Valkryie Practicallity

[Hyper Shinchan]

Not according to some sources: http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm

Lately I've been using "American-English" too but I don't even know the reason, I'm not American, it's a bad habit that I should drop...

Anyway back to the topic, at least in the regard of Gundam I've always tought that as space combat units MS are an excellent solution especially because of the AMBAC, provided that you have the technology to build them. Valkyries were made with space combat in mind as well so we could say the same thing in this regard (of course you're right if you say that a dedicated unit will perform better with the same technology but the flexibility of a transforming unit has its own advantages).

I have my own doubts about land-warfare but especially Valkyries with the GERWALK should have huge advantages over slow tanks or weak helicopters.

Of course Over-technology is a big caveat, for example to keep the unit light but with a strong armor they need energy conversion armor (that someway remind me of Phase Shift armor from Gundam Seed) and the thermonuclear reactor is something you can just dream of (even though in Macross Zero they make fly VF with conventional jet engines....).

Anyway some use of over-technology applied to existing units can be found in Macross, for example the Dragon II fighter but of course it's a residual category (mainly explained with the "humanoid units are cooler" in real life and with the "VFs are more flexible so we don't need anything else" in the metaverse).

Even so keep in mind that I'm so in love with humanoid mechas that my friends tease me saying me "don't worry it's all true" because I talk about this matter almost it's like something that really exist (or will exist) so don't worry too much about my opinion...

EDIT: I was almost forgetting but one of the few existing technology that is still used in Macross are unmanned aircrafts even though in the '80s they weren't still used (I believe mainly because of communication and software problems).

And in fact in Macross Plus it was decided that they were better than VF even though they can't transform, maybe even Kawamori think that those VFs are useless (but I don't want to believe it).

Edited March 30, 2010 by Hyper Shinchan

[akt_m]

Yeah, and how it would fly fast forward in gerwalk mode without anime magic???

Edited March 31, 2010 by akt_m

[badboy00z]

Backpack boosters?

[Oihan]

I don't see why it wouldn't be practical to have a variable fighter like the Valkyrie that we all know and love. If it is inevitable that we will create such machines, as seen in Patlabor for example, and say we were to come up with the technology to transform these machines into other forms....why not make one mecha that can do it all? You wouldn't have a need then to create your separate tanks, fighers, bipedal robots, and naval crafts. Just make the one and be done with it. Think of any of the "triple changers" in Transformers...like Sixshot for example. Do we not have multi-role fighter jets?

[anime52k8]

I don't see why it wouldn't be practical to have a variable fighter like the Valkyrie that we all know and love. If it is inevitable that we will create such machines, as seen in Patlabor for example, and say we were to come up with the technology to transform these machines into other forms....why not make one mecha that can do it all? You wouldn't have a need then to create your separate tanks, fighers, bipedal robots, and naval crafts. Just make the one and be done with it. Think of any of the "triple changers" in Transformers...like Sixshot for example. Do we not have multi-role fighter jets?

just because you CAN make something doesn't mean you SHOULD. Even if someone was to come up with the technology to make a 40 foot tall battle robot or a transforming jet work, it would still be cheaper and more effective to use those technologies to make a better conventional take/fighter/whatever.

No matter how light all the robot parts can be made, a conventional jet will always be lighter and be able to carry more weapons/fuel because it doesn't have superfluous robot bits to haul around. likewise no matter how light you get the armor, a tank will always be able to have stronger armor and bigger guns.

and in every case, a robot will always be more expensive and less reliable do to the very nature of having all the joints and motors and hydraulics needed to make the thing walk.

As for your examples. Patlabor doesn't make sense because it's whole logic is that you need fighting robots to combat crime using construction robots... but why do you need construction robots?

on the subject of transformers, shixshot sucked as a toy. even for the 80's he had worse articulation and more superfluous kibble than the other transformer toys and didn't look good in any mode. If price and level of engineering are the same, a toy with 2 modes will be better than a toy with 6, and a toy that doesn't transform will be better than either (in terms of quality of construction, detail, features etc...). upscale this from toys to Jets; everything gets more expensive and complex but the principle stays the same.

lastly there's a big difference between a jet that can drop a bombs on buildings and then shoot down a plane; and a plane that turns into a walking robot fighting on the ground.

[Mr March]

I don't think I see Valkyries as an inevitable reality. In fact, it's quite possible that fighters, helicopters and tanks will be obsolete as war machines long before the technology exists to combine them all into a single transforming robot. Future singularities are bound to completely alter the dynamics of both technology and warfare in ways that we're not even capable of understanding as yet. The only thing that's inevitable is the introduction of robotics to warfare, the start of such an era is that which we are living in right now.

If we dial it back a little from far future speculation and avoid the caveat of unlimited technological advancement (which would bring us right back to the point about the magic of OverTechnology), we could ponder "Valkyrie Practicality" in between now and some time in the future BEFORE singularities change technology (and thus warfare) beyond what we can understand today. From that assumption, it's easiest to understand the likely impossibility of Valkyries just by examining the reason why we build fighters, helicopters and tanks in the first place. These vehicles serve only a single purpose...to function as the simplest, most direct way to deliver a weapon into an enemy target.

Weapon delivery systems...nothing more.

For a Valkyrie to be in any way practical, it would have to be designed in such a way that it's incredible cost, maintenance, complexity, manufacturing, logistics, reliability and all other factors somehow justifies the Valkyrie ABOVE the those very same factors for a fighter, a helicopter and a tank. Not only that, but a Valkyrie would somehow need to maintain comparable performance to each individual competing war machine. Ergo, a Valkyrie Fighter must equal or exceed operational capabilities of the closest competing dedicated fighter (multi-role or otherwise). Also, that dedicated fighter would enjoy the same technology base as the Valkyrie. Same thing for the best competing helicopter and tank. How then is the Valkyrie going to function as a superior weapon delivery system when in order to function as all three vehicles must suffer design compromises to do so? The answer is the Valkyrie couldn't compete, which is why it wouldn't be practical.

What I can see as an inevitability is some rich guy a couple hundred years from now building a Valkyrie because in his era combining transforming robots with ancient military vehicles is an anachronistic future hobby equivalent to what steam punk is to us today

[Oihan]

just because you CAN make something doesn't mean you SHOULD. Even if someone was to come up with the technology to make a 40 foot tall battle robot or a transforming jet work, it would still be cheaper and more effective to use those technologies to make a better conventional take/fighter/whatever.

Even if you were able to mass produce this all-in-one-does-everything-jack-of-all-trades machine to the point where it is cost effective? I mean...look at our own technology. We're always refining it and making it more cost effective...like CPUs...the gaming consoles...TVs.

No matter how light all the robot parts can be made, a conventional jet will always be lighter and be able to carry more weapons/fuel because it doesn't have superfluous robot bits to haul around. likewise no matter how light you get the armor, a tank will always be able to have stronger armor and bigger guns.

and in every case, a robot will always be more expensive and less reliable do to the very nature of having all the joints and motors and hydraulics needed to make the thing walk.

I'd like to think that if we had the technology to make a machine transform into various things that we'd be able to solve all of those problems you listed.

As for your examples. Patlabor doesn't make sense because it's whole logic is that you need fighting robots to combat crime using construction robots... but why do you need construction robots?

on the subject of transformers, shixshot sucked as a toy. even for the 80's he had worse articulation and more superfluous kibble than the other transformer toys and didn't look good in any mode. If price and level of engineering are the same, a toy with 2 modes will be better than a toy with 6, and a toy that doesn't transform will be better than either (in terms of quality of construction, detail, features etc...). upscale this from toys to Jets; everything gets more expensive and complex but the principle stays the same.

lastly there's a big difference between a jet that can drop a bombs on buildings and then shoot down a plane; and a plane that turns into a walking robot fighting on the ground.

We use huge cranes and other construction vehicles to construct things...and again assuming the creation of a "labor" is inevitable...why not make use of something found in Patlabor to do the work? And assuming the military hadn't already implemented the technology for their own use...I'm sure they eventually would. Look at how well the US nuclear secrets were kept. I'm sure other countries would adopt the technology as well and use it for war. Hence the need for fighting robots - should any of it ever become reality.

[Einherjar]

A modern fighter already costs a huge chunk of cash. We would need a significant improvement in technology and etc. just to make that more practical in the post Cold War era. That's another thing too, these days something like a Valkyrie might be overkill anyway, just as recent military craft already is against some forces because they were designed to fight Communism and etc.

But if we were only lucky enough to get an alien spaceship to crash somewhere in the Pacific.

[eugimon]

Even if you were able to mass produce this all-in-one-does-everything-jack-of-all-trades machine to the point where it is cost effective? I mean...look at our own technology. We're always refining it and making it more cost effective...like CPUs...the gaming consoles...TVs.

I'd like to think that if we had the technology to make a machine transform into various things that we'd be able to solve all of those problems you listed.

Any technology that could solve all those problems could more easily be applied to vehicles that don't have all those problems in the first place.

For example, to make valkyries real we need tiny uber powerful engines to overcome the size limitation and weight issues. A tiny uber powerful engine would make a regular plane that wasn't heavy that much better.

We use huge cranes and other construction vehicles to construct things...and again assuming the creation of a "labor" is inevitable...why not make use of something found in Patlabor to do the work? And assuming the military hadn't already implemented the technology for their own use...I'm sure they eventually would. Look at how well the US nuclear secrets were kept. I'm sure other countries would adopt the technology as well and use it for war. Hence the need for fighting robots - should any of it ever become reality.

Because bipedal locomotion is slow and inherently unsteady and having something tall with the center of gravity up high isn't the best design for something that picks up heavy loads and moves them around.

[Oihan]

I don't think I see Valkyries as an inevitable reality. In fact, it's quite possible that fighters, helicopters and tanks will be obsolete as war machines long before the technology exists to combine them all into a single transforming robot. Future singularities are bound to completely alter the dynamics of both technology and warfare in ways that we're not even capable of understanding as yet. The only thing that's inevitable is the introduction of robotics to warfare, the start of such an era is that which we are living in right now.

If we dial it back a little from far future speculation and avoid the caveat of unlimited technological advancement (which would bring us right back to the point about the magic of OverTechnology), we could ponder "Valkyrie Practicality" in between now and some time in the future BEFORE singularities change technology (and thus warfare) beyond what we can understand today. From that assumption, it's easiest to understand the likely impossibility of Valkyries just by examining the reason why we build fighters, helicopters and tanks in the first place. These vehicles serve only a single purpose...to function as the simplest, most direct way to deliver a weapon into an enemy target.

Weapon delivery systems...nothing more.

For a Valkyrie to be in any way practical, it would have to be designed in such a way that it's incredible cost, maintenance, complexity, manufacturing, logistics, reliability and all other factors somehow justifies the Valkyrie ABOVE the those very same factors for a fighter, a helicopter and a tank. Not only that, but a Valkyrie would somehow need to maintain comparable performance to each individual competing war machine. Ergo, a Valkyrie Fighter must equal or exceed operational capabilities of the closest competing dedicated fighter (multi-role or otherwise). Also, that dedicated fighter would enjoy the same technology base as the Valkyrie. Same thing for the best competing helicopter and tank. How then is the Valkyrie going to function as a superior weapon delivery system when in order to function as all three vehicles must suffer design compromises to do so? The answer is the Valkyrie couldn't compete, which is why it wouldn't be practical.

What I can see as an inevitability is some rich guy a couple hundred years from now building a Valkyrie because in his era combining transforming robots with ancient military vehicles is an anachronistic future hobby equivalent to what steam punk is to us today

Well, if we're going to be talking about the not-so-distant future with our current technology then yeah it's not practical at all. But to say that it won't be practical at all in the distant future? As for all of the other variables that you bring up...I'm sure that with time we can refine whatever is that we happen to create...just as we do now.

[anime52k8]

Well, if we're going to be talking about the not-so-distant future with our current technology then yeah it's not practical at all. But to say that it won't be practical at all in the distant future? As for all of the other variables that you bring up...I'm sure that with time we can refine whatever is that we happen to create...just as we do now.

It will never be practical because no matter how much technology improves, it will always be better and cheaper to apply it to more conventional vehicles (i.e. stuff that doesn't transform or have legs).

If someday in the distant future warfare becomes some sort of highly organized international sport where style is more important than practicality, then maybe.

[Mr March]

Well, if we're going to be talking about the not-so-distant future with our current technology then yeah it's not practical at all. But to say that it won't be practical at all in the distant future? As for all of the other variables that you bring up...I'm sure that with time we can refine whatever is that we happen to create...just as we do now.

I can't see it ever being practical in the sense of being deployed. I can see the technology eventually existing to actually build a Valkyrie, but not as any kind of practical product (and again, likely long after anyone would care about such ancient vehicles). Like eugimon and I have both said, any technology that can make a Valkyrie would simply make an existing conventional vehicle that much better.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Mr March

[Oihan]

I still see practical purposes.... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Hyper Shinchan]

Like eugimon and I have both said, any technology that can make a Valkyrie would simply make an existing conventional vehicle that much better.

But even if it can make it much better it's a little hard that tanks will start to fly thus increasing their possible course of action. Right now taking something like a tank in enemy territory require logistic support from some neighbouring state (something that current super-power can easily do right now but you never know for the future) and even so it become a pain in the a** to keep it in best conditions.

A fighter/bomber could drop how much bomb you want but usually you'll just hit civilians except you use overkill weapons like nukes or the likes and so you can be sure.

And everyone know that helicopters with their limited height and speed limits can be easily destroyed by an RPG or the like (someone said stingers ; joke apart it really happened a lot of times in both recent and older wars).

Something that can put together these three units can easily solve the limit of each weapon. Surely it wouldn't be cheap effective but aircrafts weren't cheap when they were introduced and they are becoming only more expensive yet they are widely used.

[eugimon]

But even if it can make it much better it's a little hard that tanks will start to fly thus increasing their possible course of action. Right now taking something like a tank in enemy territory require logistic support from some neighbouring state (something that current super-power can easily do right now but you never know for the future) and even so it become a pain in the a** to keep it in best conditions.

A fighter/bomber could drop how much bomb you want but usually you'll just hit civilians except you use overkill weapons like nukes or the likes and so you can be sure.

And everyone know that helicopters with their limited height and speed limits can be easily destroyed by an RPG or the like (someone said stingers ; joke apart it really happened a lot of times in both recent and older wars).

Something that can put together these three units can easily solve the limit of each weapon. Surely it wouldn't be cheap effective but aircrafts weren't cheap when they were introduced and they are becoming only more expensive yet they are widely used.

any vehicle that has that many moving parts would require *more* support. They might be able to leap frog traditional units, but then what? They have no fuel, no ammunition, no one to fix them if they break down, etc.

As a flying tank, they would be vulnerable to faster more agile dedicated fighters. You see this in modern units, you don't put the ground support planes until the f-15s have already cleared the skies. In gerwalk they would be vulnerable to those same fighters while in battroid they're vulnerable to dedicated ground units that are faster, more maneuverable and field heavier weapons.

Something like an attack helicopter that can shift into a high speed mode is one thing, but even then you wouldn't use them to go up against actual air superiority fighters. And anything that flies will always have less armor than a unit that is land based.

[Hyper Shinchan]

While in a mode they can always change to another to take advantage of the unique features of each mode, at least if you look at the F-14 vs SV-51 you can see that a fighter will never be able to shoot at its back with the same speed of an humanoid robot.

While in GERWALK it could easily change to battroid and take advantage of terrain cover or in fighter and fight back the enemy fighters.

The armor problem can probably solved only via Overtechnology (energy conversion armor) but the same is true for the engine that solve/reduce to a minimum the problem for fuel but isn't realistic at all; of course without those two technology my theory that they are better because they can change (like in a rock-paper-scissor game against an adversary that can't change his hand ) is completely pointless.

[anime52k8]

But even if it can make it much better it's a little hard that tanks will start to fly thus increasing their possible course of action. Right now taking something like a tank in enemy territory require logistic support from some neighbouring state (something that current super-power can easily do right now but you never know for the future) and even so it become a pain in the a** to keep it in best conditions.

but making a jet that turns into a robot doesn't solve any of these problems. a robot and/or transforming vehicle will always require more maintenance by it's very nature (lots of joints and motors and moving parts etc).

Also it's not going to be any easier to refuel/rearm/ maintain in the field, in all likelihood it would be more difficult to do this. I'm assuming your implying that by turning into a jet it would be able to fly to a friendly base to do these things; but if it has to do that every time it needs more fuel/ammo, it's looses one of the tanks key values which is it's ability to operate with troops for extended periods of time.

finally, it would be easier and cheaper while yielding a more effective ground combat unit if you used all the technology that would go into a transforming robot to build a tank that had equal armor and speed with better range and ammo capacity than a modern tank while being light enough to drop it out the back of cargo plane with a parachute.

A fighter/bomber could drop how much bomb you want but usually you'll just hit civilians except you use overkill weapons like nukes or the likes and so you can be sure.

I'm not sure what your saying here, a conventional jet and a transforming jet would be using the same weapons in jet form. but the conventional jet will always be able to carry more fuel and more weapons (air-to-ground or air-to-air) because it doesn't have to carry around all the extra transformation mechanisms and robot parts.

And everyone know that helicopters with their limited height and speed limits can be easily destroyed by an RPG or the like (someone said stingers ; joke apart it really happened a lot of times in both recent and older wars).

and a Valk (or even a VTOL jet like a harrier or F-35) isn't going to do any better while it's actually going low and slow engaging targets. sure a valk would be able to ingress and egress faster and safer, but once it's hovering over a target it will be just as vulnerable. (note that the most dangerous time for a helicopter is when it's right over the target).

Then once the Valk gets there, it's not going to be a noisier, less stable firing platform than helecoptor while having a shorter hover time (do to issues of fuel consumption and the jet engines overheating).

and like the tank, if could develop hinges and motors strong enough to make a transforming jet, and engines that allowed it to hover as well as a helicopter while flying as fast as a regular jet, it would be better to make something like the hunter-killers from terminator (or the real world VJ-101) where you've got a conventional jet with engines in pivoting pods rather than dangling legs and robot arms.

[eugimon]

a 40ft tall anything is not going to take advantage of the terrain, the terrain is going to be a liability.

[Mr March]

While the weight and complexity of transformation hardware and robot mechanisms is a disadvantage, a Valkyrie would suffer other fundamental disadvantages compared to a dedicated vehicle (fighter, helicopter and tank). For a single vehicle to fulfill multiple roles (especially roles as functionally different as air vs. ground operations) would require basic design compromises that dedicated craft would not suffer. Most modern fighter craft aren't designed for low speed flight, but a Valkyrie would have to be. That means a compromised design of the wings and fuselage to accommodate both high and low speed flight, meaning more weight and complexity...meaning the Valkyrie isn't as good as a dedicated craft. One would also have to make space inside the craft for all the transformation hardware and robot mechanisms (as well as multi-role hardware) which means even greater design compromises.

Another factor affecting the practicality of a Valkyrie that I don't think has been discussed is the all important factor of time. Building a Valkyrie would require many more times the design, manufacturing, assembly and testing time of conventional craft (as well as maintenance, which we have discussed). Particularly in a scenario of all-out-war where time is crucial I can't see the Valkyrie being anywhere close to a viable option for a warring nation. Your enemy could likely build ten conventional craft in the time it takes your nation to build one Valkyrie.

Now don't get me wrong. The Valkyrie, as it is shown in Macross, is quite simply a military wet dream that successfully combines the fighter, helicopter and tank into one super-vehicle. But Macross as an anime has the virtue of ignoring all the implications of the technology it creates. And that's fine, because big giant robot shows are cool and we don't care about the rest (except as fanboy discussion, lol). But once we start talking real world, the practicality of the Valkyrie becomes highly suspect. While not necessarily impossible to ever realize, it's likely the Valkyrie will remain an anachronistic 20th century curiosity of the early robotics age. The Valkyrie is likely to be realized only long after fighters are obsolete and technology is so advanced and commonplace as to make the construction of the craft a hobby. Like steam powered space shuttles for the "what if" aficionado

Edited April 1, 2010 by Mr March

[Funkenstein]

Hover tanks or transforming tanks would be more practical than Valkyries. If a tank fails to transform, it doesnt crash into the side of a mountain.

[Chronocidal]

Much as I'd like to think they're possible, remember folks... the thing that eventually killed the F-14 was the swing wing design, and the heavy maintenance that required. Comparing an F-14 to a VF-1 in terms of moving parts is like comparing a mechanical pencil to an automotive assembly line.

The problem in any moving part is the stress involved. The only reason the JSF's VTOL engine works is because you're not moving the entire engine. It's just bending the thrust. Now, if you could find a way to duct a twin engine fighter so that it could achieve a gerwalk-like functionality, sure. I can see that happening. It's essentially what the Harrier did, ducting thrust through multiple nozzles to gain stability. They just weren't independently controlled, which could be very useful in real life, and could probably be done now with computers.

The only Valk that doesn't contain the engines within the legs is the YF-21/VF-22. That means that in gerwalk, you have to support that entire leg structure with a mechanism that fits around the engine itself. Without some crazy over technology, that ain't happening.

Just for a comparison once, I calculated out the stress on a normal human arm for lifting, oh, say 50 lbs. Your arm's weight is roughly negligible, but lifting 50 lbs on a rough lever arm of 18 inches puts 75 ft-lbs of torque on your elbow. Now.. consider that the lever arm your biceps use is on the order of an inch or so. Your biceps are pulling with a force of roughly 900 lbs.

Now try adapting such a structure to something the size of an aircraft, and add the weight of an engine. The wing system of the F-14 wasn't even fighting the weight of the wing directly (the pivot being perpendicular to the main force on the wing, lift), and it STILL required gobs of maintenance.

You know how ants can lift so much more than their own weight? What that boils down to is that their structure is small enough, light enough, and strong enough that the stresses are miniscule. The scale works in reverse as you get bigger, and as you start incurring weight penalties from your own mass.

Until we discover some ridiculously strong materials, invent structural integrity fields, or gain overtechnology, I don't think anything resembling a valk is happening. The closest you'll probably get is something like the JSF.

--------------------------------

However, on the other side of things... you all seem to be forgetting one very important reason that they needed battroid mode in the first place. Sure, you can kind of wave off hand-to-hand combat, since it's not really necessary. But remember Max parading around in the zentraedi costume? Let's face it.. if you ever wanted any miniscule chance of fighting them on their own ships/territory, you would need someone or something that would be able to interact with their technology, on their level.

Unless of course, you wanted to have to report to your commanding officer, "I'm sorry sir.. the mission was a complete failure because we couldn't reach the doorknob."

Edited April 1, 2010 by Chronocidal

[Hyper Shinchan]

Another factor affecting the practicality of a Valkyrie that I don't think has been discussed is the all important factor of time. Building a Valkyrie would require many more times the design, manufacturing, assembly and testing time of conventional craft (as well as maintenance, which we have discussed). Particularly in a scenario of all-out-war where time is crucial I can't see the Valkyrie being anywhere close to a viable option for a warring nation. Your enemy could likely build ten conventional craft in the time it takes your nation to build one Valkyrie.

The same was true for jet/rocket equipped aircrafts and for missiles during WWII. They were developed by the the countries that in the end (not only for this reason but it could be considered one; the Hitler's mania for an ultimate weapon) lost the war yet they became the backbone of every post-war army. They couldn't be viable during a war (and in fact in Macross Zero it was the anti-UN that developed their Valkyries with warfare in mind, the VF-0 was merely a prototype) but they could always keep being developed after some nation deploy them experimentally in a war.

but making a jet that turns into a robot doesn't solve any of these problems. a robot and/or transforming vehicle will always require more maintenance by it's very nature (lots of joints and motors and moving parts etc).

Also it's not going to be any easier to refuel/rearm/ maintain in the field, in all likelihood it would be more difficult to do this. I'm assuming your implying that by turning into a jet it would be able to fly to a friendly base to do these things; but if it has to do that every time it needs more fuel/ammo, it's looses one of the tanks key values which is it's ability to operate with troops for extended periods of time.

It could operate with an hit and run strategy in turn with other squadron of Valkyries.

finally, it would be easier and cheaper while yielding a more effective ground combat unit if you used all the technology that would go into a transforming robot to build a tank that had equal armor and speed with better range and ammo capacity than a modern tank while being light enough to drop it out the back of cargo plane with a parachute.

And being shoot down by the anti-air artillery while dropping, right?

I'm not sure what your saying here, a conventional jet and a transforming jet would be using the same weapons in jet form. but the conventional jet will always be able to carry more fuel and more weapons (air-to-ground or air-to-air) because it doesn't have to carry around all the extra transformation mechanisms and robot parts.

A Valkyrie after dropping some bomb could land and finish the work immediately without giving time to the enemy to reorganize, for example it could be effective against bunkers, first destroy the enemy surface structures and then blow the final blow in one single action.

and a Valk (or even a VTOL jet like a harrier or F-35) isn't going to do any better while it's actually going low and slow engaging targets. sure a valk would be able to ingress and egress faster and safer, but once it's hovering over a target it will be just as vulnerable. (note that the most dangerous time for a helicopter is when it's right over the target).

Then once the Valk gets there, it's not going to be a noisier, less stable firing platform than helecoptor while having a shorter hover time (do to issues of fuel consumption and the jet engines overheating).

and like the tank, if could develop hinges and motors strong enough to make a transforming jet, and engines that allowed it to hover as well as a helicopter while flying as fast as a regular jet, it would be better to make something like the hunter-killers from terminator (or the real world VJ-101) where you've got a conventional jet with engines in pivoting pods rather than dangling legs and robot arms.

At least in Macross Valkyries are quite fast and keep a lot of mobility in GERWALK.

a 40ft tall anything is not going to take advantage of the terrain, the terrain is going to be a liability.

A 10-15m Valkyrie (we are in 2010 but people in the U.S. still can't us the S.I., maybe we'll truly never get Valkyries....) could easily use a building as cover inside a city or a jungle or the like in a equatorial region.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Hyper Shinchan

[eugimon]

Hiding against buildings filled with soldiers with anti-tank weapons is a very bad idea.

[Hyper Shinchan]

Hiding against buildings filled with soldiers with anti-tank weapons is a very bad idea.

Do you think that they can deploy enough soldiers in various large cities? Especially in the initial phase of a war? Maybe only China could deploy enough soldiers for such an operation.

[GU-11]

Let's take the newest jet fighter in the USAF as an example--the F-22 Raptor. Throughout its manufacturing process, it was panned as overly costly. To date, only 187 Raptors were ever produced, and production has currently been stopped.

Now compared to a VF, a Raptor is arguably low-tech and therefore much cheaper. And if 187 Raptors could cause US governmental coffers to scream in pain, the development of VF's (considering we even have the technology to build giant transforming robots in the future) could easily bankrupt even the wealthiest countries in the world.

As has always been the case in any military's technological procurement, cheaper almost always trumps better.

[Seto Kaiba]

And if 187 Raptors could cause US governmental coffers to scream in pain, the development of VF's (considering we even have the technology to build giant transforming robots in the future) could easily bankrupt even the wealthiest countries in the world.

True... though at least in some cases we have to consider magic labor-and-material-saving appliances like the factory satellite... labor and material processing expenses are a substantial part of the cost of something like a fighter jet or a tank... delete those from the equation and they're not very expensive at all on a per-unit basis...

We just don't get help like that in the real world...

Edited April 2, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[GU-11]

True... though at least in some cases we have to consider magic labor-and-material-saving appliances like the factory satellite... labor and material processing expenses are a substantial part of the cost of something like a fighter jet or a tank... delete those from the equation and they're not very expensive at all on a per-unit basis...

We just don't get help like that in the real world...

Yup, which is why it makes perfect sense (or at least feasible) in SK's vision of the Macross universe, but is both impractical and way too expensive in the real world.

[buddhafabio]

i think a ghost fighter is most practical thing on macross, followed by submersible aircraft carrier.

as for exo suits ie iron man its slowly evolving as we speak. but the first iterations will be stuff that help us run and jump a bit higher but is only protected with kevlar or dragon scales and be unit interactive. like in orsons scott cards hidden empire

[anime52k8]

A 10-15m Valkyrie (we are in 2010 but people in the U.S. still can't us the S.I., maybe we'll truly never get Valkyries....) could easily use a building as cover inside a city or a jungle or the like in a equatorial region.

Man, F*ck SI. SI is the measurement system of pacifists and pinko commies, real men use Real units of measure.

[miles316]

Let's take the newest jet fighter in the USAF as an example--the F-22 Raptor. Throughout its manufacturing process, it was panned as overly costly. To date, only 187 Raptors were ever produced, and production has currently been stopped.

Now compared to a VF, a Raptor is arguably low-tech and therefore much cheaper. And if 187 Raptors could cause US governmental coffers to scream in pain, the development of VF's (considering we even have the technology to build giant transforming robots in the future) could easily bankrupt even the wealthiest countries in the world.

As has always been the case in any military's technological procurement, cheaper almost always trumps better.

The Raptors problem was by the time it became operational the mission it was planed for was long gone, but in macross the threat of a Race of Giants was present with the Giant space ship crashing in to the Pacific.

The per unit cost has gone way up with every cut of the F-22 purchase, and the UN of Macross has a strangle hold of World Finances after the Unification War meaning they can pretty much dictate cost per unit.

Another Cost involved in the production of complex weapons like F-22 like Titanium are difficult to extract from their terrestrial mineral form were as the lunar ragalith contains a extreme abundance of Titanium, and other valuable metals in concentration much higher than on Earth.

Visit My Website

Visit My Website

Edited April 2, 2010 by miles316

[eugimon]

Do you think that they can deploy enough soldiers in various large cities? Especially in the initial phase of a war? Maybe only China could deploy enough soldiers for such an operation.

Do you really think it would be that hard for a group of small, dedicated and moderately armed insurgents to take down a multi-billion dollar war machine by hiding in buildings and caves?

It happens every day in a certain part of the world.

edit::

The very fact you guys need to keep coming up with elaborate tailored scenarios to make a valkyrie worth it just proves that it isn't. A transforming vehicle is never going to be as good at any role as a dedicated machine and it's going to be exponentially more expensive to produce, manufacture, maintain and train pilots for.

If your argument is that in the future such costs won't be an issue because of some deux ex machina then you have just eliminated most of the reasons for waging war in the first place. And *even* if you had such a magical machine and unlimited resources and a regular plane would still be cheaper and faster to make and fly and it would still out perform a valkyrie.

And I can't stress this enough, bipedal locomotion is slow, inefficient, less maneuverable and inherently unstable. There's a reason nature rejected bipedalism for any organism where strength and speed were necessary for survival.

Edited April 2, 2010 by eugimon

[Fly4victory]

Technology, economics and geopolitics aside, the VF was developed for defense; first Earth then the Macross exploration fleets.

That is that saddest part of the real future. We can't get back to the moon let alone envision an expansive exploration and development of space has a viable habitat.

[UN_MARINE]

The sheer complexity of the machine would probably kill it before anybody can get past the initial test flights.

While M0 kinda had it right that in order to transform, you had to slow down. All the stresses involved would most likely still break something. Imagine if any of the transforming elements failed, the aircraft would instantly lose any and all structural integrity, aerodynamics and control. Granted, transforming is possible; but you'd need to do it slow enough to keep the thing in the air. but "slow enough" will also get you shot down in a split second.

There's also the matter of powering the thing. You'd probably need something that generates half the power of a small country to get it to stay in the air and transform.

I can see mecha being adopted in some way, but none of them as tall as destroids and they wouldn't redefine warfare as we know it. At best, they'll compliment the existing/newly developed tanks, choppers & planes, just like an aiming module on a rifle. Somewhat useful, Useless w/o batteries & will mostly let "real" weapon do the work by itself.

Not to mention things like RPG's, Rockets, Missiles, IED's, really large bullets... You'd econsider the cost of building something so complicated but can be destroyed by something ridiculously cheaper.

[Mr March]

Just for a comparison once, I calculated out the stress on a normal human arm for lifting, oh, say 50 lbs. Your arm's weight is roughly negligible, but lifting 50 lbs on a rough lever arm of 18 inches puts 75 ft-lbs of torque on your elbow. Now.. consider that the lever arm your biceps use is on the order of an inch or so. Your biceps are pulling with a force of roughly 900 lbs.

You know how ants can lift so much more than their own weight? What that boils down to is that their structure is small enough, light enough, and strong enough that the stresses are miniscule. The scale works in reverse as you get bigger, and as you start incurring weight penalties from your own mass.

That actually brings up a good point about the Valkyries that I don't believe I've ever considered: how much can a battroid lift? Or perhaps it might be more precise to ask how much must a battroid lift/carry in order to function properly under maximum allowable stress? Even to get a battroid running would be a lot of structural stress. As you say, even a few pounds can be a problem for human-scale machines and with the Valkyries we're dealing in tons! This is to say nothing about the additional hardware that each Valkyrie has to be designed to handle. Once we add the stresses of operating with the Super and Armored hardware, it can get really problematic. That additional hardware adds a significant amount of weight and handling all that stress has to be accounted for in the basic design of the Valkyrie

[sketchley]

Man, F*ck SI. SI is the measurement system of pacifists and pinko commies, real men use Real units of measure.

I *love* it when people make gross errors like this.

The brotherhood of non-metric using nations are Burma (Myanmar), Liberia and the United States of America. Ask yourself if that group of 'real men' is a healthy group to be part of.

Edited April 2, 2010 by sketchley