode. beyond that it's all externally equipped munitions.

Edited April 12, 2016 by anime52k8

[Seto Kaiba]

CfsGScSUsAABLnC.jpg

I just noticed a lack of Fold quartz on the VF-31A. I wonder if its because its the mass production model and they didn't want to use all their fold quartz on them or it could just be a protective cover used for when the 31's are just sitting on deck.

Not sure what you mean by a lack of fold quartz... the vast majority of the fold quartz on any 5th Generation VF is used in internal systems. The YF-29 had a few external uses, but it was rather unusual for that (coating the canopy on fold quartz and using it in the optional fold-wave projectors).

The crystal lenses on the nose are the protective coverings for an array of sensors, not fold quartz.

[ManhattanProject972]

Not sure what you mean by a lack of fold quartz... the vast majority of the fold quartz on any 5th Generation VF is used in internal systems. The YF-29 had a few external uses, but it was rather unusual for that (coating the canopy on fold quartz and using it in the optional fold-wave projectors).

The crystal lenses on the nose are the protective coverings for an array of sensors, not fold quartz.

The 31A doesn't have or isn't showing its large fold quartz crystals next to the head in fighter mode that is pretty easy to spot on the the others so I was just wondering if it was a cover over the crystals or was it intentionally omitted because it's the A model and only the specialised squadrons meet the requirements to have them equipped?

[Seto Kaiba]

The 31A doesn't have or isn't showing its large fold quartz crystals next to the head in fighter mode that is pretty easy to spot on the the others so I was just wondering if it was a cover over the crystals or was it intentionally omitted because it's the A model and only the specialised squadrons meet the requirements to have them equipped?

Ah, that's what you meant. Looking at it, I'm fairly sure those aren't fold quartz crystals.

IMO, they look like the same sensor clusters that are mounted in the nose of all 5th Generation VFs... which are covered by a tinted piece of material to protect them from debris and so on. It looks like the VF-31A has something in that position too, but it's hard to be sure what because the material color for the lenses is very dark.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Defintely not the line of thinking used by European and Central Asian air forces which favor revolver cannons to full on rotary gatlings. The thinking is that the time that the pipper is on the target is so small that you don't get a lot of time to get the gatlings up to full speed.

Here's an excerpt from a 2009 article by Tony Williams.

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/ModFighterGuns.htm

Of course, the argument could be made that having 2 guns also helps negate the lower rate of fire, even if they're not using a bigger round. For reference, the Russian GSh-3-2 cannon can actually match and even exceed the rate of fire of the GAU-22 rotary gatling due to the fact that it has 2 barrels, effectively making it two cannons in one.

Everyone has different solutions to the problems posed by air combat. Fact of the matter is both types of weapons systems have proven effective in actual combat so there is no definitive right answer. That's an interesting article though. I'd debate your implied premise of the rotary cannons need to get up to speed, you never really give it more than a 1-4 second burst. 4 seconds on an M61 will exhaust the ammo supply on most aircraft, a 1 second burst has proven sufficient for most encounters to get the job done.

At this point we're getting into combat doctrine and theory that really doesn't apply to the overall conversation. I was just attempting to clarify some informaton which I perceived as being in error, or having the potential to be interpreted as such. As for the GSh-3-2 exceeding the RoF of the GAU-22, that's not hard to believe, given that the GAU-22 has been mechanically limited to it's 3300rpm, to preserve the 180-220 rounds of ammo the F-35 carries (depending on model).

That's not really an equal comparison though. The 25mm guns on the 25 only refer to the hip guns, which can be either shell firing or beam based depending on how the craft is outfitted. Those are most analogous to the REB-20/REB-23 beam cannons in the wing roots of the VF-19, which are presumably 20mm or 23mm bore based on the model number. The VF-25's actual gunpod is a 58mm.

So it does, that's my bad.

:edit:

That said, the arm guns on the 31 seem (to me anyways) to be more functionally analogous to the hip guns on the VF-19/25 series than the gunpods anyways. The smaller bore internal guns are the main fixed-forward armament for fighter mode, but are secondary to the gunpod (which is presumably more powerful but shorter ranged) in battroid mode.

it does seem a little odd that they'd go for a shell firing gun in that position when pretty much every other valk ever has had that equivalent roll filled by some form of beam weapon.

We can't have a hero valk that doesn't eject spent casings from it's primary weapon, that wouldn't look cool in closeups...

:edit:2

BTW, I actually can't find a reference to the bore of the GU-15, so I'm not sure what size round that uses. the 30mm gunpod of the VF-11 is actually unusually small though. the VF-17 uses a 40mm gunpod and the VA-3 is noted as having a 60mm gunpod.

:edit:3

honestly the VF-11 has always been kind of an odd craft since it's the only VF that has zero internal offensive weaponry when it's a jet. The only integral weapon is the head laser which has a super limited rearward firing arc in fighter mode. beyond that it's all externally equipped munitions.

It's possible the GU-15 is a 40mm cannon similar to the VF-17's. It may actually be the same gun, just with a different housing. I agree with you on the VF-11, but as it was the spiritual successor to the VF-1, which also had little in terms of internal weapons systems, it makes sense.

[Zinjo]

Considering the energy output of the engines, I am kind of stunned the VF-31 isn't using caseless rounds propelled by rail gun technology by now... It would have to be a more economical use of power than DEW's.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Zinjo

[Graham]

Well, if the TomyTec GIMIX 1/144 pre-painted kits are accurate to Kawamori's design, it looks like the arm guns attach to a white box structure that is partially recessed into the front of the forearm. It would make sense for this to be the magazine.

Although that box structure would also have to accommodate the swivel mechanism that allows the guns to rotate back 180° on the forearm.

[Nekko Basara]

Well, if the TomyTec GIMIX 1/144 pre-painted kits are accurate to Kawamori's design, it looks like the arm guns attach to a white box structure that is partially recessed into the front of the forearm. It would make sense for this to be the magazine.

Although that box structure would also have to accommodate the swivel mechanism that allows the guns to rotate back 180° on the forearm.

That seems like a good guess to me, but it also reminds me of something. Did anyone mention how in the promotional art of the different Walkure VF-31s, the arm guns in Gerwalk Mode appear to be detached from the arms and only connect at the hands (as if they are being held like a tonfa/nightstick)? That suggests that the ammo must be contained in the pod itself.

Alternately, that may just be the result of bad image editing - I haven't seen the arm guns shown this way in any other art or toy pictures. (I also noticed that while you can also see the back-mounted container hanging behind the battroid of unit 05 here, in the identical shots of units 01-04 it is absent, suggesting that the image was just clipped a bit carelessly).

[d3v]

That seems like a good guess to me, but it also reminds me of something. Did anyone mention how in the promotional art of the different Walkure VF-31s, the arm guns in Gerwalk Mode appear to be detached from the arms and only connect at the hands (as if they are being held like a tonfa/nightstick)? That suggests that the ammo must be contained in the pod itself.

Alternately, that may just be the result of bad image editing - I haven't seen the arm guns shown this way in any other art or toy pictures. (I also noticed that while you can also see the back-mounted container hanging behind the battroid of unit 05 here, in the identical shots of units 01-04 it is absent, suggesting that the image was just clipped a bit carelessly).

Seems to be bad image editing on the Gerwalk mode. You can clearly see it attached to the arm in Battroid mode.

[Seto Kaiba]

We can't have a hero valk that doesn't eject spent casings from it's primary weapon, that wouldn't look cool in closeups...

It's possible the GU-15 is a 40mm cannon similar to the VF-17's. It may actually be the same gun, just with a different housing. I agree with you on the VF-11, but as it was the spiritual successor to the VF-1, which also had little in terms of internal weapons systems, it makes sense.

Dunno 'bout the shell-casings bit... the YF-30 didn't, and it seemed to look pretty darn cool anyway. It seems a safe bet that the VF-31 is also using a beam rifle, so that won't be ejecting shell casings either. (Technically I guess Basara's VF-19, Gamlin's VF-17 and VF-22, etc. didn't either...)

WRT the GU-15's caliber, I am not aware of any source that identifies it... though, from the art, it seems safe to say that it isn't the same gun as the VF-17's. It's shown with a different number of barrels, for one.

Considering the energy output of the engines, I am kind of stunned the VF-31 isn't using caseless rounds propelled by rail gun technology by now... It would have to be a more economical use of power than DEW's.

That's a fair point... there have been railgun gun pods in that continuity for a decade or two by 2067, used by both NUNS and enemy VFs.

I guess there's just nothing quite as satisfyingly impressive as spraying clouds of spent brass everywhere.

[grigolosi]

Defintely not the line of thinking used by European and Central Asian air forces which favor revolver cannons to full on rotary gatlings. The thinking is that the time that the pipper is on the target is so small that you don't get a lot of time to get the gatlings up to full speed.

Here's an excerpt from a 2009 article by Tony Williams.

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/ModFighterGuns.htm

Of course, the argument could be made that having 2 guns also helps negate the lower rate of fire, even if they're not using a bigger round. For reference, the Russian GSh-3-2 cannon can actually match and even exceed the rate of fire of the GAU-22 rotary gatling due to the fact that it has 2 barrels, effectively making it two cannons in one.

My personal experience watching gun boresights with M-61's is that the the spin up time is non existent. As soon as the trigger is pulled the rounds go off. I watched the JASDF boresight the M-61 on an F-4 at Nytabaru AB. As soon as the the sight supervisor signaled to pull the trigger the rounds went off and tracers were streaking into the burm The lag they speak of is only noticed in film footage that is slowed down. As Valkyrie pointed out most pilots only pull the pilots pull the trigger for roughly 1 sec. That is all that is required if they have a good bead on the target. The M-61 can be driven either pnuematically or hydraulically. In the F-16 it is driven by hydraulic system B. The differences in lag are so unnoticeable in the guns that as Valkyrie pointed out it boils down to tactics and experience in the end.

Seto you are absolutely correct on the feeling of satisfaction of seeing brass go everywhere when the trigger is pulled and hearing it rain on the ground.

Edited April 13, 2016 by grigolosi

[Nekko Basara]

Seems to be bad image editing on the Gerwalk mode. You can clearly see it attached to the arm in Battroid mode.

Agreed, but doesn't it appear to have slid further forward on the Gerwalk? If it is intentional, I'm suggesting that it might have both an "attached" and a "hand-held" position, as we know the large cannon on the back does.