Super Macross Mecha Fun Time Discussion Thread!

[Bolt]

I know there’s not much info or specifics concerning the VF-24.  BUT, is it known if the VF-24 is equipped with a weapons container,  such as the YF-30 or VF-31?

[Master Dex]

No it doesn't. Cosmetically, it looks like a VF-25 but with delta wings instead of variable geometry wings. Internally there is a lot of differences though, things we don't know all that much about though.

YF-30 introduced the idea of the interchangeable weapon container, and it was technically an offshoot of the YF-24 lineage. Though it is a bigger change than most offshoots.

[Bolt]

I figured it didn’t. and is, instead more VF-25ish..

Perhaps the next iteration of primo Earth vak will incorporate that feature, or one similar to the YF-29’s.

Thanks MD!

[Seto Kaiba]

5 hours ago, Master Dex said:

YF-30 introduced the idea of the interchangeable weapon container, and it was technically an offshoot of the YF-24 lineage. Though it is a bigger change than most offshoots.

Frustratingly, the YF-30's exact relationship to the YF-24 lineage varies a bit from publication to publication.

Some say it's primarily a derivative of the YF-24.  Others say it's based more on the YF-29.  A few say it's equal parts of both.

[Bolt]

Even if the VF-24 hasn’t been the focus yet, I hope it doesn’t slip thru the cracks of the Macross franchise!

[slide]

9 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Frustratingly, the YF-30's exact relationship to the YF-24 lineage varies a bit from publication to publication.

Some say it's primarily a derivative of the YF-24.  Others say it's based more on the YF-29.  A few say it's equal parts of both.

 Sounds like NUNS Intelligence is on a dis-information op...

[Bolt]

Maybe this is more of a noob question, but..

So why the forward swept wings of the Siegfried? As opposed to the 31-A? Was this a design “upgrade” or chosen for more atmospheric or vacuum operations?

And isn’t the Siegfried tuned down in performance, compared to the 31-A?

[Seto Kaiba]

1 minute ago, Bolt said:

Maybe this is more of a noob question, but..

Eh, we're happy to answer it all the same.

 

1 minute ago, Bolt said:

So why the forward swept wings of the Siegfried? As opposed to the 31-A? Was this a design “upgrade” or chosen for more atmospheric or vacuum operations?

Xaos Valkyrie Works adopted a forward-swept delta wing configuration on their Siegfried custom VF-31s to improve the aircraft's maneuverability at low speeds in atmospheric flight.

Since Delta Flight's role was operating in support of Walkure in airshows at their performances and providing close air support for Tactical Sound Unit operations on the battlefield, an aerodynamic modification to improve maneuverability in low speed, low altitude flight would have been a common sense move.

That's not really an issue for the production-intent VF-31, so its close-coupled canard delta wing's greater structural rigidity, stability, and smoother flight at low speeds.

 

1 minute ago, Bolt said:

And isn’t the Siegfried tuned down in performance, compared to the 31-A?

The Siegfried is an "Ace Custom" in the longstanding mecha anime tradition... each of the five Siegfrieds is a unique, custom aircraft tailored to its pilot with higher performance than the mass production version.

The VF-31 itself is a significantly detuned and heavily economized version of the YF-30 comparable in performance to, and sharing a fair amount of hardware with, the VF-25.

Xaos Valkyrie Works started with the stock VF-31A (as seen in the flashback episode), and made a series of upgrades and one or two selective downgrades in order to produce their Siegfried custom specification.  The VF-31's stock FF-3001A Stage II thermonuclear reaction turbine engines were replaced with a derated version of the FF-3001/FC2 engines which were used on the YF-30, for a 14% improvement in maximum thrust.  Its stock ARIEL II integrated airframe management and control AI was replaced with a custom AI optimized for close air support of Walkure.  It was given a Fold Wave System and fold quartz amplifiers similar to the YF-29's to boost its performance.  The wing design was changed to forward-swept to improve maneuverability performance at low speeds.  On the "downgrade" side, the ordnance bay in the engine nacelle/leg was gutted and replaced with a storage rack containing multidrone plates and the forearm/wing root-mounted railguns were swapped for a less-powerful, lower-caliber model to reduce the possibility of accidental injury or collateral damage.

[JB0]

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The Siegfried is an "Ace Custom" in the longstanding mecha anime tradition... each of the five Siegfrieds is a unique, custom aircraft tailored to its pilot with higher performance than the mass production version.

Are they three times faster than a normal VF-31, or is red paint required for that? 

[Seto Kaiba]

1 hour ago, JB0 said:

Are they three times faster than a normal VF-31, or is red paint required for that? 

You totally need the red paint, the horn, the mask, and the sister complex for that.

[Aries Turner]

On 8/28/2018 at 6:42 PM, Seto Kaiba said:

Let's analyze!

Flight Performance (vs VF-25 Armored Messiah)

• 4,500kg lighter (47.5t vs 52t)
• 20% less acceleration (12.5G vs 15G)
• 410kN (14%) less main booster thrust (2,530kN vs 2,940kN)
• 100kN more total thrust (6,280kN vs 6,180kN)
  Production spec VF-31 has 360kN less thrust (5,820kN)
• Thrust/weight ratio is slightly higher
  13.48 for the Siegfried, 12.49 for the Kairos vs 12.12 for the Messiah
• Carries 500kg more booster fuel

Hi,

APS-25A/MF25 rated acceleration is 11.5G. I don't know if that was a typo or confusion with SPS-25S/MF25 initial acceleration of 15G.

Also, while I acknowledge VF-31A thrust/weight ratio of 40.66 does not take into account container pod weight, empty means empty, and I doubt an empty ordinance pod weights more than a third of a ton, as that is the weight of an empty naval torpedo launcher, still more than three times the weight of an empty drop tank. So the thrust/weight ratio would still be better than VF-25's 39.09.

VF-31A is an acknowledged cheap design, but still should be a match for a ten years old design.

It may not have an ASWAG shield, but have twice the shields, optional SPS shield reinforcements (not unlike VF-171EX shield missile canisters) and are used effectively by an experienced soldier like Messer to block a full beam cannon discharge without taken much damage.

On a side-note, I noticed that the GERWALK Kairos is functionally similar to a Glaug, or even a Variable Glaug. The APS-31 also somewhats provides VB-6 class fire support. It seems to me it is a Jack of all trades that attempts to simplify logistics in the Brisingr sector. It certainly does for Xaos, as Hemera and Aether, while being bigger than Quarter ARMD-L, aren't really carriers but gunboats destroyers with limited aviation facilities.

Edited February 24, 2019 by Aries Turner
Typos, grammar, syntax, OCD,...

[Seto Kaiba]

15 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

APS-25A/MF25 rated acceleration is 11.5G. I don't know if that was a typo or confusion with SPS-25S/MF25 initial acceleration of 15G.

That appears to have been an honest mistake on my part... I must've been reading from the wrong line on my VF Tech Spec cheat sheet.  Good catch.

 

 

15 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

Also, while I acknowledge VF-31A thrust/weight ratio of 40.66 does not take into account container pod weight, empty means empty, and I doubt an empty ordinance pod weights more than a third of a ton, as that is the weight of an empty naval torpedo launcher, still more than three times the weight of an empty drop tank. So the thrust/weight ratio would still be better than VF-25's 39.09.

There are two interrelated problems with your reasoning... namely, you're assuming there is a universally applicable definition of "empty" for the ordnance containers and that that definition means that the container is just an empty shell.  Neither is the case.

"Container" is probably a misnomer to begin with, since the contents of the container are not swapped... the containers themselves are.  The equipment is physically a part of, or in some cases simply IS, the so-called container.  As such, the empty weight of the containers is going to vary wildly depending on what container you're looking at and whether that container even has any consumables in it.  Being that the container is an approximately 9x2x2m rectangular box made of the same armor material as the rest of the fighter, it's very doubtful any container configuration is going to weigh less than the 330kg it would take to eradicate the VF-31A-1's container-free thrust-to-weight ratio advantage over the VF-25A-1.

Three of the five known official container configurations are fixed equipment with no known consumables to cause a weight difference between empty and standard operating: the YF-30's MDE beam gun container, the VF-31's fold wave radome container, and the VF-31's projection unit container.  The other two - the YF-30's missile container and the VF-31's multidrone charger container - do have parts that can be counted out but they also still have significant amounts of built-in equipment.  Even if we were charitable and assumed an empty missile container only weighed as much as the HMMP-02 micro-missile launcher on the VF-1's Super Pack (despite being three times as big), that's twice the weight it'd take to remove the VF-31's container-free advantage.  Even if it only weighed as much as a GU-11 without any bullets in it (550kg), that would still be enough to tip the scales past even and into the VF-25's favor.

 

 

15 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

VF-31A is an acknowledged cheap design, but still should be a match for a ten years old design.

The VF-31A is an acknowledged cheap design that shares an awful lot of parts with that ten year old design.  It's not like the VF-31 was an all-new, all-original aircraft.  It was kept cheap by using off-the-shelf parts.

Mind you, it should also be carefully noted that we're comparing the VF-31A Kairos trial production spec c.2067 against the VF-25 Messiah trial production lot c.2058.  It's unlikely in the extreme that the VF-25 hasn't been subjected to numerous upgrades in the intervening nine years, especially given that it was still in OPEVAL in 2059.  (Hell, it got a couple small upgrades right there in the show.)

 

 

15 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

It may not have an ASWAG shield, but have twice the shields, optional SPS shield reinforcements (not unlike VF-171EX shield missile canisters) and are used effectively by an experienced soldier like Messer to block a full beam cannon discharge without taken much damage.

The VF-31 may have twice as many forearm-mounted shields, but they're made from inferior materials and are much smaller to boot... as seen in the series, the VF-31 relies mainly on its pinpoint barrier system for defense.  (The VF-25 has a similar bolt-on armor reinforcement for its antiprojectile shield as well.)

 

 

15 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

The APS-31 also somewhats provides VB-6 class fire support.

I'm not seein' it... they're not remotely similar, given that the VB-6 is an artillery unit delivering intermediate-yield thermonuclear reaction shells while the VF-31 Armor Pack is a micro-missile spamming close-in attacker.

 

 

15 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

It seems to me it is a Jack of all trades that attempts to simplify logistics in the Brisingr sector.

In all fairness, the feature that deserves that praise is the ordnance container... simplifying logistics was the entire point of the thing.

Hot-swappable mission modules more or less eliminated the need for several different specialized variants.

 

 

15 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

It certainly does for Xaos, as Hemera and Aether, while being bigger than Quarter ARMD-L, aren't really carriers but gunboats destroyers with limited aviation facilities.

Really, the Aether and Hemera - or Enterprise-class as Master File is the only book to name it - are a terribly inefficient design.  There are so many gimmicky and unnecessary moving parts like the folding flight deck, pop-out engine nacelles, and retractable stage that they can't be making very good use of the ship's internal space.  The ARMD-L-class carrier parts used by the Macross Quarter-class are vastly more efficient designs because they ascribe to the K.I.S.S. engineering philosophy of the ARMD-type warships, being essentially a box which has been fitted with a bunch of airlock-elevators and catapults.

Despite one, and possibly both, ships having a heavy converging beam cannon built into it they're both officially classified as carriers... CV/C-109 and CV/C-110 respectively.  They don't seem to have any evident defenses besides barrier systems and point-defense guns.  (Even the mercilessly economized Guantanamo-class has more than that.)

[Aries Turner]

12 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

There are two interrelated problems with your reasoning... namely, you're assuming there is a universally applicable definition of "empty" for the ordnance containers and that that definition means that the container is just an empty shell.  Neither is the case.

Then fly the thing without one. Even if one the weight of an empty GU-11 should be mounted for inexplicable reasons (the Kairos should fly after ejecting one), the VF-25 should also add the weight of an empty gunpod for an apples to apples comparison.

Quote

The VF-31 may have twice as many forearm-mounted shields, but they're made from inferior materials and are much smaller to boot... as seen in the series, the VF-31 relies mainly on its pinpoint barrier system for defense.

...and that is an inferior solution, that for Machida's VF-171 still got the job done. The point is ASWAG was one of the cut corners, but the alternative provided 80% the efficiency at 20% the cost (proverbially speaking, no real numbers here, and unless a civilian brat is at the helm wasting the plane each and every chance he gets).

Quote

I'm not seein' it... they're not remotely similar, given that the VB-6 is an artillery unit delivering intermediate-yield thermonuclear reaction shells while the VF-31 Armor Pack is a micro-missile spamming close-in attacker.

Mind you, a 5th generation rehash of the VB-6 would probably do MUCH better. But the point is in Passionate Walkure, a salvo of reaction missiles fired from an APS-31 achieved a similar effect as Kanarya's salvo (maybe even reusing footage). For the Brisingr cluster, that would be an acceptable budget conscious replacement for a 3th generation VB if there is no operational need for a 5th generation VB.

Quote

Really, the Aether and Hemera - or Enterprise-class as Master File is the only book to name it - are a terribly inefficient design.  There are so many gimmicky and unnecessary moving parts like the folding flight deck, pop-out engine nacelles, and retractable stage that they can't be making very good use of the ship's internal space.  The ARMD-L-class carrier parts used by the Macross Quarter-class are vastly more efficient designs because they ascribe to the K.I.S.S. engineering philosophy of the ARMD-type warships, being essentially a box which has been fitted with a bunch of airlock-elevators and catapults.

Wholeheartedly agree (Guantanamo-class is one of my favourites basically for the same thing). But even Frontier had the nasty habit of wasting valuable hangar space with rusty Destroid nostalgia for no real reason: a third of APS-25 would have achieved the same or better effect in that Macross Attack maneuver.

I remembered an old conversation where deploying Beatrice's or even Cheyenne II's didn't make any sense, not even for fear of breaking the pavement, because EXGears with 81mm mortars would have done more damage while being more mobile and survivable against that Vajra Heavy Soldier.

But I digress: the point is the VF-31A solves much of the Brisingr logistical problems and uses space more efficiently in those inefficiently designed vessels. And would also do a favor to SMS logistics if they ditched the wheeled rust cans for the Kairos in their rather small, claustrophobic ARMD-L carriers, while mantaining the Messiah wing and even Kanarya's finest.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Aries Turner
Seriously, WTF is wrong with bbcode?

[Seto Kaiba]

14 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

Seriously, WTF is wrong with bbcode?

IPB uses a rich text editor.  bbcode is for plain text editors, but IPB'll parse it if it's used.  Looks like you've accidentally nested quotes by missing some closing quote tags.

 

16 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

Then fly the thing without one. Even if one the weight of an empty GU-11 should be mounted, the VF-25 should also add the weight of one for an apples to apples comparison.

... but then it wouldn't be an apples-to-apples comparison if you added extra, nonstandard weight to the VF-25.

The whole point there was that the VF-31's stats are misleading precisely because the empty weight given specifically excludes the weight of standard equipment... meaning that it isn't an honest empty weight for the aircraft by the standard definition of "empty weight".  It'd be like giving the VF-25's empty weight with all the system fluids drained out or minus one of its arms.

 

26 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

...and that is an inferior solution, that for Machida's VF-171 still got the job done. The point is ASWAG was one of the cur corners, but the alternative provided the proverbial 80% the efficiency at 20% the cost (unless a civilian brat was piloting).

Citing a "character" who has about fifteen seconds of screen time strikes me as a really bad, terribly misleading reference point.

The use of Advanced Energy Converting Armor for the VF-25's anti-projectile shield isn't cutting corners... it was a prudent, anticipatory move on the part of Shinsei and LAI to provide adequate defensive ability against an enemy whose performance was at least equal to a 5th Generation VF's.  Pinpoint barriers alone weren't equal to the task of protecting a VF from the kind of firepower 5th Generation VFs were equipped with, since they could be brought down by a particularly heavy hit or chipped down by sustained light fire as we see occur at several different points in Macross Frontier and Macross Delta.

The VF-31 may have gone back to layered standard energy converting armor as a cost save, but as we see on several different occasions the VF-31's anti-projectile shields just aren't equal to the task of protecting the VF from the firepower of another 5th Gen VF... even with a pinpoint barrier's support.

 

56 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

Mind you, a 5th generation rehash of the VB-6 would probably do MUCH better. But the point is in Passionate Walkure, a salvo of reaction missiles fired from an APS-31 achieved a similar effect as Kanarya's salvo (maybe even reusing footage). For the Brisingr cluster, that would be an acceptable budget conscious replacement for a 3th generation VB if there is no operational need for a 5th generation VB.

So far, the VB-6 seems to be one of those designs that will just keep getting updated and stay in service for-freaking-ever... like the B-52.  One of the advantages of a large, especially roomy, fuselage I suppose.

Most any VF can lug a half-dozen reaction missiles into combat and achieve the same results the Armored Pack did.  The Konig's advantage is that it carries way more than just one salvo's worth and it's delivering those warheads to target much faster and with lower probability of intercept by sending them along at greater velocities using railguns.

As close combat-focused as the VF-31's Armored Pack is, the inclusion of the reaction missiles feels almost like an afterthought when everything else it has is focused exclusively on ultra-short-range combat like pretty much every other Armored Pack has been.

 

 

1 hour ago, Aries Turner said:

But even Frontier had the nasty habit of wasting valuable hangar space with rusty Destroid nostalgia for no real reason: a third of APS-25 whould have achieved the same or better effect in that Macross Attack manouver.

That "rusty destroid nostalgia" costs a tiny fraction of what the APS-25A/MF25 does... that advanced energy converting armor is NOT cheap.

The Macross Frontier fleet is a particularly wealthy one, and Strategic Military Services isn't exactly short on funds either, but with SMS's VF-25s and their optional gear essentially on loan from the New UN Spacy it was probably more cash than the military was willing to put up during the operational evaluation period.

 

 

1 hour ago, Aries Turner said:

I remembered an old conversation where deploying Beatrice's or even Cheyenne II's didn't make any sense, not even for fear of breaking the pavement, because EXGears with 81mm mortars would have done the same or better, maybe even surviving Soldier Vajra retaliation.

It's doubtful that an EX-Gear suit could withstand the recoil force of a weapon powerful enough to actually kill a Vajra and the farther away from that blast you are the better.  Using mortars would be problematic on something that mobile too, and would probably result in a fair amount of accidental collateral damage.

[Aries Turner]

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The whole point there was that the VF-31's stats are misleading precisely because the empty weight given specifically excludes the weight of standard equipment...

...that isn't standard, as there are a plethora of options. Including going full fuel and ammo WITHOUT one, even without the LU-18.

Quote

The use of Advanced Energy Converting Armor for the VF-25's anti-projectile shield isn't cutting corners ... we see on several different occasions the VF-31's anti-projectile shields just aren't equal to the task of protecting the VF from the firepower of another 5th Gen VF... even with a pinpoint barrier's support.

I must surely not have explained myself properly. You are utterly right. Dispensing with ASWAG in the VF-31, however, IS cutting corners. More so if anticipated Zentraedi fleet opposition it outmatched by 5th Generation VF's and Vajra opposition is unlikely. And I am pretty aware those several different occasions involve Hayate to a degree, as even Brisingr VF-171 pilots do much better.

Quote

The Konig's advantage is that it carries way more than just one salvo's worth and it's delivering those warheads to target much faster and with lower probability of intercept by sending them along at greater velocities using railguns.

Seven salvos if a remember right, but I was focusing in VB-6 arm missile launchers. The VB-6 would seem about two APS-31 worth, that also provide to the battlefield that nasty beam turret with, agreed, different than kinetic capabilities, although about as destructive and FASTER than railguns to reach a target. I see no afterthought there, as those reaction warhead canisters are pretty big and ugly, and pack about the same punch as the VB-6 does, even if SMALLER than EXTERNALLY carried RMS.

Quote

That "rusty destroid nostalgia" costs a tiny fraction of what the APS-25A/MF25 does.

But only about a third of a VF-31A that have similar capabilities with only the turreted LU-18, with far better defensive capability. It may make even sense that VF-31 packs focus on more dakka and not on more armor: to be able to replace destroids three to one and still survive the battlefield.

Quote

It's doubtful that an EX-Gear suit could withstand the recoil force of a weapon powerful enough to actually kill a Vajra and the farther away from that blast you are the better. Using mortars would be problematic on something that mobile too, and would probably result in a fair amount of accidental collateral damage.

I see I failed to convey the general idea: EX-Gears don't need to withstand any recoil. The soil does. EX-Gears only have to reach the area in a HI-LO-LO mission, faster than a chopper, using their guided HE munition mortars, as powerful as 105mm cannon ordinance is, because cannon and howitzer munitions have smaller warheads as those need to withstand heavier pressure and acceleration for better range. And they surely couldn't have killed a Vajra either, even if attacking from different vectors with double or triple the rounds, but would have surely survived better than trapped in fat wheeled cans.

The whole point of troop carriers is moving troops faster, and Beatrice's can't, because EX-Gears are faster than choppers. Troop carriers use armor to improve survivability by reducing vulnerability. EX-Gears do so by reducing susceptibility and detectability.

The whole point of mobile artillery is about deploying big pieces of artillery fast. Howitzers have way too far reach even for biggest Island-class seen. Cannons made sense, but mortars make even more sense, and benefit from the steady arm and point of impact calculations than an EX-Gear could provide.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Aries Turner
No, seriously, WTF: I made myself twice sure to end each with [/quote]

[Seto Kaiba]

1 hour ago, Aries Turner said:

No, seriously, WTF: I made myself twice sure to end each with [/quote]

It's a rich text editor... bbcode is categorically unnecessary.

You can quote just by highlighting the text you want to quote and a context button will pop up saying "Quote selection".  Text manipulation otherwise works just like your choice of desktop text editor (Word, Docs, etc.).

 

1 hour ago, Aries Turner said:

...that isn't standard, as there are a plethora of options. Including going full fuel and ammo WITHOUT one.

The ordnance container is described as standard equipment for the YF-30 and VF-31. 

One is always fitted in the course of normal operations, and not having one compromises the fighter's balance and aerodynamics.

 

1 hour ago, Aries Turner said:

I must surely not have explained myself properly. You are utterly right. Dispensing with ASWAG in the VF-31, however, IS cutting corners. More so if anticipated Zentraedi fleet opposition it outmatched by 5th Generation VF's and Vajra opposition is unlikely.

At the present point in Macross history, conflict between rival powers armed with VFs is arguably the bigger strategic concern with the primary Vajra hive having left the galaxy.  The Second Unification War was less than twenty years ago, and ironically both of the commanders in the early phases of the war with Windermere IV were veterans of it.  The Zentradi are still an existential threat, but encounters with them are mercifully few and far between, while there is an ongoing problem with armed anti-government groups like FASCES and the group who hijacked the emigrant ship in the incident that drove Mirage to quit the NUNS.  The whole situation with Windermere kind of draws a line under it too, since they're not even that powerful and still raised all kinds of hell as a minor and economically stagnant power armed with 5th Gen VFs.

(Mind you, their relative inexperience did come back to bite them later on, when more experienced pilots in inferior fighters started cleaning their clocks when they weren't able to use the Song of the Wind to remove the NUNS's numerical advantage.)

 

Quote

And I am pretty aware those several different occasions involve Hayate to a degree, as even Brisingr VF-171 pilots do much better.

To be fair, since it isn't a plot armor thing the "Who" doesn't really matter as much as how consistent the result was.

 

1 hour ago, Aries Turner said:

Seven salvos if a remember well, but I was focusing in VB-6 arm missile launchers. The VB-6 would seem about two APS-31 worth, that also provide to the battlefield that nasty beam turret with, agreed, different than kinetic capabilities, although about as destructive and faster than railguns to reach a target. I see no afterthought there, as those reaction warhead canisters are pretty big and ugly, and pack about the same punch.

The VB-6's railguns and the VF-31 Armored Pack's beam turret are built to do two fundamentally different jobs.

The VB-6's railguns are for delivering thermonuclear reaction shells at high velocity for precision attack or saturation bombardment.  The VF-31 Armored's beam cannon turret was more or less the same deal as the one on the VF-25 Tornado Messiah or YF-29... the sort of turreted beam weapon we're told is used for CIWS purposes on warships.  It's not going to be anywhere near as destructive as the Konig's railguns, and is probably less destructive than the beam turrets on the Tornado Messiah or Durandal/Perceval given that it isn't a MDE beam cannon (for in-universe legal reasons?).  If it's based on the Tornado Messiah's turret - and from the description in the stats it sounds like it's at least similar in its basic design - then its use is probably REALLY limited too.  The Tornado Messiah's turret only had enough energy to fire for five seconds at full power.

 

1 hour ago, Aries Turner said:

But only about a third of a VF-31A that have similar capabilities with a turreted LU-18.

You might be thinking of the cost difference between the NUNS AIF-7S and VF-171 there?

Odds are the vastly more advanced VF-31 is going to cost a fair bit more than the VF-171.  I'm not sure how the Cheyenne II would shake out compared to the AIF-7S, since in the VF-1's generation a Destroid cost 1/20th of what a VF did but the Cheyenne II is both a 50+ year old design and modernized while the AIF-7S is vastly simpler mechanically except for its engines but is packed to bursting with state of the art electronics.

 

1 hour ago, Aries Turner said:

I see I failed to convey the general idea: EX-Gears don't need to withstand any recoil. The soil does. EX-Gears only have to reach the area in a HI-LO-LO mission, faster than a chopper, using their mortars that have HE as powerful as 105mm cannon ordinance does, because cannons and obuses have a smaller warheads, as munitions needs to withstand heavier acceleration for a better range. And they surely couldn't have killed a Vajra either, even if attacking from different vectors with double or triple the rounds, but would have surely survived better than trapped in wheeled cans.

I confess I'm not certain as to the viability of that tactic.  It takes a LOT of stopping power to bring a Vajra down... maybe dozens of EX-Gear suits, each carrying the warhead from a micromissile.  They should be more than capable of lifting those if the weight hasn't increased too much.  First-gen micromissile warheads were supposedly only about 20kg.

I'd question attributing better survivability to it though, since the Beatrice tanks were only taken out by the Vajra's heaviest anti-capital ship heavy quantum cannon and even the Vajra's lightest beam machine gun is sufficient to destroy EX-Gear parts as we saw in the Frontier movies.  I'd think the risk might actually be greater for the EX-Gear pilot since the Vajra can just spray the air with shots and expect to kill anything it hits, whereas a smart tank commander could fire from the move and have a better chance of surviving a near miss from the big gun.  (FWIW, the Beatrice crews were incredible idiots parking to fire against a high mobility enemy... but I guess their options were limited by the terrain.)

Edited February 25, 2019 by Seto Kaiba

[Aries Turner]

54 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

You can quote just by highlighting the text you want to quote and a context button will pop up saying "Quote selection".  Text manipulation otherwise works just like your choice of desktop text editor (Word, Docs, etc.).

Oh, I see. Thank you, thank you, thank you OCD was making me nuts.

54 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

One is always fitted in the course of normal operations, and not having one compromises the fighter's balance and aerodynamics.

I almost agree with you here. So I don't   I mean, the radar pack is unshielded, but protected by the aerodynamics of the area when undeployed. Even the LU-18 is shielded, using linear actuators to pop down and fire.

54 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The whole situation with Windermere kind of draws a line under it too, since they're not even that powerful and still raised all kinds of hell as a minor and economically stagnant power armed with 5th Gen VFs.

But also proves the VF-31 wasn't severely outmatched.

54 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The VF-31 Armored's beam cannon turret was more or less the same deal as the one on the VF-25 Tornado Messiah or YF-29... the sort of turreted beam weapon we're told is used for CIWS purposes on warships.  It's not going to be anywhere near as destructive as the Konig's railguns

Forgive my presumptuousness: are you sure? The double beam turret was described as antiship, and certaintly seemed to play the role on screen.

54 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

You might be thinking of the cost difference between the NUNS AIF-7S and VF-171 there? 

I was thinking about Destroids vs VF-1, but those were heavy.

54 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

I confvfess I'm not certain as to the viability of that tactic.  It takes a LOT of stopping power to bring a Vajra down...

It takes VF-25 or better. I just assume they didn't know. No amount of Cheyenne, Beatrice or mortar firepower could have taken it down. I just point out if deploying wheels to not damage the pavement was that imperative, EX-Gears were cheaper, better and MOST would have survived in that suicide mission.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Aries Turner

[Seto Kaiba]

54 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

I almost agree with you here. So I don't   I mean, the radar pack is unshielded, but protected by the aerodynamics of the area. Even the LU-18 is shielded, using linear actuators to pop down and fire.

By necessity, the ordnance containers are all pretty streamlined in their folded/stowed configuration to minimize the potential aerodynamic disruption they might cause.

I'd imagine the boundary layer control system is probably doing at least a little to help mitigate any disruption to vortex flow that might occur as a result of one container or another, though I have nothing to go on for that but a hunch.  The LU-18A is also a pretty darn streamlined design even as gunpods go, so its disruption would've been minimal even when it was sticking out of the underside of the container.

 

Quote

But also proves the VF-31 wasn't severely outmatched.

That's debatable... but we could reasonably say that it wasn't AS severely outmatched.

What the NUNS and Xaos really had going for them in the Windermere War was that the Kingdom of the Wind really massively screwed up when ordering its next-generation main fighters from the Epsilon Foundation.  Someone in authority, it might've even been King Grammier himself, decided to go for a fighter that fit the ancient martial ethos of the Aerial Knights that had been handed down from the days when they were riding around on giant birds twatting each other with sharp bits of metal.  Windermere IV brought a superlative atmospheric dogfighter to a space war.  That huge advantage in engine power and maneuverability they have between the superior ISC, more powerful engines and the fold reheat system doesn't mean much if they don't have the reaction mass to leverage it.

 

Quote

Forgive my presumptuousness: are you sure? The double beam turret was described as antiship, and certaintly seemed to play the role on screen.

It's a question of degree.

Take, for instance, the VF-1 Valkyrie's RMS-1 thermonuclear reaction missile and the RO-X2A double-action beam cannon from its Strike Pack.  They're both anti-warship weapons, but one will blow a hole hundreds of meters across in a warship and the other will make a pair of neat little holes 18cm in diameter.  

Same deal here.

The VB-6 Konig Monster's railguns are firing hypervelocity shells with thermonuclear reaction warheads.  Each one will knock a quarter-kilometer hole in an enemy ship, and they're fired four at a time most of the time.  The beam turrets on the VF-25 Tornado Messiah, YF-29 Durandal/Perceval, and VF-31 Armored Siegfried have enough stopping power to get through warship armor (which considering what we've heard about how tough that stuff is, is nothing to sneeze at and totally justifies them being a one-hit kill on mecha) but they aren't going to be blowing massive craters in the hull.  It's the same type of turret we're told is used as a defense turret on carriers (in the YF-29's Mechanic Sheet).  You can sink a ship with one if you hit it in the right places (like when Keith took out a stealth cruiser by shooting out the bridge tower), but it's not going to be wholesale destruction of the ship like you'd get from a thermonuclear warhead detonation.

 

Quote

I was thinking about Destroids vs VF-1, but those were heavy.

There was a MUCH bigger difference in price tag between the VF-1 and the Series 04 Destroids than 1:3.  Try 1:20.

That actually had some curious implications for the one publication that actually put a firm price on the VF-1 Valkyrie.  The Sky Angels book from '84 - which is also the origin of that little factoid about cost difference - gave the VF-1's flyaway cost as $126 million, which would mean the typical destroid only costs around $6.3 million... only slightly more than a then-modern MBT like the M1A2 Abrams.

(Bear in mind this was written in '84, when $126 million would've been an outrageous sum for a single fighter... somewhere between three and seven times what a then-modern jet fighter would cost.  By today's standards, it'd be considered quite reasonable.)

Edited February 25, 2019 by Seto Kaiba

[Aries Turner]

Then I probably was thinking about the NUNS AIF-7S and VF-171 as you stated earlier and I stand corrected.

[MILKAUTICO]

Check this  people!

 

Edited March 2, 2019 by MILKAUTICO

[Aries Turner]

On 2/25/2019 at 4:49 AM, Seto Kaiba said:

The ARMD-L-class carrier parts used by the Macross Quarter-class are vastly more efficient designs because they ascribe to the K.I.S.S. engineering philosophy of the ARMD-type warships, being essentially a box which has been fitted with a bunch of airlock-elevators and catapults.

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with this, but this raised a question that I found, rather unexpectedly, has not been raised before. Catapults in space aid a bit to avoid fighter fuel consumption, and as some carriers are both space and atmosphere capable, apparently make sense to have those for conventional CATOBAR.

But as early as DYRL we see Hikaru launching from an ARMD just using super pack rockets. Holographic imagery on Frontier's Guantanamos seem more about being visual cues to stick to the safe corridor rather than actual catapults, with VF-171's apparently launching on their own.

As for within atmosphere, under gravity kind of operations, even if a modern VF was to launch on its own with armor, and it shouldn't as it is highly un-aerodynamic, she can still pull more than 11Gs instant acceleration.

So why bother with catapults or even a flattop at all?

Edited March 3, 2019 by Aries Turner

[slide]

See Seto's response below...  its better.....

Edited March 3, 2019 by slide

[Seto Kaiba]

32 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

But as early as DYRL we see Hikaru launching from an ARMD just using super pack rockets. Holographic imagery on Frontier's Guantanamos seem more about being visual cues to stick to the safe corridor rather than actual catapults, with VF-171's apparently launching on their own.

The approach used in Macross: Do You Remember Love? and Macross II: Lovers Again is the proverbial odd man out, where those VFs are launching strictly under their own power... albeit with either significant supplemental engine power or simply a massively increased onboard fuel capacity and four built-in thermonuclear reaction engines.

Macross Frontier establishes right in its first episode (16:40 in the Deculture edition) that carriers are using linear catapults, a high velocity non-contact electromagnetic catapult system using essentially the same principles as a coilgun.  The holograms that the ship projects over the deck are apparently to denote the boundaries and directionality of the catapult's electromagnetic field, and warn personnel not to cross into that active catapult lane.  (After all, nobody wants to get pasted by an accelerating VF or have a heart attack from wandering into a superintense electromagnetic field.)

 

32 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

So why bother with catapults or even a flattop at all?

Well, catapults are advantageous in atmosphere because they can quickly accelerate an aircraft to takeoff speed and in space the catapult saves a modest amount of reaction mass by accelerating the fighter during takeoff.

Flattop designs enable ships to operate as carriers in atmosphere or in space, but in space they have a unique advantage in that they have a highly versatile recovery approach... by throwing an artificial gravity field over the carrier deck, fighters can gently fall onto the deck for regular arrested landing or vertical landing.  In the event that they need to, or it is otherwise advantageous to do so, they can also exploit that gravitational field to keep aircraft out on the deck even in space.  IIRC, the standard is 0.5G over the carrier deck to facilitate landing.

[slide]

Just now, Seto Kaiba said:

Macross Frontier establishes right in its first episode (16:40 in the Deculture edition) that carriers are using linear catapults, a high velocity non-contact electromagnetic catapult system using essentially the same principles as a coilgun.

https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/DuzcJUHU0AAzeJy.mp4

[Aries Turner]

4 hours ago, slide said:

https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/DuzcJUHU0AAzeJy.mp4

Those visual cues I was referring to, under the impression it was an aid to stick to that vector to avoid putting yourself in the way of a fellow pilot. I was under the impression catapults remained just for a coolness factor, but somehow suspected an in-universe rationale, avoiding wasting reaction mass in space being the usual suspect, fighters launched into the enemy approach vector. I didn't know about linear catapults being used for the role. Nice bit of trivia. ('Great Mechanics'?)

Atmosphere use is less clear, as STOBAR rather than CATOBAR, usually disadvantageous for nowadays real fighters, have little to no disadvantages for VFs with month-long endurance on internal fuel, perfectly capable to accelerate to takeoff speed on maximum take-off weight in very few meters due crazy thrust to weight ratios. Any VF since VF-11 is capable to accelerate itself from 0 to 130kn in a second or less. Catapults impart about 3.5g to any given aircraft to reach ~140kn in 2s. In 2s, even a heavy loaded VF-11 should be capable of the feat. VF-1s could use the aid, though.

But as catapults are still useful in space, it doesn't make sense to dismantle those when entering an atmosphere, and the flattop is just a convenient big recovery area for GERWALKs, the four surfaces of a Guantanamo being the most efficient in the space fleet, at the cost of being pretty unuseful when landing on water, ARMD-L or Uraga-class being better at sea.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Aries Turner
Grammar, typos

[Seto Kaiba]

34 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

I didn't know about linear catapults being used for the role. Nice bit of trivia. ('Great Mechanics'?)

Mainly Macross Chronicle, but it comes up in a number of sources... Frontier had a LOT of artbooks and magazine coverage.

 

34 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

Atmosphere use is less clear, as STOBAR rather than CATOBAR, usually disadvantageous for nowadays real fighters, have little to no disadvantages for VFs with month-long endurance on internal fuel, perfectly capable to accelerate itself to takeoff speed with maximum take-off weight in very few meters due crazy thrust to weight ratios.

Granted, the exceptional fuel-efficiency of thermonuclear reaction turbine engines in atmosphere removes the main issue with a STOBAR-based approach to carrier operations... but the CATOBAR approach is friendlier to taking off from stationary carriers, to operating with heavy loadings, and to launching and recovering large numbers of aircraft in less time.  With VFs being the default troops on the field, getting large numbers of aircraft in the air as fast as possible would be a must for the New UN Forces.  With six to eight catapults, a carrier can get two platoons airborne more or less simultaneously and repeat the feat every couple minute or so since linear catapults apparently have trivially short reset times.

(Also, with the excessively high exhaust velocities produced by thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, I'd be a bit worried about anyone or anything standing downwind even with jet blast deflectors up on a STOBAR carrier.)

 

34 minutes ago, Aries Turner said:

But as catapults are still useful in space, it doesn't make sense to dismantle those when entering an atmosphere, and the flattop is just a convenient big recovery area for GERWALKs, the four surfaces of a Guantanamo being the most efficient in the space fleet, at the cost of being pretty unuseful when landing on water, ARMD-L or Uraga-class being better at sea.

GERWALK recovery is easier in zero-g, whereas standard arrested recovery makes life easier on everyone in atmosphere and even in space where facilities permit, because at some point you gotta get it back into fighter mode for storage.

The Guantanamo's lack of utility in atmosphere is kind of a non-issue, since the New UN Forces generally expect to do all of their fighting in space (if the Zentradi reach the surface of your planet you've pretty much already lost) and they're substantially more cost-effective than the more expensive and complex Uraga-class escort battle carriers.

[Aries Turner]

31 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

a carrier can get two platoons airborne more or less simultaneously and repeat the feat every couple minute or so since linear catapults apparently have trivially short reset times.

Viewing Macross 7 again, elevators work non-stop for a single catapult to launch fighters every second or so. Macross 7 Ep.7 even makes the VF-11 shine, with grunts taking some Elgerzorene's once the enemy capabilities are known and effective counter-tactics are put into effect. Gamlin even engages Gigil in one, solo. But I digress.

31 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

(Also, with the excessively high exhaust velocities produced by thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, I'd be a bit worried about anyone or anything standing downwind even with jet blast deflectors up on a STOBAR carrier.)

Why? Even if catapults are used, standard practice is going full military power at takeoff anyway. The dangers should be about the same. Best not to be downwind.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Aries Turner

[sketchley]

6 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

(...) I was under the impression catapults remained just for a coolness factor, but somehow suspected an in-universe rationale, avoiding wasting reaction mass in space being the usual suspect, fighters launched into the enemy approach vector. I didn't know about linear catapults being used for the role. Nice bit of trivia. ('Great Mechanics'?)

"Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Wings of Space" (self described as "non-Official Setting") also has something on this:

Quote

※ The Action Limits of the VF-1
Cited as an example where the VF-1 where deployed the furthest distance from the SDF-1—their mothership—is the surprise attack operation that took place in Saturn's Cassini sector in Apr., 2009. At that time, after the VF-1 gained an initial velocity from the catapult launch, they used Saturn's gravity and attempted to get acceleration to approach the enemy fleet. It was an operation premised on the Valkyries being recovered by the mothership after the end of the operation (...)

 

(quoted as I'm still in the process of finishing up the PHP and adding some additional translations for it's release on my site: http://sdfyodogawa.mywebcommunity.org/OTvfmf/OTvfmf.php ).

 

So there's that usage—the VFs essentially flying by inertia from a space catapult launch and being accelerated by gravity, and then waiting in the sortie area to be picked up... all in an effort to preserve fuel.

[slide]

1 hour ago, sketchley said:

"Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Wings of Space" (self described as "non-Official Setting") also has something on this:

(quoted as I'm still in the process of finishing up the PHP and adding some additional translations for it's release on my site: http://sdfyodogawa.mywebcommunity.org/OTvfmf/OTvfmf.php ).

 

So there's that usage—the VFs essentially flying by inertia from a space catapult launch and being accelerated by gravity, and then waiting in the sortie area to be picked up... all in an effort to preserve fuel.

 I thought the VF-1 had a Reactor-fuel load measured in weeks...

how long were Hikaru and Misa riding around in the VT-1? it was several days, wasn't it?

[Aries Turner]

36 minutes ago, slide said:

I thought the VF-1 had a Reactor-fuel load measured in weeks...

how long were Hikaru and Misa riding around in the VT-1? it was several days, wasn't it?

Four weeks in an atmosphere, using less than a ml/s of fuel in that thermonuclear reactor inside VF engines to overheat air as propellant as in normal turbofans (on steroids).

In space all the propellant is quickly wasted as heated plasma in lieu of air in mere 10 minutes at maximum thrust. That is the very reason for developing the super pack for the Super VF-1s to at least reach 50 minutes mission time. By the time of Delta, VF-25s and VF-31s had enough internal fuel for about ~30 minutes of space operations. Still, Hayate managed to empty his tanks while in a space operation.

VFs use nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission was tried in real aircraft, flying nuclear disasters waiting to happen. See the note at the end about fusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

Edited March 4, 2019 by Aries Turner
Grammar. Added Nuclear Fission Aircraft trivia.

[Seto Kaiba]

8 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

Four weeks in an atmosphere, using less than a ml/s of fuel in that thermonuclear reactor inside VF engines to overheat air as propellant as in normal turbofans (on steroids).

Well, to be ruthlessly precise, it's 29 days and 4 hours (700 hours) of operating time in atmosphere with a fuel consumption per engine of a hair under 0.28mL/s.

 

8 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

That is the very reason for developing the super pack for the Super VF-1s to at least reach 50 minutes mission time.

Or thereabouts... (it's more like 45 1/2 minutes at maximum thrust with the First Space War-era Super Pack based on Master File's numbers).

Those hybrid rocket boosters are supposed to extend operating time even further by reducing the demand for thrust production from the thermonuclear reaction turbine engines.

 

8 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

By the time of Delta, VF-25s and VF-31s had enough internal fuel for about ~30 minutes of space operations. Still, Hayate managed to empty his tanks while in a space operation.

 

To be fair, he didn't manage to empty his tanks so much as hit the safety limit that'd been set in his fighter's support AI.

Propellant budgeting is a big part of space operations in a VF, even though Super Packs have mostly reached the point where they're more about adding maximum armament without compromising performance rather than adding a boatload of fuel garnished with a few weapons.

 

9 hours ago, slide said:

how long were Hikaru and Misa riding around in the VT-1? it was several days, wasn't it?

Yeah, it was a couple days... but he was able to operate his fighter's engines in their more efficient atmospheric mode because he was on Earth.

[slide]

Ah, didn't realise the endo/exo-atmospheric operating efficiency difference. makes sense.

22 hours ago, Aries Turner said:

VFs use nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission was tried in real aircraft, flying nuclear disasters waiting to happen. See the note at the end about fusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

They think they're all cagey about it, but we've had "Working" tokamaks built before... I can't wait to see if they can actually get it down to the size of a jet-engine... but are they talking a P&W F119, or an RR Trent-900?

 

 

If you think a nuclear jet-engine is dumb, check THIS mandess out...

Quote

The launch of such an Orion nuclear bomb rocket from the ground or low Earth orbit would generate an electromagnetic pulse that could cause significant damage to computers and satellites as well as flooding the van Allen belts with high-energy radiation. This problem might be solved by launching from very remote areas, the EMP footprint would be a few hundred miles wide. A few relatively small space-based electrodynamic tethers could be deployed to quickly eject the energetic particles from the capture angles of the Van Allen belts.

Edited March 5, 2019 by slide

[Master Dex]

42 minutes ago, slide said:

Ah, didn't realise the endo/exo-atmospheric operating efficiency difference. makes sense.

They think they're all cagey about it, but we've had "Working" tokamaks built before... I can't wait to see if they can actually get it down to the size of a jet-engine... but are they talking a P&W F119, or an RR Trent-900?

 

 

If you think a nuclear jet-engine is dumb, check THIS mandess out...

Key phrase there is "working." Also VF engines are using a gravity-induced inertial confinement fusion method instead of magnetic field confinement. So it is more like what the National Ignition Facility in California is doing but without all the lasers.

If you are asking if the fission jet engine attempts are more like either of those.. they were tested on large planes, not fighter jets. They were tested partly out at Edwards Air Force Base in the 50s, which had a runway leading to a dry lake bed going against the prevailing winds just in case something crashed there... it wouldn't harm anyone. The end result was they technically worked.. but were way too heavy to be usable, and posed a certain risk that made them impractical.

But there is nothing dumb about Project Orion... that is still one of the most realistic and plausible concepts for interplanetary space travel... so much so that the Air Force legit designed a space battleship around it, which scared Kennedy so much he put the kibosh on the whole thing... and then later Nuclear treaties with Russia forbid the use of nukes in space so the system could never be built anyway. The math worked though, and it was something that could have easily expanded space travel really fast.

On the subject of launching though, most rational people agreed Orion was best as a space propulsion system once already in orbit.. not for ground launch.. and anything would be launched conventionally using it.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Master Dex

[Seto Kaiba]

11 hours ago, Master Dex said:

Also VF engines are using a gravity-induced inertial confinement fusion method instead of magnetic field confinement. So it is more like what the National Ignition Facility in California is doing but without all the lasers.

In principle, a VF's compact thermonuclear reactors operate like toroidal magnetic field pinch reactors (e.g. the tokamak) except the magnets and magnetic fields have been replaced with artificial gravity produced by a gravity and inertia control system.

Inertial confinement fusion is pulsed fusion in a solid fuel pellet.  This is a continuous reaction using a gaseous fuel stored in the slush state.

[Master Dex]

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

In principle, a VF's compact thermonuclear reactors operate like toroidal magnetic field pinch reactors (e.g. the tokamak) except the magnets and magnetic fields have been replaced with artificial gravity produced by a gravity and inertia control system.

Inertial confinement fusion is pulsed fusion in a solid fuel pellet.  This is a continuous reaction using a gaseous fuel stored in the slush state.

We're kinda splitting hairs here. You aren't wrong (in fact you are entirely correct) but I don't think that makes my terminology incorrect either, especially as we can't call it magnetic confinement when it isn't. Yeah it isn't the inertial confinement we know of in reality but the principle ends up closer to that I feel in a basic physics sense even if the mechanics are different.