Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
azrael

Macross Frontier Mecha/Technology Thread *Read 1st post*

Recommended Posts

I'd agree that the reactor probably is the key factor in the Vajra technology. That thing is pumping out all kinds of power, folding on it's own and firing that big gun that can blow up entire warships. With that kind of power, it's no wonder the Energy Converting Armor on that thing is so tough.

Also, do we know for sure ECA can only be used in Battroid mode? My impression (speculation) is that the specifics of Energy Converting Armor technology described in Macross Zero were limitations only for the early VF-0/SV-51 variable fighters still powered by overtuned but conventional engines. The official statistics note specifically in the VF-0 profile that future variable fighters will utilize similar technology, but not necessarily identical nor as limited. When the VF-1 was made with reaction engines, obviously it's going to have far more surplus power than the VF-0 ever did. By 2059, ECA is likely to have already been used in all modes for many fighter generations and the most modern advances in ECA efficiency may have supplanted the need for pin-point barrier systems.

Well judging by how vulnerable the VF's seem to be in fighter mode as opposed to battroid, even in MF, I am doubtful ECA is used in fighter mode. The conventional thinking may be that a fighter has greater maneuvarability and speed to deal with threats and possibly ECA use may affect engine output on the fighters thus making them uncessarily vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess. I'd just like some way to reconcile the VF-1 Valkyrie's capabilties during the events in SDF Macross and DYRL (and the VF-11 in Macross Plus) and the easiest way to do that is to assume the ECA is used in all modes.

The VF-1 in Fighter Mode is falling into the ground at high speed unharmed, in GERWALK mode it's crashing through bridges without a scratch, in mid-transformation it's plowing through buildings relatively unscathed. Even in Macross Plus Isamu's nose dive into the Eden desert in GERWALK mode finds the VF-11 all in one piece and relatively undamaged (even the cockpit facedown against the rocky terrain at high speed doesn't break the glass). The space metal frame could help explain why the Valkyries remain in one piece, but the ECA would be what ensures the exterior remains undamaged in these instances.

Anyway, just thinking out loud :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess. I'd just like some way to reconcile the VF-1 Valkyrie's capabilties during the events in SDF Macross and DYRL (and the VF-11 in Macross Plus) and the easiest way to do that is to assume the ECA is used in all modes.

The VF-1 in Fighter Mode is falling into the ground at high speed unharmed, in GERWALK mode it's crashing through bridges without a scratch, in mid-transformation it's plowing through buildings relatively unscathed. Even in Macross Plus Isamu's nose dive into the Eden desert in GERWALK mode finds the VF-11 all in one piece and relatively undamaged (even the cockpit facedown against the rocky terrain at high speed doesn't break the glass). The space metal frame could help explain why the Valkyries remain in one piece, but the ECA would be what ensures the exterior remains undamaged in these instances.

Anyway, just thinking out loud :)

The question I'd ask is what kind of materials are these fighters made from? I'd guess new OTEC based alloys could be the reason why the fighters are so durable to impact damage. Plus I get the feeling the ECA might kick in once the fighters enter GERWALK mode (as they are much slower in that mode).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could speculate about materials, but why not use what trivia is at hand to explain it? The ECA could explain these events and it's official trivia, so why not go with it? The only fictional material mentioned in the construction of a Macross Valkyrie is "space metal" (which is never explained) and it specifically states it's the frame only. There is hypercarbon mentioned in DYRL?, but we don't know if it was used in the Valkyries (and hypercarbon may = space metal for all we know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any logical reason why ECA would be limited to battroid. And as Mr. March has pointed out, there are numerous scenes peppered throughout the various Macross shows where valks, not in battroid mode, took insane amounts of abuse.

Just in ep 1 of MF. A lobster pulls a VF-25 out of the sky in fighter mode and then holds it by a leg while gilliam has the engines lit and thrusting trying to get away from it and then later it shakes it by the arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any logical reason why ECA would be limited to battroid. And as Mr. March has pointed out, there are numerous scenes peppered throughout the various Macross shows where valks, not in battroid mode, took insane amounts of abuse.

Just in ep 1 of MF. A lobster pulls a VF-25 out of the sky in fighter mode and then holds it by a leg while gilliam has the engines lit and thrusting trying to get away from it and then later it shakes it by the arms.

Well there was damage to the nose, but the leg didn't rip off or the arms, because it was in GERWALK mode.

Until something definitive is released, I will keep my speculation... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there was damage to the nose, but the leg didn't rip off or the arms, because it was in GERWALK mode.

Until something definitive is released, I will keep my speculation... ;)

It doesn't make sense to me that gerwalk would require less power and thus have power left over for ECA. Just the dynamics of keeping the valk hovering would require more power since the wings aren't doing any lifting and then there's the power used for forward momentum and then there's the power used in moving the limbs. Same for battroid.

If anything, fighter mode seems the most energy efficient, at least to me.

anyhows, when the lobster pulled gilliam from the sky originally, the vf-25 was in fighter mode and then transformed trying to get away. If fighter mode were more vulnerable, the initial grab on the legs should have resulted in some pretty nasty damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no logic trying to find out what a valk material can resist or not based on the series. They probably do all the cool action scenes without thinking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, we all realize it's anime magic, but when the show tries to explain the technology it's fun to run with it and try to figure out the internal logic of the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This victory strengthened the soul of...Zinjo! (bit of Soul Calibur humor there)

Well, if you need something definitive via a process of elimination and a unification of known facts, we can do that. For example, the VF-0 has a space metal frame but a hull made from a titanium/carbon composite. So if we accept only known facts and carry them through all of Macross, the Valkyries use Energy Converting Armor and have titanium/carbon composite hulls. Since such a conventional hull material would easily yield under the stresses many of the Valkyries found themselves in the examples I provided, that pretty much leaves the ECA as the only canon technology which can account for the exceptional hull strength of a Valkyrie's Fighter and GERWALK modes.

I agree the explanation isn't sexy, but it works :)

eugimon

You've hit the nail on the head. If anything the GERWALK and Battroid modes would require far more power to operate than the Fighter mode; the GERWALK and Battroid modes are the least aerodynamic and feature the most moving parts requiring the most power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugimon

You've hit the nail on the head. If anything the GERWALK and Battroid modes would require far more power to operate than the Fighter mode; the GERWALK and Battroid modes are the least aerodynamic and feature the most moving parts requiring the most power.

True, however is could be less about power output and more about vulnerability. A walking or "skating" fighter is slower and a much easier tarket as opposed to an aerodynamic fast moving fighter with great agility. The initial question was why are Valks easier to shoot down in the air than when they are on the ground (a paraphrase I admit)?

That is the best answer I could muster based on available information and of course a bit o' speculation... B))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, however is could be less about power output and more about vulnerability. A walking or "skating" fighter is slower and a much easier tarket as opposed to an aerodynamic fast moving fighter with great agility. The initial question was why are Valks easier to shoot down in the air than when they are on the ground (a paraphrase I admit)?

That is the best answer I could muster based on available information and of course a bit o' speculation... B))

I was thinking the same question, but from the opposite side of it: If fighter mode is the most vulnerable mode, why is fighter mode the apparant mode of choice for engagements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they say the Vajra had the same reactive armor as the Valkyries.

If somebody made of the same stuff as you was pulling on your leg and you were pulling back, he wouldn't neccessarily be able to rip your leg off.

Afterall, they don't make the VF-25 out of the same stuff as Yamato toys. You aren't going to break tab B so easily.

Edited by ComicKaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did they say the Vajra had the same reactive armor as the Valkyries.

No. They said the Vajra use energy converting armor similar to the VFs. Reactive armor is armor that either explodes off or produces an electric current that fries anti-armor ordnance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says the fighter is the most vulnerable mode? I don't agree with that perception. Official facts or not, the Battroid and GERWALK modes are shown being destroyed by the same levels of firepower as the Fighter mode. Outside of enemy fire, the Fighter mode seems as robust, if not more so, than the Battroid or GERWALK modes. Again, I reference my many examples in previous posts.

Personally, I'm sticking with ECA as the trivia de jure. It's the simplest way to explain all the Valkyrie events of the many Macross anime shows in one stroke. There may have been ECA limitations in the VF-0 but once the VF-1 came into production with OT reaction engines I don't see why the ECA couldn't be active in all modes. This explanation is simple, it uses as much canon as possible and it unifies nicely.

Comickaze

They state the Vajra have the same Energy Converting Armor as the Valkyries, though the Vajra are powered by a much more powerful OverTechnology reactor allowing them to fire that big gun, to space fold on their own and obviously granting them much stronger armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking the same question, but from the opposite side of it: If fighter mode is the most vulnerable mode, why is fighter mode the apparant mode of choice for engagements?

SPEED...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPEED...

Speed? In space? Thrust is thrust, GERWALK and battroid would be just as fast in space since things like aerodynamics and lift don't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't make sense to me that gerwalk would require less power and thus have power left over for ECA. Just the dynamics of keeping the valk hovering would require more power since the wings aren't doing any lifting and then there's the power used for forward momentum and then there's the power used in moving the limbs. Same for battroid.

If anything, fighter mode seems the most energy efficient, at least to me.

I agree on both counts to some extent.

You have to keep in mind the thrust required to hover versus the thrust typically used to propel the Valkyrie forward in an atmospheric environment.

Are the intakes open or closed? Newer AVFs have lower power output in space due to this limitation in reactor design (cooling). (See Macross Compendium's VF-22 entry.) This may affect the pussiance of ECA in a given environment.

anyhows, when the lobster pulled gilliam from the sky originally, the vf-25 was in fighter mode and then transformed trying to get away. If fighter mode were more vulnerable, the initial grab on the legs should have resulted in some pretty nasty damage.

I thought that Varja (sp?) jumped on the Valkyrie's back, forcing the nose down, and Gilliam compensated by switching to Gerwalk, redirecting the thrust to stay aloft. I don't think fighter is any more vulnerable than Gerwalk or Battroid despite its inherent limitations and what I mentioned earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of legs (LOL :)), is Macross Frontier the first time we see a Valkyrie lose a leg and still operate? The majority of Valkyries hold the reaction engines in their legs and the VF-25 is obviously the same. So when Alto lost a leg in his battle against big, red and ugly in episode 4, I think this was the first time we saw a Valkyrie functioning with that kind of damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

continuing with the geeky discussion, if the VF are powered by 'nuclear' engines, don't remember the exact name for them, how much power could they need for energy conversion, they should be almost invulnerable then?? I mean...'NUCLEAR'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of legs (LOL :)), is Macross Frontier the first time we see a Valkyrie lose a leg and still operate? The majority of Valkyries hold the reaction engines in their legs and the VF-25 is obviously the same. So when Alto lost a leg in his battle against big, red and ugly in episode 4, I think this was the first time we saw a Valkyrie functioning with that kind of damage.

nah, mac plus, the yf-21 flies around in battroid sans legs, if only briefly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't really call it "flying around"... The 21's arms and legs are shot off, and Guld is in free-fall for a moment before he jettisons what's left of his limbs and shifts to fighter mode. It could survive, yes - but in the case of the 21 it's because its main engines are housed in the back of the machine, and not the legs. The 25 certainly had an advantage as its super packs added thrusters in the back to compensate for the loss of a leg and its own main engine.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't really call it "flying around"... The 21's arms and legs are shot off, and Guld is in free-fall for a moment before he jettisons what's left of his limbs and shifts to fighter mode. It could survive, yes - but in the case of the 21 it's because its main engines are housed in the back of the machine, and not the legs. The 25 certainly had an advantage as its super packs added thrusters in the back to compensate for the loss of a leg and its own main engine.

Mark

he then proceeded to outfly the AI controlled ghost, I don't see how you can call that not "functioning" which is what Mr. March asked: have we seen a valk with damage comparable to the alto's vf-25 before in macross. Yes, the yf-21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, what is that valk at the end of episode 5? Looks like a mix between VF-11 and VF-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he then proceeded to outfly the AI controlled ghost, I don't see how you can call that not "functioning" which is what Mr. March asked: have we seen a valk with damage comparable to the alto's vf-25 before in macross. Yes, the yf-21.

No, he asked if we've seen one with reaction engines in the legs continue to function. The YF-21 is not the same type of animal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the difference was the YF-21 was designed from the outset to be able to lose all its appendages and continue fighting. That was part of its unique design. If the 25 loses both legs its somewhat game over, especially in an atmosphere.

However the VF-11 can lose a leg and still operate. Mylene has a turbine failure (which to me sounds like a catastrophic event) and Kinryu loses a leg when he attacks inside the Vartua battleship with the VF-11 FA

Edited by Noyhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, he asked if we've seen one with reaction engines in the legs continue to function. The YF-21 is not the same type of animal...

"Speaking of legs (LOL ), is Macross Frontier the first time we see a Valkyrie lose a leg and still operate? " Not, Speaking of engines, is MF the first time we see a valkyrie lose an engine and still operate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ March's next sentence is kinda important for putting that into context.

It doesn't matter though, there is an example in Macross 7 where a VF-11 operated without one leg, at least for a couple of seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Zinjo's interpretation of my post is correct (as is the fact that the YF-21 does not have engines in it's legs). I was discussing legs in the context of the reaction engines, as Noyhauser pointed out. Speaking of which, I had forgotten that Kinryu's VF-11C had lost a leg during the attack on the Varauta warship in episode 26. However, we notice that his VF-11C does suffer from a temporary loss of power. Alto's VF-25 on the other hand lost a leg (read: reaction engine) and continued to fly without any interruption in power or thrust. Anyway, I just found it a rather (nearly) unique occurrence. I guess that's what makes the variable fighters so robust, lose one engine and they have another :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hell, he didn't completely loose the engine, so part of it, the engine should be from the intake all the way to the thrusters, he just lost the bottom part, in which, the engine might still funtion, in addition to the other legg/engine, I guess that's why all VF's are designed like that in the eventuality they loose a leg...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speed? In space? Thrust is thrust, GERWALK and battroid would be just as fast in space since things like aerodynamics and lift don't matter.

Then I guess it must have something to do in the way the engine function is altered when changing mecha modes. The YF-21 & VF-22 seemed to have engines that worked the same regardless of the mecha configuration...

Edited by Kronnang Dunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Zinjo's interpretation of my post is correct (as is the fact that the YF-21 does not have engines in it's legs). I was discussing legs in the context of the reaction engines, as Noyhauser pointed out. Speaking of which, I had forgotten that Kinryu's VF-11C had lost a leg during the attack on the Varauta warship in episode 26. However, we notice that his VF-11C does suffer from a temporary loss of power. Alto's VF-25 on the other hand lost a leg (read: reaction engine) and continued to fly without any interruption in power or thrust. Anyway, I just found it a rather (nearly) unique occurrence. I guess that's what makes the variable fighters so robust, lose one engine and they have another :)

write more clearly then, damn you! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valkyrie addict

Well, I always assumed the engines were in the lower legs, not the intake section. The cutaway diagrams of the VF-1 show the main reaction engines sit inside the lower legs. I assume there's little reason or interior space to place them anywhere else.

eugimon

Nah, I like playing hard to get :wub::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haven't seen the schematics of the VF-1, I'm just assuming this since the VF-0S when it is shown transforming on the first episode of zero, is shown how the intakes spool up and then the diagram of the energy being redirected completely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...