Jump to content
Valkyrie Driver

Super Macross Mecha Fun Time Discussion Thread!

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Sildani said:

If you’re of my generation, Seto, it’s just plain age. I’ve never had a mind like a steel trap, but over the last year I’ve noticed I’m forgetting stuff I meant to do. 

Not honestly sure which generation that is... I'm slightly younger than that other show we don't talk about here.  

In a timely save, IT manifested themselves in my office with a reminder of exactly why it'd slipped the net about 20 minutes after I'd posted that.  Bloody hard to stay on top your fun time task list when you've had eight separate laptops in the last calendar quarter.  Gonna be nine over the long weekend, and hopefully call and end to the game once and for all.

Found my translation and the scans on the network drive after a few minutes of looking. :) 

Definitely need to get back on that one.  The YF-19-3 described in the booklet for the toy is described as a structural test unit, while the one in Master File is an avionics test unit.  The weird bit is that YF-19-3 is mentioned in passing in connection with the VF-19EF/A Excalibur Isamu Special... but as an avionics testbed plane like Master File's.

Officially, YF-19-3 is the highest-numbered prototype, but Model Graphix included descriptions for numbers up to 6 and Master File bumped it to 8.  The VF-19A was such a gorgeous plane, it's a shame they had to come up with a simplified version for Macross 7's animation budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I to understand that the VF-4 Lightning III is named "three" because in and out of universe, the designers followed the name precursors of the P-38 Lightning and the F-35 Lightning II?

Therefore, the Sv-262 Draken III follows the 35 Draken and.....some yet-undescribed fictitious Draken II?

And in that case, is there a real-world name precursor for the VF-22 Sturmvogel II?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the YF-21 was Sturmvogel actually but I am fully willing to be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SMS007 said:

Am I to understand that the VF-4 Lightning III is named "three" because in and out of universe, the designers followed the name precursors of the P-38 Lightning and the F-35 Lightning II?

Yes.  It was originally just "VF-4 Lightning" but they added the III a few years later once the name "Lightning II" started to be bandied about as a possible one for the Joint Strike Fighter.

 

7 hours ago, SMS007 said:

Therefore, the Sv-262 Draken III follows the 35 Draken and.....some yet-undescribed fictitious Draken II?

As "Draken" can be translated "Dragon", I have a cunning theory there... I suspect it's "Draken III" in honor of the real world J 35 Draken and the F203 Dragon II the UN Forces used in the Unification Wars.  (Either that or there's an unknown VF model out there named Draken II.)

 

7 hours ago, SMS007 said:

And in that case, is there a real-world name precursor for the VF-22 Sturmvogel II?

7 hours ago, JB0 said:

Named in honor of the fighter-bomber variant of the Me 262.

A later variant of the VF-22 with a cybernetic BDI and other enhancements was named in honor of the straight fighter version of the Me 262, being designated VF-22HG Schwalbe Zwei.

 

4 minutes ago, Master Dex said:

I thought the YF-21 was Sturmvogel actually but I am fully willing to be wrong. 

The YF-21 was just "YF-21".  "Sturmvogel II" was the official name of the production version.

An official name usually gets assigned after a design is approved for production, though developers may have nicknames for the design that get adopted as the actual name later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone link me to the previous extensive discussion on the VF-31? I think it was previously mentioned somewhere in this thread  

 

I don't think the search bar on this site likes "VF-31". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SMS007 said:

Can someone link me to the previous extensive discussion on the VF-31? I think it was previously mentioned somewhere in this thread  

There have been a number of those... could you be more specific?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you been asked in the past here to compare the YF-30 and the VF-31?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has compared them, and largely the YF-30 far outperforms either version of the VF-31. The VF-31A Kairos is pretty stock model despite being the most beautiful version, and the Seigfried customs are basically overtuned versions of the Kairos modified for Walkure assistance and the addition of Fold Wave systems. The YF-30 on the other hand has better engines, even more missiles than the Kairos (the Siegfried doesn't have many or any due to it's drone system), a more powerful beam gunpod, and the Fold Dimensional Resonance system which is a proprietary SMS upgrade to the Fold Wave system.

 

The main thing the VF-31 has over the YF-30 is it looks even prettier and it is more mass produce-able. Seto can give you the numbers to back that up though... well as much as he can since the VF-31 doesn't have a lot of hard data as it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Master Dex said:

He has compared them, and largely the YF-30 far outperforms either version of the VF-31. The VF-31A Kairos is pretty stock model despite being the most beautiful version, and the Seigfried customs are basically overtuned versions of the Kairos modified for Walkure assistance and the addition of Fold Wave systems. The YF-30 on the other hand has better engines, even more missiles than the Kairos (the Siegfried doesn't have many or any due to it's drone system), a more powerful beam gunpod, and the Fold Dimensional Resonance system which is a proprietary SMS upgrade to the Fold Wave system.

 

The main thing the VF-31 has over the YF-30 is it looks even prettier and it is more mass produce-able. Seto can give you the numbers to back that up though... well as much as he can since the VF-31 doesn't have a lot of hard data as it is...

Prettier is debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mommar said:

Prettier is debatable.

Certainly so, but my statement was not meant to condemn the looks of the YF-30, I love it in fact. I have both a YF-30 DX and a VF-31F DX on my shelf because I like the style of both. I have a VF-31A on order as well. Clearly I'm not taking sides there, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the YF-29 has the Fold Wave system and the YF-30 and VF-31 have the Fold Dimension Resonance system. Someone remind me again, the Sv-262 has its own specialized fold hardware, right? What do Sv-262 pilots use that for?

5 hours ago, Master Dex said:

He has compared them, and largely the YF-30 far outperforms either version of the VF-31. The VF-31A Kairos is pretty stock model despite being the most beautiful version, and the Seigfried customs are basically overtuned versions of the Kairos modified for Walkure assistance and the addition of Fold Wave systems. The YF-30 on the other hand has better engines, even more missiles than the Kairos (the Siegfried doesn't have many or any due to it's drone system), a more powerful beam gunpod, and the Fold Dimensional Resonance system which is a proprietary SMS upgrade to the Fold Wave system.

 

The main thing the VF-31 has over the YF-30 is it looks even prettier and it is more mass produce-able. Seto can give you the numbers to back that up though... well as much as he can since the VF-31 doesn't have a lot of hard data as it is...

So the YF-30 is superior to the VF-31 at flight and arsenal. Does the VF-31 have any advantages besides lower cost?
How about supporting idols? Would the YF-30 be inferior at that?

1 hour ago, Master Dex said:

Certainly so, but my statement was not meant to condemn the looks of the YF-30, I love it in fact. I have both a YF-30 DX and a VF-31F DX on my shelf because I like the style of both. I have a VF-31A on order as well. Clearly I'm not taking sides there, lol.

Haha!

I wish we could see Kairoses with a 31C-style battroid head. I love a 25F-reminiscent head. The 31J's unicorn look just kills it for me, and I'm only barely not bothered by the 31A's head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SMS007 said:

So the YF-29 has the Fold Wave system and the YF-30 and VF-31 have the Fold Dimension Resonance system. Someone remind me again, the Sv-262 has its own specialized fold hardware, right? What do Sv-262 pilots use that for?

So the YF-30 is superior to the VF-31 at flight and arsenal. Does the VF-31 have any advantages besides lower cost?
How about supporting idols? Would the YF-30 be inferior at that?

No, VF-31 Siegfried customs have just fold wave, not the Fold Dimensional Resonance system, that is only on the YF-30. The Sv-262 has a fold reheat system, like a poor man's Fold Wave system and only affects engine output instead of all systems. The VF-31A Kairos has none of these.

The VF-31A at least is mass produceable. The VF-31 Siegfrieds are custom made and probably a bit on the expensive side honestly, you wouldn't mass produce them. Fold Wave systems are expensive. The tech on the YF-30 is largely proprietary SMS tech and was never intended to be made for production (despite the legal cheating SMS did naming it a YF to avoid disclosing tech data when the craft is actually a tech demonstrator). Base YF-30 specs were eventually made public, likely due to NUNS slapping SMS on the wrist for their shenanigans. That is how Surya Aerospace was able to design a YF-31 and eventually the VF.

To answer your question though, the YF-30 is not designed to support idols (though arguably it did do this in Macross 30 as the singing of every main series idol pre-Delta as well as Mina Forte enabled the Fold Dimensional Resonance system to break through the fold faults and defeat Havamal). It isn't made to do what the Siegfrieds do in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SMS007 said:

Have you been asked in the past here to compare the YF-30 and the VF-31?

Many times, yes... and, as @Master Dex indicated, if you cut out all the wordy explanations the Aesop at the end is that the YF-30 blows either version of the VF-31 into the weeds with little difficulty.  Sorry it took so long to start writing this, I'm battling a bit of a cold.

Structurally speaking, Shinsei Industry and L.A.I.'s YF-30 Chronos is as similar as you'd expect to the Surya Aerospace VF-31 given that the VF-31 was derived from it.  The YF-30's airframe stands a little taller (4.02m vs 3.85m) and has a wider wingspan (15.62m vs 14.14m for the Kairos or 13.70m for the Siegfried), but the VF-31's airframe is slightly longer (18.84m vs 19.31m).  The YF-30 is also marginally lighter than the Kairos and Siegfried customs, at 8,106kg (w/o ordnance container) vs 8,250kg (VF-31A) or 8,500kg+ for all the Siegfrieds.

Performance-wise, the YF-30 blows any version of the VF-31 into the weeds.  Its FF-3001/FC2 Stage II thermonuclear reaction turbine engines boast an impressive maximum rated thrust of 2,110kN apiece, for a thrust-to-weight ratio of 53.085.  The trial production spec for the VF-31A and -B Kairos is using a slightly uprated version of the VF-25's FF-3001A Stage II engines, at 1,645kN or a thrust-to-weight ratio of 40.664.  The VF-31 Siegfried customs are all using derated FF-3001/FC2 engines spec'd at 1,875kN... as each variant is slightly different in mass there's no hard-and-fast number for all of them but the best of them is Hayate's VF-31J at 44.854.  All of these numbers are without any improvement in performance conferred by a fold wave or fold dimensional resonance system, and are all without the ordnance container factored in.  For reference, the VF-25A-1 Messiah's engine output was rated at 1,620kN for a thrust-to-weight ratio of 39.098, which makes the VF-25 seem slightly less capable but you have to remember the VF-25 doesn't have a sizable chunk of its airframe missing at that mass.  Unboosted, the YF-30 is working with about 18.4% more engine power AND less weight.  We can't say for certain how much bigger its advantage gets as a result of the fold dimensional resonance system being far superior to the Siegfried's fold wave system, but as the Siegfried's boost is only 15% (getting it to a respectable 50.984) it's not going to touch even an unboosted YF-30.  A boosted YF-30 is at least comparable to a YF-29B, so that suggests 25% or more.

In terms of armament, the YF-30 comes up a bit short in diversity of armament given that it's a technology demonstrator rather than a model produced for combat use.  The VF-31 has the advantage of those railguns in the forearms to complement its less-powerful heavy quantum beam gunpod and it has built-in micro-missile launchers to compensate for the standard ordnance container being given over to Walkure support gear instead.  I'd still rate the YF-30 higher, given that its standard ordnance container holds actual weapons and its heavy quantum beam gunpod has beam grenade mode AND an MDE option.  The option of a MDE beam cannon turret for an ordnance container in the novel gives the YF-30 a commanding advantage, IMO.

The real kicker is the YF-30 having that Fold Dimensional Resonance system that is explicitly superior to the YF-29's Fold Wave System.  That gives the YF-30 the ability to cross a fold fault (including a fault fold barrier) and a technically-unlimited supply of power and the ability to run its energy conversion armor and pinpoint barrier at full power in all modes.

 

 

55 minutes ago, SMS007 said:

So the YF-29 has the Fold Wave system and the YF-30 and VF-31 have the Fold Dimension Resonance system. Someone remind me again, the Sv-262 has its own specialized fold hardware, right? What do Sv-262 pilots use that for?

The VF-31 Siegfried uses a fold wave system, the fold dimensional resonance system was a proprietary development by SMS Uroboros that the company went to considerable lengths to avoid disclosing.  Master File suggests, though it isn't a reliable source, that the VF-31 Siegfried's fold wave system uses much less fold quartz than the YF-29's.

The stock VF-31 Kairos has neither system, but Xaos's Kairos units are equipped with fold carbon-based fold amps to operate in support of Walkure.  They're not as effective as those based on fold quartz that were used on the YF-29 and VF-31 Siegfried.  It's not clear if the YF-30 had a fold amp or not, but it's possible the fold dimension resonance system can do that.

The Sv-262 Draken III has a fold reheat system.  I see my description of it as a poor man's fold wave system has caught on.  Its only function is improving the maximum thrust of the FF-2999 Stage II thermonuclear reaction turbine engines by 25% on the Ba variant and 30% on the Hs command variant.

 

 

55 minutes ago, SMS007 said:

So the YF-30 is superior to the VF-31 at flight and arsenal. Does the VF-31 have any advantages besides lower cost?
How about supporting idols? Would the YF-30 be inferior at that?

As far as we know, the VF-31 Kairos is essentially a bog-standard mass production 5th Generation VF of fair-to-middling performance.  The one thing we can say is it's probably better at close air support given its less-powerful weaponry, and we know the Siegfried custom version is optimized for close air support of Walkure with its weapons even further derated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Many times, yes... and, as @Master Dex indicated, if you cut out all the wordy explanations the Aesop at the end is that the YF-30 blows either version of the VF-31 into the weeds with little difficulty.  Sorry it took so long to start writing this, I'm battling a bit of a cold.

Many thanks, Seto Kaiba. Sorry I haven't been able to find your earlier posts on my own. Hope you feel better soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I correct in understanding that the YF-21 is superior to the VF-22 mainly on account of the YF-21 being an ultra bleeding-edge craft (e.g. the BDS and BDI) that had to be downgraded for production as the VF-22?

Edited by SMS007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SMS007 said:

Am I correct in understanding that the YF-21 is superior to the VF-22 mainly on account of the YF-21 being an ultra bleeding-edge craft (e.g. the BDS and BDI) that had to be downgraded for production as the VF-22?

In short, yes.

Mind you, there are some improvements in the VF-22 (e.g. improved stealthiness by carrying the gun pods internally in dorsally mounted weapon pallets).  So, it's not exactly a downgraded version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the engines of the VF-19F and VF-19S have more powerful engines, what makes the YF-19 superior to both of the?  As far as I remember the VF-19E/F was supposed to match the original YF-19 performance, am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having freshly risen from a NyQuil coma in the middle of the freaking night, I shall now set about to delivering more knowledge!

 

4 hours ago, SMS007 said:

Am I correct in understanding that the YF-21 is superior to the VF-22 mainly on account of the YF-21 being an ultra bleeding-edge craft (e.g. the BDS and BDI) that had to be downgraded for production as the VF-22?

To be honest, I'm not sure I would characterize the YF-21 as fundamentally superior to the VF-22.  The YF-21 was a bleeding-edge prototype, but as a result the (for the time) ultra-high performance it offered came at the expense of being incredibly unstable, the consequence of making half of the VF's computer the pilot's grey matter.

Granted, the VF-22 axed some of the more groundbreaking design aspects of the YF-21 prototype like the active aeroelastic wing material and the Brainwave Control System, but what it lost in maneuverability and precision of control it gained back in terms of stability of control (or "pilot-friendliness") and improvements in both cost-performance and passive stealthiness thanks to a fully internalized set of weapons and the elimination of expensive material requirements.

If I were to argue that any one member of the Sturmvogel II family were truly superior to the others, it'd have to be the VF-22HG Schwalbe Zwei.  That achieved the performance the YF-21 was aiming for by incorporating the perfected Brain Direct Interface system using implants, though it did lose a bit of maximum engine output (like 25kN or so).

 

22 minutes ago, Sir Galahad® said:

If the engines of the VF-19F and VF-19S have more powerful engines, what makes the YF-19 superior to both of the?  As far as I remember the VF-19E/F was supposed to match the original YF-19 performance, am I right?

I'm guessing this question was prompted by Isamu's attempt to "recapture" the YF-19's performance via the VF-19EF/A so-called "Isamu Special"?

The answer is that, really, there's nothing about the YF-19 that was superior to the later models.  It was a much more conventional design than the YF-21 and its development was closer to completion than the YF-21 at the time of the Sharon Apple incident, and was selected as winner of Project Super Nova on those grounds.  Shinsei Industry's uphill battle after that victory was all about a lack of maneuverability control.  The YF-19/VF-19A was approximately as stable as a biscuit raft, and as a result there were many accidents in training where pilots lost control of the aircraft due to its own ultra-high performance.  That put the kibosh on it being next main fighter and leaving a smarting Shinsei Industry to spend the next two decades trying to find ways to improve the VF-19's handling without compromising its performance.

The VF-19 2nd mass production type, most commonly associated with the VF-19F and VF-19S, was one attempt to make a VF-19 that was friendlier to the average pilot.  The fuselage was redesigned to improve aerodynamic stability, the ARIEL airframe control AI was modified to improve handling and ease of control, and for the third or fourth time in the project switched to an engine that had more stable output.  Its performance and handling were much improved over the YF-19/VF-19A.

What Isamu was trying to achieve via the VF-19EF/A "Isamu Special", variously also known as the VF-19 SMS Type and the VF-19ADVANCE Excalibur Advance, was a very deliberate and carefully chosen set of downgrades to the VF-19EF Caliburn to make something that handled like the "untamed" YF-19-2 he piloted for Project Super Nova.  A fighter that was monstrously unstable and dangerous to its pilot, but also quite fun for him to fly.  (After all, this was basically the equivalent of a midlife crisis sportscar for him.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been reading though this whole thread (so much wonderful information) and I read something that got me thinking. It was mentioned that the UN forces designed the valkyrie to fight against the large aliens they knew had inhabited the ASS-1 but that they were unaware that those same aliens possessed personal war craft so weren't expecting to go up against the Regult's, Glaug's, etc... when the Zentradi arrived. I had always assumed that the valkyrie technology was inspired by the fact that the Zentradi craft had arms and legs but humans just decided to make it transformable (a feature the Zentradi had no need of since they were expendable grunts).

So if humans didn't directly get the anthropomorphic technology from the ASS-1 how did they develop it? What technology did the ASS-1 provide to the humans? How much of what we see the humans using in 2009 is true alien tech? How much of it is human tech advanced by alien tech? How much of it was human tech that would have most likely been developed with or without the arrival of the ASS-1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Boobytrap said:

So I've been reading though this whole thread (so much wonderful information) and I read something that got me thinking. It was mentioned that the UN forces designed the valkyrie to fight against the large aliens they knew had inhabited the ASS-1 but that they were unaware that those same aliens possessed personal war craft so weren't expecting to go up against the Regult's, Glaug's, etc... when the Zentradi arrived. I had always assumed that the valkyrie technology was inspired by the fact that the Zentradi craft had arms and legs but humans just decided to make it transformable (a feature the Zentradi had no need of since they were expendable grunts).

So if humans didn't directly get the anthropomorphic technology from the ASS-1 how did they develop it? What technology did the ASS-1 provide to the humans? How much of what we see the humans using in 2009 is true alien tech? How much of it is human tech advanced by alien tech? How much of it was human tech that would have most likely been developed with or without the arrival of the ASS-1?

Pretty much everything seen that is not existing in our world today is because of overtechnology developed based on what was found in the ASS-1 wreckage. And it is a lot. A lot. I'm sure others here can give a better listing of it all, but it goes really deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boobytrap said:

So if humans didn't directly get the anthropomorphic technology from the ASS-1 how did they develop it?

Simply put, by applying the advancements in material science and technology gleaned from OTEC's study of the wrecked alien ship to the modern aerospace engineering and robotics industries.  Once overtechnology made giant robots practical and the new Earth UN Forces started asking for giant robots to fight off a potential invasion by giant space aliens, it was only a matter of time before someone looked at the requirement for new fighters and new land warfare robots and wondered "Can we build one thing that'll do both?"

Dialog in Macross Zero suggests the variable system was initially developed in Nora Polyansky's homeland and shared to the rest of the UN Government under mandated technology-sharing requirements.

 

1 hour ago, Boobytrap said:

What technology did the ASS-1 provide to the humans?

Quite a lot... but what it provided wasn't just technology to be imitated, one of OTEC's goals was to figure out HOW this stuff works so humanity could apply the same principles to other applications.  So their analysis and reconstruction of the ship advanced a lot of different fields.  As a result, overtechnology did at least as much to improve existing technologies as it did introducing new tech.  Some of the alien overtechnology was already simply advanced versions of technologies humanity had already discovered, like thermoelectric converters and particle accelerators.

Key technologies that were obtained directly from study of the ASS-1's overtechnology include Gravity and Inertia Control systems, Thermonuclear Reaction generators, Heavy Quantum Reaction Beam weaponry, Space Fold systems (for FTL travel, FTL comms, FTL radar), Energy Conversion Armor, super-alloys, etc.  It's implied, but not explicitly stated, that a new form of computer tech got discovered that way as well.

 

1 hour ago, Boobytrap said:

How much of what we see the humans using in 2009 is true alien tech? How much of it is human tech advanced by alien tech? How much of it was human tech that would have most likely been developed with or without the arrival of the ASS-1?

A lot of it is human technology that's been enhanced by overtechnology and overtechnology materials.

For instance, the only "true" alien technologies that humanity didn't already possess in some form that made it into the VF-1 were the hypercarbon composite structural and armor materials, the energy conversion armor, the compact thermonuclear reactors in the engines, and the AI-based computer handling the airframe's movement.

It's highly likely that, given a few thousand more years, humanity would've developed most or all of it on their own by studying the galaxy's native super dimension lifeforms like the Vajra and Vahla Ena.  We've already started to defictionalize a fair amount of it today.  NASA's been working out the practical aspects of thermonuclear fusion-powered jet turbines for aviation, carbon allotrope thermoelectrics, high-output fiber laser weaponry, carbon allotrope composite materials that are super-tough and super-light, and pure fusion warheads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok that makes sense. If I understand correctly, we weren't like the Goa'uld in Stargate where we just took some alien tech and slapped it on things or just used it as is. We were able to reverse engineer the new technology and use that to fuel our own imaginations to make what was previously impossible possible. Even apply it in ways that it was not directly being used for in the ASS-1. In essence what was developed is what humans would have eventually arrived at anyway, the ASS-1 just gave us a cheat sheet to bypass all those pesky years of discovery and trial & error developing it on our own.

When it came to the reverse engineering part, were there any technical manuals or data files or things of that nature found that humans could use (once translated of course) or did they have to do everything by breaking down the technology/materials directly? I know they were using the resources of the entire planet to understand it as quickly as possible but 10 years seems like such a short time to take such large leaps, not just in understanding but mass application as well. Give the people of 1899 an F-14 and I highly doubt that they could replicate it in 10 years let alone apply what they learned technologically to every mundane facet of life, like soda vending machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Boobytrap said:

We were able to reverse engineer the new technology and use that to fuel our own imaginations to make what was previously impossible possible. Even apply it in ways that it was not directly being used for in the ASS-1. In essence what was developed is what humans would have eventually arrived at anyway, the ASS-1 just gave us a cheat sheet to bypass all those pesky years of discovery and trial & error developing it on our own.

Exactly. And humanity put that cheat sheet to excellent use.  They rapidly came to grips with tech thousands of years past anything they'd ever seen before, and started refining and adapting it almost as fast as they learned it, often taking it in unexpected directions. Like, say, turning a busted fold drive and a box of spare parts into a shield generator.

(Yes, I know the protoculture invented shields. But the ASS-1 didn't have 'em, and the zentradi didn't know what to make of 'em, so the point stands. ).  

 

By the time of Frontier and Delta, the standard state of technology is well above that used by the zentradi or found on the ASS-1, though still not on the level of the known protoculture relics(give 'em another five years).

Edited by JB0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Boobytrap said:

Ok that makes sense. If I understand correctly, we weren't like the Goa'uld in Stargate where we just took some alien tech and slapped it on things or just used it as is. We were able to reverse engineer the new technology and use that to fuel our own imaginations to make what was previously impossible possible. Even apply it in ways that it was not directly being used for in the ASS-1. In essence what was developed is what humans would have eventually arrived at anyway, the ASS-1 just gave us a cheat sheet to bypass all those pesky years of discovery and trial & error developing it on our own.

Essentially, yes.  Unlike The Show That Must Not Be Named where humanity was simply blindly imitating technology they found but had no real understanding of it, in Macross the human race actually took the time to understand how the alien technology that fate had dropped into their laps worked before trying to apply it.

It probably helped that a fair amount of it was just more advanced versions of technologies we'd already had for decades like high-efficiency thermoelectric converters, ion thrusters, high-powered lasers, etc.  Many of the truly alien technologies we'd never seen before worked on interrelated principles, so once the simpler examples were picked apart and understood that made sussing out the workings of the more complex ones easier.  Gravity and Interia Control is basically the crux of most of those systems, and the physics involved carry over into fold systems, heavy quantum reaction weapons, thermonuclear reactors, and more.

 

15 hours ago, Boobytrap said:

When it came to the reverse engineering part, were there any technical manuals or data files or things of that nature found that humans could use (once translated of course) or did they have to do everything by breaking down the technology/materials directly? I know they were using the resources of the entire planet to understand it as quickly as possible but 10 years seems like such a short time to take such large leaps, not just in understanding but mass application as well. Give the people of 1899 an F-14 and I highly doubt that they could replicate it in 10 years let alone apply what they learned technologically to every mundane facet of life, like soda vending machines.

None that we're aware of.  As far as we know, the ship was trashed badly enough to require them to reverse-engineer its various key systems.

The UN Government almost bankrupted the entire world economy working on reverse-engineering and restoring the ship, but their application of the technology lagged behind their understanding of it by a considerable span... and their ability to replicate the tech definitely wasn't perfect from the outset.  Look at some of the early examples, like the Oberth-class destroyers, which were more or less spacegoing ballistic missile submarines whose only concessions to overtechnology were crude thermonuclear reaction power and engine systems, artificial gravity, some equally crude beam weapons, and first-gen low yield thermonuclear reaction warheads.

They didn't apply overtechnology to every facet of life so quickly, most of it remained in the military sector until after the First Space War.  Stuff like the robot vending machines and fancy cars... those use little to no overtechnology, and could easily be built today.  It isn't until decades later that you start seeing portable holographic displays, civilian-owned giant robots, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Essentially, yes.  Unlike The Show That Must Not Be Named where humanity was simply blindly imitating technology they found but had no real understanding of it, in Macross the human race actually took the time to understand how the alien technology that fate had dropped into their laps worked before trying to apply it.

I didn't know you hated Harry Potter. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SMS007 said:

I didn't know you hated Harry Potter. ;)

Well, the morons in LA are about as comically inept and in it "for teh evulz" as Lord Voldemort, so it just seemed appropriate for their handiwork to be The Show That Must Not Be Named... esp. since so many Macross fansites and Facebook groups want to avoid mentioning them because the piss people off.

(It was my girlfriend's idea, originally, and she is a pretty big Potter fan.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is better for cruising speed? YF-19/VF-19 or YF-25/VF-25? I assume the latter on the grounds of ISC technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SMS007 said:

Which is better for cruising speed? YF-19/VF-19 or YF-25/VF-25? I assume the latter on the grounds of ISC technology.

Are we talking actual cruising speed, or just maximum sustainable speed in level flight?

The VF-19's faster in terms of maximum sustainable level flight speed at 10km, mostly because it's somewhat more streamlined than the VF-25.

The VF-25 is going to be more efficient, and probably also have a faster cruising speed than the VF-19 thanks to the more advanced engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Are we talking actual cruising speed, or just maximum sustainable speed in level flight?

Hmm, how about both? Cruising speed, and then maximum speed, in and out of atmosphere.

Edited by SMS007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a dumb question, but are the VF-19 and VF-22 incompatible with the YF-24 family's ISC? I would think that the revolutionary ISC would be a technology everyone wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SMS007 said:

This might be a dumb question, [...]

No, that is a perfectly sensible question that anyone would ask when confronted with an advance in technology.  "Can this only be applied to new developments, or can we apply this to improve things that we already have?"

Also (see below) a question that was examined in-universe in some depth during the development of the YF-24.

 

8 hours ago, SMS007 said:

[...] but are the VF-19 and VF-22 incompatible with the YF-24 family's ISC? I would think that the revolutionary ISC would be a technology everyone wants.

As far as I am aware, no official comment has been offered on the subject of the VF-22 being either compatible or incompatible with an Inertia Store Converter.  I'd be shocked if it wasn't compatible... given that it was designed from the prototype phase on up to accept the less capable fold carbon-based version of the same tech all along (the Inertia Vector Control System).

Great Mechanics DX 9 explicitly notes that the feasibility of upgrading the VF-19 with Inertia Store Converter technology was examined as a potential alternative path to the then-problematic YF-24 program and the conclusion was that it was possible.  The New UN Government opted to keep its YF-24 program going instead of retrofitting VF-19s with ISC systems, for economic reasons.  (This was a terribly unsubtle nod to US 5th Gen fighter development, which proceeded in defiance of all common sense and military advice because damnit, they created JOBS.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can’t have a military-industrial complex if they don’t produce complex military thingies in their industries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sildani said:

You can’t have a military-industrial complex if they don’t produce complex military thingies in their industries. 

Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

YzWlvvK.jpg

 

So, speculation on Vf-31 Armored weapons?

built in HMGs and head beamguns of course

dual beam turret

forward firing beam guns in the dorsal armor next to cockpit

arm mounted gatlings

10+ medium weight AAMs (2x5, any reloads in there?)

dorsal micro missile packs

leg micromissiles (outers dual layer?)

micromissiles in the front of the rocket boosters (2 ports each?)

no wing mounted ordnance, but there are 4 new stub mountings on the booster packs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...