Why do post VF-1 valks still transform?

[Uxi]

Obviously, transforming valks are cool and we all know and love the designs of the valks that followed the VF-1. But, for in-story purposes, if the VF-1 was designed to transform into battroid so it could effectively fight the zentran (and gerwalk and its hybrids are mere "midpoints" to that end), why do future designs also transform?

Because the Zentran must still be a threat. We've heard about "rogue" zentran mentioned in M-Plus and there's always the DYRL and M7 (Fleet of the Strongest Women) reference to other fleets (though the latter would seem to indicate they're not usually that large) besides Bodolzas. But investing time and money in variable fighter design must indicate they're still a major threat, right?

Anyway, probably pretty obvious, but figured I'd poll it.

[Uxi]

Damn it. Poll > me. If a mod could delete the poll part, I'd appreciate it, sicne I don't see that I can edit?

Discussion would still be nice, though.

[Abombz!!]

Why? Because Macross is absolutly no fun without transformable fighters.

[UN Spacy]

Even if there was little to no Zentradi threat after Space War I, the standard VF-1 was still valuable to U.N. Spacy for many years to follow because of it's transformation capabilities. A standard VF-1 should be able to handle numerous tasks. The fighter is an obvious transport for atmospheric tasks, gerwalk for rugged terrain, and battroid fo close quarters (ground or city) engagements. B)

[bigkid24]

Also, in some of the shows (maybe Dynamite?) weren't some battroids used for construction type purposes? Could still be handy.

I don't know if they are that big a threat but a variable fighter is an advance in technology, it seems silly to take a step back even if there is cost savings. For cost savings they could just make the valkyries out of plastic.

[ewilen]

Apparently the battloid mode is useful in space combat (probably allows faster targetting with the gunpod) and as UN Spacy mentioned, it's extremely useful in situations with lots of cover, like city engagements. A Valkyrie can essentially operate as air superiority, tactical bomber, and infantry.

The existing renegade Zentradi threat is another reasonable explanation.

Otherwise, it would be hard to explain the rationale in-story. I don't agree that advanced technology would be used for its own sake. Consider the USN, which is phasing out (or will soon) the F-14--an incredible interceptor capable of knocking down multiple targets simultaneously at long range--and replacing it with the Super Hornet, which is less capable in the interceptor role (and maybe others). The reason: money and the lack of the massive Soviet bomber swarms which the F-14 was supposed to protect our fleets against.

Edited September 9, 2003 by ewilen

[Aegis!]

Because as humand kind began to colonise other planets after SW1 those colonies started buying VF-1s because they needed some kind of defense as well , the VF-1s became obsolete and cheaper , the UN at the same time couldn´t possibly stay in the same technological level as the distant colonies and had to improve the technology and since the colonies had variable fighters already (i.e. VF-1s) they also continued to develop variable fighters.

Add to this the fact that the survivors of SW1 were still pretty shoked after almost all of Earths population was annihilated in just one battle against the Zentran and Meltran army , and I doubt they would risk the human race again in case there was still more fleets in the universe.

[Prime]

Even if there was little to no Zentradi threat after Space War I, the standard VF-1 was still valuable to U.N. Spacy for many years to follow because of it's transformation capabilities. A standard VF-1 should be able to handle numerous tasks. The fighter is an obvious transport for atmospheric tasks, gerwalk for rugged terrain, and battroid fo close quarters (ground or city) engagements. B)

This is what I think as well. In the beginning, the Valks were designed with a more or less specific purpose in mind, which was to deal with giant aliens. They performed this task well, and in the process their general usefulness was discovered, if not already known.

Not only are they effective fighter planes in the traditional sense, but they can also perform in ground combat, urban warfare, and so on. They are probably just as effective as traditional tanks, as well as being much more versatile and manouverable. Even without an emminent Zentran threat, it is not difficult to see the overall usefullness of Valkyries.

So even in Mac Plus and 7 eras, I think the transformable Valkyries is just as relavent and effective as their Space War 1 counterparts.

[Anubis]

Some things you can do in fighter, some in Battroid. A Valkyrie enables the pilot to handle any circumstance, and to choose the appropriate mode to do what they need to do.

[JB0]

Damn it. Poll > me. If a mod could delete the poll part, I'd appreciate it, sicne I don't see that I can edit?

Discussion would still be nice, though.

But the poll works so much better this way...

I have to say it's because the multi-mode setup made it a very useful general-purpose vehicle.

Sure it was a fighter plane, but look at what else it did.

GERWALK especially was a rather unique capability. Sort of like a tank on meth.

Anyways, it revolutionized warfare. You no longer have to claim air superiority before starting the ground war, because air and ground battles can be fought with the same vehicle.

At the very least, you can start the ground war before the destroids get marched in.

...

And it's cool.

[Prime]

And it's cool.

By far the most important reason

[Berttt]

I'll agree with the cool factor, but I don't know about a VF being as good as atank on the ground. Any infantry with a man portable antitank weapon could seriously hurt a VF in battroid modeif fighting was occuring in a city, and with a profile about ten times as big, how could they miss.

The only way I can see them being effecive on the ground is if it open terrian (if so why land, why not just fly around strafing everything), or if they flew around in a battlefield helicopter type role (hiding in valleys, popping up all over the place etc), or just land unload on anything you see and get out quick. And you might say that a VF can do all these things, but the old "Jack of all trades, master of none" applies, and at a wopping great cost.

But one thing overides all of thses arguments;

It cool to watch transforming planes beat the hell out of all alien scum!!

[JB0]

I'll agree with the cool factor, but I don't know about a VF being as good as atank on the ground. Any infantry with a man portable antitank weapon could seriously hurt a VF in battroid modeif fighting was occuring in a city, and with a profile about ten times as big, how could they miss.

The only way I can see them being effecive on the ground is if it open terrian (if so why land, why not just fly around strafing everything), or if they flew around in a battlefield helicopter type role (hiding in valleys, popping up all over the place etc), or just land unload on anything you see and get out quick. And you might say that a VF can do all these things, but the old "Jack of all trades, master of none" applies, and at a wopping great cost.

But one thing overides all of thses arguments;

It cool to watch transforming planes beat the hell out of all alien scum!!

A VF would be lousy at replacing a tank. (That's what destroids are for.)

But what it WOULD be good at is...

A. hauling ass on wide open flat spaces in GERWALK mode.

Let's be honest, a GERWALK's gonna blow by an Abrams like it's standing still. And I DARE you to find a tank with limited flight capability. Let the tank/destroid do it's job while the GERWALK darts around covering it.

And ...

B. Urban combat.

Tanks SUCK at urban combat. They aren't maneuverable enough.

But battroids don't suck. They can dart around corners like nothing, crouch behind rubble, et cetera.

Only SOME destroids(the Spartan and... the Spartan) are really built for urban combat.

A group of VFs can be deployed to a distant area faster than a group of Spartans, though this advantage is balanced by the reduced durability.

The GBP-1S can be used on local VFs to essentially convert them into a destroid should the need arise, giving you a mech with a nice mix of the Spartan's agility and the Phalanx's missile capacity(in fact, I'd be suprised if a destroid based on the GBP-1S design wasn't made later).

GERWALK mode CAN be useful in urban combat, but only if the area's clean enough.

...

Did I mention that VFs are cool?

[motley]

something else to think about, is that the later VF's typically have placed less emphasis on the battroid and gerwalk modes. especially the VF-4 and VF-5000, which are the two immediate successors to the VF-1. the later VFs still have all three modes, but the infantry emphasis of the VF-1 is clearly gone, battroid mode is more awkward, and gerwalk usually more-so. the rogue zentradi threat is still there, but VF's primary function remains fighter.

an exception might be made for the VF-11, which has a fairly functional battroid mode, but the gerwalk mode is still pretty ugly.

[JB0]

something else to think about, is that the later VF's typically have placed less emphasis on the battroid and gerwalk modes. especially the VF-4 and VF-5000, which are the two immediate successors to the VF-1. the later VFs still have all three modes, but the infantry emphasis of the VF-1 is clearly gone, battroid mode is more awkward, and gerwalk usually more-so. the rogue zentradi threat is still there, but VF's primary function remains fighter.

an exception might be made for the VF-11, which has a fairly functional battroid mode, but the gerwalk mode is still pretty ugly.

And the YF-21/VF-22, which is one of the few where battroid mode isn't just airplane origami.

They worked hard on making a good battroid in that mech.

[motley]

actually i'm going to disagree with you on that one. i think the YF-21/VF-22 has the worst battroid and gerwalk out there. yes it is reminiscent of the Q-Rau in battroid, but neither it or the Q-Rau strike me as especially agile on the ground. the Y/VF-19 is a little bit better, but it seems fragile, and it unfortunately has its wings hanging off its hips, much like the 21/22. i just see that as a bad idea for an infantry mode.

[JB0]

actually i'm going to disagree with you on that one. i think the YF-21/VF-22 has the worst battroid and gerwalk out there. yes it is reminiscent of the Q-Rau in battroid, but neither it or the Q-Rau strike me as especially agile on the ground. the Y/VF-19 is a little bit better, but it seems fragile, and it unfortunately has its wings hanging off its hips, much like the 21/22. i just see that as a bad idea for an infantry mode.

Hmmm...

Now that you mention it, the YF-21's battroid DID kind of suck on the ground.

[Druna Skass]

Well another thing about variable form fighters. In Gundam then decided the best form for space combat was the Mobile Suit, it had more advantages than fighters. With a VF you have all the advantages of both, a fighter's speed and battroid's agility. The GERWALK can stop you quickly and is fairly usefull in an atmosphere.

[ewilen]

I disagree that a man-portable antitank weapon would be more effective vs. a battroid Valkyrie than against a tank--basically due to the overtechnology armoring of a Valk. Something about energy being used to strengthen the Valk's structure. This has been discussed in relation to the VF-0, but evidence can be seen in SDF Macross in the way that Valks are able to smash through buildings (and Zentradi view screens) without taking significant damage.

Now, why couldn't the same armor be used on a tank? Maybe it was a size issue (to accommodate the powerplant and related gadgetry); thus the destroid. But apparently destroids were later phased out because of the Valk's greater flexibility.

Edited September 10, 2003 by ewilen

[JB0]

I disagree that a man-portable antitank weapon would be more effective vs. a battroid Valkyrie than against a tank--basically due to the overtechnology armoring of a Valk. Something about energy being used to strengthen the Valk's structure. This has been discussed in relation to the VF-0, but evidence can be seen in SDF Macross in the way that Valks are able to smash through buildings (and Zentradi view screens) without taking significant damage.

Now, why couldn't the same armor be used on a tank? Maybe it was a size issue (to accommodate the powerplant and related gadgetry); thus the destroid. But apparently destroids were later phased out because of the Valk's greater flexibility.

I think we just don't SEE destroids later.

We know at the very least they made the VB-6, which was a variable Monster(I hate it, but it's canon).

Offers the speedy delivery advantages of an airplane(Supersonic no less. I'm gonna hurl.), while maintaining the awesome firepower of a Monster(when on the ground, since the cannons are used as part of the propulsion system in airplane mode).

[Hoptimus]

With the ability to transform it makes the VF series a formitable force. By air it has supersonic speed and typical jetfigthing capabilities. With Battroid mode the VF is now a mobile tank on the ground. More manuverable and deadly. You can't beat that combination.

[JELEINEN]

It's interesting that the competition between the YF-19 and YF-21 in M+ was scrapped in favor of something that is not only unmanned but non-variable. There must've been some among the upper echelons who were thinking along similar lines that the need for variable-ness had passed.

[Commander McBride]

Truthfully, the entire idea of a humanoid mecha is quite pointless. Especially a variable one. Remember how much trouble Hikaru had the first time he tried to pilot a battrloid? And how unstable it was? Imagine that thing being hit by a tank shell. It'd knock it over. And, it would most likely lose parts critical to transformation.

[tom64ss]

Why? Because Macross is absolutly no fun without transformable fighters.

My sentiments exactly. I wouldn't watch a Macross series that didn't have at least one piece of variable mecha. I'm not saying no one would, but I think they'd certainly lose a large part of their viewing audience.

[Roy's Blues]

If Macross did not have variable mecha, they may as well change the name to Sentou Yousei Yukikaze <_

[Prime]

I'll agree with the cool factor, but I don't know about a VF being as good as atank on the ground. Any infantry with a man portable antitank weapon could seriously hurt a VF in battroid modeif fighting was occuring in a city, and with a profile about ten times as big, how could they miss.

The only way I can see them being effecive on the ground is if it open terrian (if so why land, why not just fly around strafing everything), or if they flew around in a battlefield helicopter type role (hiding in valleys, popping up all over the place etc), or just land unload on anything you see and get out quick. And you might say that a VF can do all these things, but the old "Jack of all trades, master of none" applies, and at a wopping great cost.

But one thing overides all of thses arguments;

It cool to watch transforming planes beat the hell out of all alien scum!!

A VF would be lousy at replacing a tank. (That's what destroids are for.)

I'm sort of using the tank as an example of "generic military vehicle" I'm saying that the Valks are much more versatile and manouverable than a tank, while still sporting excellent armour (like going through bridges and buildings without a hinderence), and fairly substantial firepower.

But what it WOULD be good at is...

A. hauling ass on wide open flat spaces in GERWALK mode. 

Let's be honest, a GERWALK's gonna blow by an Abrams like it's standing still. And I DARE you to find a tank with limited flight capability.  Let the tank/destroid do it's job while the GERWALK darts around covering it. 

Fair enough...yet another example of its versatility.

B. Urban combat.

Tanks SUCK at urban combat. They aren't maneuverable enough.

But battroids don't suck. They can dart around corners like nothing, crouch behind rubble, et cetera.

Only SOME destroids(the Spartan and... the Spartan) are really built for urban combat.

This is what I am talking about!

I disagree that a man-portable antitank weapon would be more effective vs. a battroid Valkyrie than against a tank--basically due to the overtechnology armoring of a Valk.

Exactly. Not only that, but they outmanouver missiles and things of that sort. So I suspect a man-portable antitank weapon wouldn't be much of a threat.

Remember how much trouble Hikaru had the first time he tried to pilot a battrloid? And how unstable it was? Imagine that thing being hit by a tank shell. It'd knock it over.

I think it is probably a little difficult to ascertain the Valk abilities when it is under the "control" of a completely newbie pilot. Isn't that kind of like saying that a car won't drive straight after watching it driven by a 4 year old? I mean, somone who knows what they are doing might be able to stand up to a tank shell, especially with the Valk's impressive armour.

[JB0]

It's interesting that the competition between the YF-19 and YF-21 in M+ was scrapped in favor of something that is not only unmanned but non-variable. There must've been some among the upper echelons who were thinking along similar lines that the need for variable-ness had passed.

Or they just wanted something cheap to offset the AI development costs.

[Prime]

It's interesting that the competition between the YF-19 and YF-21 in M+ was scrapped in favor of something that is not only unmanned but non-variable.  There must've been some among the upper echelons who were thinking along similar lines that the need for variable-ness had passed.

Or they just wanted something cheap to offset the AI development costs.

Or something cheap in general so that they could mass produce them. Not only are the construction costs of the Valks a consideration, but so are the costs of training and paying a fleet of pilots. The Ghost probably killed a couple of birds with one stone.

[JB0]

It's interesting that the competition between the YF-19 and YF-21 in M+ was scrapped in favor of something that is not only unmanned but non-variable.  There must've been some among the upper echelons who were thinking along similar lines that the need for variable-ness had passed.

Or they just wanted something cheap to offset the AI development costs.

Or something cheap in general so that they could mass produce them. Not only are the construction costs of the Valks a consideration, but so are the costs of training and paying a fleet of pilots. The Ghost probably killed a couple of birds with one stone.

Well, they forged ahead with the VF-19, so I guess they decided price wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

...

Maybe they decided that the Ghost could pull so many more Gs than a piloted vehicle that the extra GERWALK and battroid components only served to restrict the performance of the fighter mode, and they'd make AI destroids later to fill the line out.

[Berttt]

I disagree that a man-portable antitank weapon would be more effective vs. a battroid Valkyrie than against a tank--basically due to the overtechnology armoring of a Valk. Something about energy being used to strengthen the Valk's structure. This has been discussed in relation to the VF-0, but evidence can be seen in SDF Macross in the way that Valks are able to smash through buildings (and Zentradi view screens) without taking significant damage.

Oh, so that's what they were talking about when they were waffling on about energy transfer?

But do we really know how many centimetres of steel would equal the overtechnology armour?

Getting back to the original thread, I can't see VF's being the only hardware at use in the UNSPACY.

Take the F-22 for example, a good fighter that will do it's job like no other, but I don't see the US Airforce only buying them. At a cost of around 200 Million a piece, it makes sense to bulk out your forces with less expensive aircraft, ala F-35's and Super Hornets.

I could see VF's being used as the backbone, with dedicated fixed and rotary assets being used on colony worlds, and dedicated space fighters used out with the fleets.

As for unmanned vehicles, I can't see them being totally effecive until they can operate unmonitered, thus eliminating EM transmissions.

[Smut Peddler]

What would Macross be without some form of a variable fighter? Gundam !!!!

[JB0]

I disagree that a man-portable antitank weapon would be more effective vs. a battroid Valkyrie than against a tank--basically due to the overtechnology armoring of a Valk. Something about energy being used to strengthen the Valk's structure. This has been discussed in relation to the VF-0, but evidence can be seen in SDF Macross in the way that Valks are able to smash through buildings (and Zentradi view screens) without taking significant damage.

Oh, so that's what they were talking about when they were waffling on about energy transfer?

But do we really know how many centimetres of steel would equal the overtechnology armour?

If I recall, they said it gave the VF-0 armor equivalent to a conventional battletank.

I assume they're using Abrams'class vehicles, and that they mean at the thickest point(which is a foot of various layered materials).

Getting back to the original thread, I can't see VF's being the only hardware at use in the UNSPACY.

Take the F-22 for example, a good fighter that will do it's job like no other, but I don't see the US Airforce only buying them. At a cost of around 200 Million a piece, it makes sense to bulk out your forces with less expensive aircraft, ala F-35's and Super Hornets.

I could see VF's being used as the backbone, with dedicated fixed and rotary assets being used on colony worlds, and dedicated space fighters used out with the fleets.

Like I said, I assume there's still destroids in service, you just don't see them because they have too low of an LCF for front-line animated action. (LCF = look cool factor)

Edited September 11, 2003 by JB0

[TheGoLambo]

Hey now! I'm sure im not the only person who thinks Destroids look cool!

And about this "armor" stuff, couldn't a tank simply use the same armor as a valk and MORE OF IT? But I have think, anything as flexible as a valk would be a huge asset. The roles it could cover and the units it could replace would make the whole operation cheaper and more efficient on the whole. Like aircraft they can respond quicker then any other force you have, but unlike aircraft they can actually hold ground.

[JB0]

Hey now! I'm sure im not the only person who thinks Destroids look cool!

And about this "armor" stuff, couldn't a tank simply use the same armor as a valk and MORE OF IT?

It stands to reason that whatever VFs are equipped with was also applied to the destroid line.

...

Well, the first destroids may've been built before the shielding was developed/reverse-engineered, but later destroids would have it.

[Mr March]

Deployment would be a huge reason (if not THE reason) to continue to improve and develop a ground assault battroid mode for the Valkyrie. The Valkyrie is its own ground assault unit that can be instantly deployed anywhere. Better still, the valkyrie is it's own delivery vehicle, one which is also a air/space superiority weapon. The Valkyrie can even leave orbit on its own. I can't imagine any reason why the UN SPacy would choose to abandon the battroid based on that one fact alone.