Asuka II Carrier Battle Group

[Zinjo]

For Knight26: I agree on both things.

Gentlemen what you are looking at in this screeny appears to be a derivative of the SU-35 Super Flanker with moved forward canards.

[David Hingtgen]

Except that the Flanker and Fulcrum are two entirely different planes. That's like saying "Well this Corvette looks like a modified Ferrari Testarossa".

[Zinjo]

Except that the Flanker and Fulcrum are two entirely different planes. That's like saying "Well this Corvette looks like a modified Ferrari Testarossa".

Yes, one's a Mig and the other an SU.

The fighter pictured is not a Mig. It is one of the fighters from DD Ivanov's squadron, a support fighter for the SV-51's based on the stealth sub.

This pic is from the all out battle at the climax of the story in episode 5 and isn't listed on the official Mac Zero website. Just like the Monster isn't listed, but it does appear in the show.

This is not a Mig and if you look closely at the animation, you will see the distinctive mig engine vents on top of the fuselage are missing as well as the fact that no Mig has canards, only the SU's use them.

[Nied]

Yes, one's a Mig and the other an SU.

The fighter pictured is not a Mig. It is one of the fighters from DD Ivanov's squadron, a support fighter for the SV-51's based on the stealth sub.

This pic is from the all out battle at the climax of the story in episode 5 and isn't listed on the official Mac Zero website. Just like the Monster isn't listed, but it does appear in the show.

This is not a Mig and if you look closely at the animation, you will see the distinctive mig engine vents on top of the fuselage are missing as well as the fact that no Mig has canards, only the SU's use them.

Not all Mig-29s have the auxiliary intakes (notably the carrier based Mig-29K doesn't). Even with the canards there's still plenty that makes it an obvious Mig-29 variant. The LERXs are the wrong shape and meet the nose in the wrong place, the nose has the wrong contour with way too small a radome, You can barely make it out but the IRST is offset to the right like on a Mig -29 (the Sukhoi's is center mounted), the intakes have the wrong contour, and the wingtips are all wrong.

[David Hingtgen]

It has a MiG-29's VERY DISTINCTIVE overwing strakes (actually a super-long fillet extension of the v.stab used for countermeasures), a MiG-29's nosecone and canopy, and a MiG-29's tailfins. Compare: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~junap95/fighters/images/mig29-2.jpg

[Nied]

It's a dead givaway if you look at the shot a second later. You can clearly see the swept back tailplanes of a Fulcrum rather than the cropped deltas of a Flanker.

[op4_delta]

The plane is a Fulcrum for sure, it has the shape, the wings, the chaff dispensers and the canopy, it also lacks the tailcone of the Su-27, the most significant feature of this Mig is the diagonal cannards of the SV-51. It may be a naval version, but I am not sure it is a sub-launched version, most certainly is an upgraded OT model, like the life extension given to the F-14´s mentioned earlier in this post.

This is the Mig-29K

The way I see it the Auerstadt only carried Sv-51s wich due to their variable nature were easier to recover than the Fulcrums wich would need arresting wires, and surfacing the sub. Also the Auerstadt only had 20 launch tubes, meaning that those Migs came from someplace else, with only 20 Sv-51s the AUN would be outnumbered by the numeric superiority of the VF-0s and the Ghosts, so to fight an all out battle with the Asuka´s air wing additional aircraft ould be needed.

The submarine carrier is a covert tactical asset of the AUN, lets remember that the Auerstadt is a submarine and it acted as such. That kind of ship, unlike the CVN-99, was not mented to lead a large taskforce, it´s strengh is based on the capability of choosing and attacking key targets with impunity, not in numbers.

Edited October 31, 2006 by op4_delta

[Graham]

While a little off topic, I'd like to know where the heck was the Asuka's air wing when the SV-51's attacked in episode # 3. Seems like Roy was all by himself.

Graham

[op4_delta]

You are not off topic mate, I have asked that question myself many times, you see some Ghosts and VF-0s launching, and then during the attack, the flightdeck is empty and only one S-3 is seen in the hangar.

You don´t scramble 90+ aircraft and let about 10 Sv-51s enter your carrier hangar...???

Is a big mistery.

[sketchley]

Me thinks that the anti-UN tactics were very well thought out for the battle:

- a rouse attack, that drew half or more of the fighters; the rest of the UN fighters remaining in a defensive posture near the fleet.

- a secondary rouse attack that occupied the remaining fighters

- the SV-51 attack; which makes it all the way to the carrier.

Though, it is speculation, and the only support that the main force of fighters were seeing action elsewhere is that Shin was contacted and alerted to the impending attack before the SV-51 were shown; SV-51's being stealthy and launching from a submarine, and generally being undetectable by conventional means. Maybe the UN fleet detected the approaching anti-UN fleet (the MiG, and Octos have to have some kind of a support fleet too) and scrambled their fighters.

Edgar also had enough time to fly out to rendevous with Shin...

Edited October 31, 2006 by sketchley

[azrael]

You are not off topic mate, I have asked that question myself many times, you see some Ghosts and VF-0s launching, and then during the attack, the flightdeck is empty and only one S-3 is seen in the hangar.

You don´t scramble 90+ aircraft and let about 10 Sv-51s enter your carrier hangar...???

Some VF-0s were in the air. I recall Nora shooting a couple down as they were making a pass on Asuka. Step through the sequence Graham and you'll see them.

[Zinjo]

It's a dead givaway if you look at the shot a second later. You can clearly see the swept back tailplanes of a Fulcrum rather than the cropped deltas of a Flanker.

Well I am talking about an SU-35 "Super" Flanker, not the SU-27 Flanker.

I agree that the cropped wing tips are absent, however the animated fighter shows distinctive differences from the Mig 29 including the canards, which lends itself closer to the SU-35 rather than the Mig.

No doubt Kawamori was looking to create some sort of hybrid between the two as the AUN fighter's canards are placed differently as well.

[Tinderfitles]

of course you can always make the assumption that the mechanics in the AUN where so starved for parts they used what ever was around. Producing the basterd children of russian engineering that we see in mac 0.

[Nied]

Well I am talking about an SU-35 "Super" Flanker, not the SU-27 Flanker.

I agree that the cropped wing tips are absent, however the animated fighter shows distinctive differences from the Mig 29 including the canards, which lends itself closer to the SU-35 rather than the Mig.

No doubt Kawamori was looking to create some sort of hybrid between the two as the AUN fighter's canards are placed differently as well.

The Su-35 is an Su-27, it's actual designation is Su-27M, it only gets called an Su-35 as a marketing ploy, since it's just an Su-27 with canards (BTW the plan view you posted is of an Su-30M aka Su-27P). The only similarities the plane in M0 has to the Flanker family is it's canards, the problem is they are mounted in the wrong place, and every single other part of the plane looks identical to a Mig-29.

[Zinjo]

The Su-35 is an Su-27, it's actual designation is Su-27M, it only gets called an Su-35 as a marketing ploy, since it's just an Su-27 with canards (BTW the plan view you posted is of an Su-30M aka Su-27P). The only similarities the plane in M0 has to the Flanker family is it's canards, the problem is they are mounted in the wrong place, and every single other part of the plane looks identical to a Mig-29.

No it isn't an SU-27!

It was developed from the existing SU-27 airframe. It was once designated the SU-27M when it was still in development, but became known as the SU-35 during testing and then the SU-37 with the thrust vectoring system.

The SU-37s were put into production but were shortly thereafter converted back to the SU-35 version and they are now in production for the Russian airforce. Then main differences between the SU-35 & 37 is the thrust vectoring system of the SU-37.

The Naval variant is the SU-33 which doesn't sport the canards, but has all the other features of the SU-35.

The picture is indeed a two seater, but of an SU-35 fighter/bomber variant, like the one that crashed at the Paris air show.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Zinjo

[Knight26]

Zinjo you are so off base on this it is not even funny. The Su-33 does have canards, it also has the trimmed tail boom, folding wings, etc... to make it carrier capable.

The aircraft seen in episode 5 is clearly a modified MiG-29. It bears no resemblance, beyond basic layout, to the Flanker family of aircraft. Look at the picture neid posted. The engines, stabs, verts, spine, cockpit, radome, wings, intakes, lerx, etc... all match the basic MiG-29 configuration. The only variations are the ordnance and very odd canards off of he SV-51. Heck it even has the MiG-29 parachute canister and airbrake in the rear.

[Nied]

No it isn't an SU-27!

It was developed from the existing SU-27 airframe. It was once designated the SU-27M when it was still in development, but became known as the SU-35 during testing and then the SU-37 with the thrust vectoring system.

The SU-37s were put into production but were shortly thereafter converted back to the SU-35 version and they are now in production for the Russian airforce. Then main differences between the SU-35 & 37 is the thrust vectoring system of the SU-37.

The Naval variant is the SU-33 which doesn't sport the canards, but has all the other features of the SU-35.

The picture is indeed a two seater, but of an SU-35 fighter/bomber variant, like the one that crashed at the Paris air show.

Other than the canards and some avionics the Su-35 is an Su-27, it was called the Su-35 when Sukhoi was trying to sell it on the foreign market as a way to make it sound like an all new product. The handful in RuAF service are still called Su-27Ms though. There is no two seat variant of the Su-35, the various versions of the Su-30 integrate technologies and lessons from the Su-35 and -37 but they are seperate aircraft (and are known as Su-27Ps when in RuAF service).

[David Hingtgen]

I'll let Nied handle this one.

Accurate and correct Flanker info: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flanke...anker_home.html

PS--wasn't the Su-37 officially called an Su-35-2 or something? I know Nato designated it a "Modified Flanker E" (with the Su-37/27M being the standard Flanker E) Note the use of past tense.

[DARKWIND]

heh, thanks for the thaught Sketch

they actualy insisted that water tight didn't mean air tight when i was there, but like i said, that just doesn't make sense.

like i said though, who knows, maybe the people on them ships just didn't follow procedures correctly in some way and had left the hatches open, or never sealed the vent shafts off (as it get HOT AS FU*& in parts of the ship without the vents open!! + it cuts off a LOT of your oxygen flow, we had half the ship without power at one point while i was in the Gulf a Mexico for a pre-deployment run, no power, no water, no air flow, it sucked to be there, of 8 generators we had 1 working! and they STILL deployed that thing!! ugh...)

Anywho, it could be that, or the translation error as you mentioned.

but there has to be a better explanation than "they just died because it was in space"

since military procedure would've saved the lot of them, or neglecting it would've killed them.

Lucky for MW we have a U.S. Navy Damage Controlman on board. . .

Ok, it's like this basically. . .

Watertight integrity= the ability to restrict water from entering or escaping a space. (mind you it is not always perfect)

Airtight = the ability to seal as space to where NO air/gases are moved into or from said space/compartment.

Ships themselves are not built to be airtight but, primarily watertight. (I know, some of you might be thinking, WELL DUH!!!)

When ship's are built they are checked using an air test pressure fitting to see if each space below the waterline are as close to airtight as possible but, that is never the standard.

Why you ask???

Well due to the wiring, venilation, pipeing and drainage systems that run throughout the ship.

These systems are the lifelines of each vesssel, they need freedom to reach from the bridge to the engineroom and everywhere in between.

Also each time a ship undergoes a refit/addition these may also become degraded/reconfigured.

Note: Even when there is a fire inside the ship's skin, 100% airtight smoke control is not acheved.

Now a ship has levels of material condition of readiness, Zebra is the highest for battle/presevervation (ie. missle attacks, gun fire, engineroom casualities, bad weather). . .

But a small step further, Circle William is set for a CBR-D attack, it entails securing ventilation to set pathways that allow it to be filtered, reducing/removing toxins coming in the ship which could kill or incapacitate the crew.

We never knew when/if we were going to be hit, we just trained to meet the threat asap.

Accept losses and damage by working around it, rescue who we can, and effect repairs as soon as it was safe/feasible to do so.

(TV SDF Macross)

Now if you look at the situation those ships were in, sure they were ready to go to battle, but not a space battle in a moments notice.

Hell, The SDF-1 didn't even know they were going to project such a large fold bubble, so there was no time to warn the other vessels in it's range.

(Just imagine that transmission. . .

SDF-1: "Daedules, Promethius!!! This is SDF-1 you're coming with us!!!"

Fleet ADM: "Say again??? Whatever you're smoking it better be for 'medicinal purposes' Gloval!!!!" )

(Remember, it was a last ditch effort to use the fold system -also, it had never been tested onboard the SDF-1. . .)

SOP usually calls for that type of threat/contingentcy to be forseen to a degree and reached in a set time limit.

(Even that time limit varies for different types, configurations, sizes and class of ships. . .)

I hope that helps, sorry it was so long though. . .

Now back to the topic at hand. . . .

Edited November 1, 2006 by DARKWIND

[sketchley]

Easiest way to clear up this debate: animators (and movie production companies in general) prefer to do the least amount of work possible. In other words, the jet is merely a slight modification to the CG model of the MiG 29 seen in episode one.

How many changes did they make? Canards and different colours on the skin. How much money did they save the production budge? No idea - and nothing came up on google. But it's bound to be a lot cheaper to make two changes than comission a whole new model.

[op4_delta]

Indeed, if you look at the CG model of the Mig-29 in the Macross Zero official site you will realize they only merged the cannards mesh with the Fulcrum´s model.

[Nied]

All right this should finish this. Zinjo you seem to be stuck on the fact that the fighter in M0 doesn't have the louvered intakes on the LERXs like early Mig-29s. However this ignores the fact that later variants like the Mig-29M, the carrier based Mig-29K, and the brand new Mig-29OVT, all delete those intakes to make room for more fuel. Su-35 like canards were also planned for the Mig-29M and K early on but were deleted before the prototypes flew.

Finally; take a look at this, both the Fulcrum and the Flanker have Sv-51 canards painted on to them so you can compare them to the screencap from M0. Note how the fighter from M0 has almost pure delta wings wings with rounded wingtips, while the Flanker has highly swept wings with squared of wingtips and wingtip mounted missile rails. Note also the heavily swept tailplanes of the M0 fighter in contrast to the cropped deltas of the Flanker. Note the wide LERXs in comparison to the flankers relatively narrow ones. The canopy is much larger in comparison to the rest of the body than on the Su and the engines are much further apart. I could go on but if you look at the three side-by-side you can clearly see it's a Mig-29 with canards.

[David Hingtgen]

Plus the little fact that MiG-29's that do have louvers have them closed most of the time, and they're very hard to see when they're closed. Why model opening louvers when you can just show them closed?

[op4_delta]

Great explanation Nied, to me this clears up the debate, the only Zhukovskiy aircraft in Macross Zero was the Sv-51.

I would like to propose we move onto the modified Arleigh Burke, what do you think?

Edited November 1, 2006 by op4_delta

[Knight26]

Works for me, as for your modified Arleigh Burkes, we need some better pictures of the ones in the OVA. The picture you showed looked nothing like an Arleigh Burke, maybe it was an animation mistake, or maybe it is one of those wierd japanesse destroyers.

[F-ZeroOne]

While a little off topic, I'd like to know where the heck was the Asuka's air wing when the SV-51's attacked in episode # 3. Seems like Roy was all by himself.

Graham

The same place as the 4,000 TIE Fighters were during the first trench run.

[David Hingtgen]

Yup--clearly Burke-ish, but not a Burke. Nor the JASDF Kongo class (their version of the Burke). They're just far too "swept back" overall.

[op4_delta]

Indeed the picture with Focker and Aries looking at the horizon with the escorts nearby suffers from "lazy drawing", (the front phalanx mount is missing) but the only Aegis ship with a 77 on it´s hull is USS O´Kane, besides in the CG and floating scenes the Burkes are clearly seen, so there is only crappy scene in the whole series.

The crappy destroyer.

This shows an Arleight Burke With only a few modifications, but definetly a Burke, the Japase version has a taller superstructure.

[David Hingtgen]

I'd argue more for "stylistic" drawing than lazy. Alternate universe Burkes or something.

[Fly4victory]

The more angular surfaces could be explaned as a stealth modification but the fact that two images from the same series are so different?... lend to the thought of lazy drawings and poor production QC.

I like the first more dynamic "stealth" version.

[op4_delta]

To me the "lazy" pic shows a drawing that was supposed to be in the backgrond but was used because it only appeared on screen for a few seconds. There are 4 burkes in the first pic, an image from chapter 1. The burkes shown, are located on the starboard flank of the Asuka, later during chapter 3 that flank gets attacked and one of the burkes, the Algeciras is severely damaged, explaining why only 3 destroyers remain on the mentioned flank in chapter 5, one of them being DDG 77. On the final chapter, the 3 remaining destroyers gets turned into a flower and then explode.

Edited November 2, 2006 by op4_delta

[Lightning]

Are ya'll sure that Destroyer's # is 77?

it looks like a 79 at one time, and when I look at it again it looks like a 71......it's almost like it was painted in a different font than usual...

[Knight26]

Or that could be an entirely different class of ship in that shot based on the burke hull, maybe our missing frigates.

[op4_delta]

From their possition in the formation those have to be the the same ships that float on chapter 5, I think this way because in every other scene they can be clearly distinguished as Burkes. Even in the mystery pic they have the same mast, phased array and chimmey configuration than a burke, the only difference is the swept back superstructure and the lack of a forward mounted phalanx, wich can be explained by a low detail draw.

About the numbers, they are a bit difficult to see, specially the second, but from the shape it could be a 74 too, the 79 is out of the question because DDG 79 is a Flight IIA, the USS Oscar Austin.

[Nied]

From their possition in the formation those have to be the the same ships that float on chapter 5, I think this way because in every other scene they can be clearly distinguished as Burkes. Even in the mystery pic they have the same mast, phased array and chimmey configuration than a burke, the only difference is the swept back superstructure and the lack of a forward mounted phalanx, wich can be explained by a low detail draw.

About the numbers, they are a bit difficult to see, specially the second, but from the shape it could be a 74 too, the 79 is out of the question because DDG 79 is a Flight IIA, the USS Oscar Austin.

You know it's all together possible that the UNG changed the hull numbers when they inducted the Burkes into thier navy. I'm sure there's plenty of destroyers with the hull number of 77 in the world.