Jump to content

LOL Macross Sizes


RedWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind too, that during SW-1 humanity discovered that the Valks were designed to fight giants hand to hand, NOT giants in even larger mecha!

We've seen a progression of increased battroid heights over the subsequent years after SW-1, so a larger VF version of the Valkyrie is not impossible, but most likely probable.

It is entirely possible that it was made that big by demand of colonial customers. They may have wanted a fighter that could take on a Glaug or Regult without the need for additional support mecha, like destroids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-9033-1237879507_thumb.jpg

VF-1, VF-4, VF-11, VF-17, VF-19, VF-22

Liked the idea of the Valhalla III, hated how they chose to deploy the fighters... ^_^

post-9033-1237879764_thumb.jpg

VF-2SS and the VF-1MS Metal Siren. (For the most advance VF in Macross II it sure is small.)

True, however the F-35 is smaller than the F-14, does that make it less advanced too?... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, however the F-35 is smaller than the F-14, does that make it less advanced too?... ;)

except the F-35 isn't a direct successor to the F-14, and is arguably inferior in some areas.

now take the F-22 compared to the F-15. the F-22 has equal or better performance than the F-15 and the F-22 is almost as long, a hair wider and 7.5 tones heavier than the F-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-35 booooo! TOMCATS FOREVER! i mean the plane can track and launch missles at 6 targets a 100 miles away at the same time how can you not love that?

the SV-51 is by far the largest of the variable fighters only the koenig monster is bigger.

when none of the missiles hit anything :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger size of the VFs IMO is more of a pragmatic design choice rather than a demonstration of advances. I'm sure if they can put as much firepower as they do into a Ghost they can shrink a VF. However, the role of a VF is primarily an anti-giant fighter and with the experience of SW-1, mankind learned that the Giants also use mecha, which is substantially larger than the VF-1.

In order to find a good balance they chose to make VFs larger to combat this mecha but not so large as to take away from the fighter's effectiveness. The VF-14 is a larger than typical fighter, but is also considered a heavy fighter as opposed to a typical frontline fighter.

Granted its only an opinion, but it works for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger size of the VFs IMO is more of a pragmatic design choice rather than a demonstration of advances. I'm sure if they can put as much firepower as they do into a Ghost they can shrink a VF. However, the role of a VF is primarily an anti-giant fighter and with the experience of SW-1, mankind learned that the Giants also use mecha, which is substantially larger than the VF-1.

In order to find a good balance they chose to make VFs larger to combat this mecha but not so large as to take away from the fighter's effectiveness. The VF-14 is a larger than typical fighter, but is also considered a heavy fighter as opposed to a typical frontline fighter.

Granted its only an opinion, but it works for me.

But that doesn't explain why, out of all the VFs, the VF-1 is so small. I mean, the VF-0 is similar in size to the VF-19 or VF-25, and looks more like them than the VF-1. We all know that that is because the VF-0 was designed retroactively, but what in-universe reason could there be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that doesn't explain why, out of all the VFs, the VF-1 is so small. I mean, the VF-0 is similar in size to the VF-19 or VF-25, and looks more like them than the VF-1. We all know that that is because the VF-0 was designed retroactively, but what in-universe reason could there be?

The VF-0 and VF-1 were developed along the same lines.

The VF-1 had several companies manufacturing their versions.

Just that the VF-0 was rushed into service with jet fuel engines , not thermonuclear engines, as likely appropriate response to the remaining Anti-UN new SV-51.

The VF-1 was developed to combat giants at least 10 meters long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that doesn't explain why, out of all the VFs, the VF-1 is so small. I mean, the VF-0 is similar in size to the VF-19 or VF-25, and looks more like them than the VF-1. We all know that that is because the VF-0 was designed retroactively, but what in-universe reason could there be?

the Zero was designed as a test bed? So it was given a larger frame with more room so they could monkey around inside and add stuff or have room to try different things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that doesn't explain why, out of all the VFs, the VF-1 is so small. I mean, the VF-0 is similar in size to the VF-19 or VF-25, and looks more like them than the VF-1. We all know that that is because the VF-0 was designed retroactively, but what in-universe reason could there be?

Most believable explanation would be that he VF-0, being built with Otech enhanced conventional methods required a larger airframe to fit everything in. With the VF-1 (which is supposedly more advanced) they didn't NEED it to be that big, so they made it smaller to to be the size they thought they needed. of course that turned out to be too small so they started working up to a larger size again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Zero was designed as a test bed? So it was given a larger frame with more room so they could monkey around inside and add stuff or have room to try different things?

I don't think VF-0 as a test bed as that goes to the VF-X.

Think of it like the VF-19 and VF-22. Both developed at the same time.

The VF-0 was supposed to have the same thermonuclear engines the VF-1 does but there were delays.

For that matter we only saw once the advance overtech non-variable fighters, the UN Forces F203 Dragon II fighter and Anti-UN MiM-31 Karyovin fighter.

Which indicates low production runs, as in Macross Zero the war were mostly fought with F-14s and MiG-29s.

Edited by RedWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think VF-0 as a test bed as that goes to the VF-X.

Thhink of it like the VF-19 and VF-22. Both developed at the same time.

The VF-0 was supposed to have the same thermonuclear engines the VF-1 does but there were delays.

For that matter we only saw once the advance overtech non-variable fighters, the UN Forces F203 Dragon II fighter and Anti-UN MiM-31 Karyovin fighter.

Which indicates low production runs, as in Macross Zero the war were mostly fought with F-14s and MiG-29s.

from the compendium:

The VF-0 is a developmental variable fighter that was pressed into service during the Mayan conflict of 2008. It is trial production model and testbed for advanced jet engines and Overtechnology designed for future variable fighters. The project began in February of 2002 after a tentative plan was introduced for an all-regime variable fighter for use against the giants. The first VF-0 variable fighter was completed in 2004. The fighters were deployed for actual combat and functional testing when delivery of VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter's thermonuclear reaction engines were delayed. Flown over the South Pacific Ocean island of Mayan during a secret program in 2008, one year before Space War I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the size of the Battroid is ultimately mitigated by the size of the fighter, so Kawamori pretty much scales them that way.

As far as an in-universe explanation, the given size of the Battroid could be determined for a number of reasons. Zinjo's idea isn't bad. Larger Battroids can carry more internal ordnance. The VF-17 Nightmare is described as a Heavy Battroid, so there may be combat considerations and different operational roles requiring light/medium/heavy Battroids. Perhaps the engines play a part and can only fit inside a larger Battroid. Just some thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the size of the Battroid is ultimately mitigated by the size of the fighter, so Kawamori pretty much scales them that way.

As far as an in-universe explanation, the given size of the Battroid could be determined for a number of reasons. Zinjo's idea isn't bad. Larger Battroids can carry more internal ordnance. The VF-17 Nightmare is described as a Heavy Battroid, so there may be combat considerations and different operational roles requiring light/medium/heavy Battroids. Perhaps the engines play a part and can only fit inside a larger Battroid. Just some thoughts.

a lot of the VF-0's height seems to be in the legs. Probably because it needed humongous, overtuned jet engines because the reaction ones weren't ready yet. They're kind of rediculously long. The nose cone seems longer than the VF-1's, too. The chest of both seem like they're a pretty similar size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reaction turbines are smaller than jet turbines.

Since the reaction turbines probably wouldn't be ready, the decision was made to upscale the plane so:

if they had to use jets, it would fit them

or

if they could use TRTs, it would still work because they could be fitted into the larger nacelles with few problems.

They also, apparently, didn't forsee the need for larger fuel tanks, as the planes needed so much, they could only operate for short periods even with conformal tanks.

The Spacy never went back to the 0's design, nor did they go back to the 1. They went with the 0's size, perhaps, but they used more modern designs, leaving the remnants of pre-SWI Earth behind.

The VF-0 is not very large, by today's fighters. The F-14 is 19 meters long, and the F-18 is 17 meters long. The VF-1, which everyone seems to use as a comparison base for size, is 14 meters long, shorter than a F-35.

I don't see the big deal about the Phoenix or the Crusader. Both are big versions of the VF-1. (Albeit, the Crusader is more like an F-15 than a F-14/18 hybrid.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious how does the VF-0 compare to the SV-51 in size and weight? To me the SV-51 looks like it is bit longer, but lighter and sleeker then the VF-0. No doubt the the Anti-UN were better able to miniaturize the Overtechnology in terms of the transformation system, energy rifles over conventional lead ammo, and since the anti-UN seemed to rely on quick hit-and-run strikes over heavy frontal assaults they probably used smaller a fuel tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reaction turbines are smaller than jet turbines.

Since the reaction turbines probably wouldn't be ready, the decision was made to upscale the plane so:

if they had to use jets, it would fit them

or

if they could use TRTs, it would still work because they could be fitted into the larger nacelles with few problems.

They also, apparently, didn't forsee the need for larger fuel tanks, as the planes needed so much, they could only operate for short periods even with conformal tanks.

That doesn't really make sense, since you can't simply upsize the plane at the snap of a finger. For example, the F-18 E/F is not really an upsized F-18 A-D, it is practically a new build that happens to share 30% of the components.

It would make alot more sense if the VF-0 was built as the lower technology, backup plan to the VF-1-- designed with normal jet engines in mind but able to retrofit TRTs. That would explain the size better.

Oh well, with the VF-11 remaining about the same size as the VF-1 instead of being retconned, I guess we could say that it took 3 generations of frontline VFs before we got back to the VF-0 size (VF-1, VF-4, VF-11). Which could then be explained by the requirement for the 4th (or 5th?) gen VFs, the VF-17, VF-19 and VF-22, to carry internal weapons, like Mr March mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't really make sense, since you can't simply upsize the plane at the snap of a finger. For example, the F-18 E/F is not really an upsized F-18 A-D, it is practically a new build that happens to share 30% of the components.

It would make alot more sense if the VF-0 was built as the lower technology, backup plan to the VF-1-- designed with normal jet engines in mind but able to retrofit TRTs. That would explain the size better.

Oh well, with the VF-11 remaining about the same size as the VF-1 instead of being retconned, I guess we could say that it took 3 generations of frontline VFs before we got back to the VF-0 size (VF-1, VF-4, VF-11). Which could then be explained by the requirement for the 4th (or 5th?) gen VFs, the VF-17, VF-19 and VF-22, to carry internal weapons, like Mr March mentioned.

What you said makes sense.

Perhaps, instead of what I said earlier, the VF-0 was, in fact, designed to use Jet engines, or larger TRTs, since the technology hadn't been shrunk by that point. (Same process as cell phones getting smaller) As far as I recall, it was only implied that TRTs hadn't been completely developed. It's only explicitly stated that they weren't ready. I'm kind of thinking it was meant as the ones they were manufacturing at the time for the VF-0 weren't complete, yet, due to the complexity of their construction costing time. So, they weren't used, instead using normal Jet turbines. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said makes sense.

Perhaps, instead of what I said earlier, the VF-0 was, in fact, designed to use Jet engines, or larger TRTs, since the technology hadn't been shrunk by that point. (Same process as cell phones getting smaller) As far as I recall, it was only implied that TRTs hadn't been completely developed. It's only explicitly stated that they weren't ready. I'm kind of thinking it was meant as the ones they were manufacturing at the time for the VF-0 weren't complete, yet, due to the complexity of their construction costing time. So, they weren't used, instead using normal Jet turbines. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Sounds about right =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
I hate to resurect a dormant topic...I didn't see a need need to post a new thread. A newb to newer Macross (just finished all series post SDFM/DYRL in the last 2-3 weeks). Where is the Macross Cannon class from?

Macross II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to resurect a dormant topic...I didn't see a need need to post a new thread. A newb to newer Macross (just finished all series post SDFM/DYRL in the last 2-3 weeks). Where is the Macross Cannon class from?

Macross II.

(and this probably should've gone in the newbie questions thread. :) )

EDIT: DAMN YOU, AZRAELLLLLL!!!

Edited by Gubaba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Thread Revival!

Battle Galaxy

Measurements

* Length, overall: 1,681 m (warship mode, including antennas)

* Height, overall: 1,186 m (Storm-attack mode)

* Width, overall

o Warship mode: 521 m

o Attack mode: 747 m

* Displacement, gross: 16,550,000 t

Battle 7

Battle 7 Carrier Mode 1,510 meters; Battle 7 Attack Mode 1,177 meters

SDF-1 Macross/SDFN-04 Global

Dimensions: length(height attacker mode) 1,200 to 1210 meters, width 496, height 312 meters; (approximate dimensions following 2012 refit) length 1,200 meters, width 600 meters.

Mass: standard operating displacement 18,000,000 metric tons; standard operating displacement (following 2012 refit) 22,000,000 metric tons.

By far the Macross class is taller than the Battle class on account of its towering guns.

On another front Battle Galaxy may be a bit beefier on the arms and legs but Battle 7 is almost just as tall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that Battle Frontier is 171 meters longer than Battle 7 but we don't know which way and how much.

Asa for the extra 9 meters of Battle Galaxy that may account for its antler antennas.

Also Battle Frontier and Battle Galaxy seem to both be more than twice the mass of Battle 7, which is what I really find interesting.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...