YF-29 (canon, in-series info)

[eugimon]

Besides, mounting a rear facing gun gives you an entire new firing arc while the head guns on the VF-1/0 merely supplement the gunpod.

[SchizophrenicMC]

But they did it with HONOR! AND PRIDE!

Erm, wrong variable-geometry.

[Product9]

(yes, you can see a VF-1's visor too---but they don't even try to hide the head---every valk since has a totally "hidden" the head asides from the lasers/antennas---this would be the first one to have a visible visor with a "hidden" head)

I find it interesting that you can see the VF-25's visor from behind while it's in GERWALK mode. I noticed it toward the end of the Frontier movie.

Maneuverability is less about speed and more about agility. The Tornado has the advantage in one respect, that being the VTOL engines and their ability to change the direction of the vectored thrust on what appears to be a full 360 degree axis.

After slowing everything down to like 60% so I could actually see what was happening, I noticed that during Alto's missile dodging scene in the movie he stayed in fighter mode the entire time. At one point, he's even flying backwards whilst firing the Tornado's beam cannons. Also, at that speed everyone sounds like they're gangsters.

[Zinjo]

If you're engaged in a dogfight with another fighter jet, and he's on your tail, isn't he almost always behind and above you? Or isn't that where you are when you're on his tail? Dog fights don't usually happen in straight lines. You're usually trying to out-turn your opponent and get on his six. Planes turn by banking to one side and pulling up...that puts your enemy right in the sweet spot for the rear mounted lasers on the newer VFs.

One thing Macross Zero demonstrated was the offensive capabilities of the head guns. They can pop out of the fuselage (in many cases) and be used like a turret. Unfortunately it isn't used as often as I'd like in the shows...

As for dog fighting, there are many ways to get behind your opponent-air speed, bank turns, rolls, etc... In space, dog fighting is very different. I think on BSG we got to see for the first time what actual zero-g dog fighting would be like.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Zinjo

[Ghost Train]

As for dog fighting, there are many ways to get behind your opponent-air speed, bank turns, rolls, etc... In space, dog fighting is very different. I think on BSG we got to see for the first time what actual zero-g dog fighting would be like.

As much as I love BSG, I think Babylon 5 gets the credit for being the first show to tackle the realities of a space-fighter seriously, namely the need to vector thrust in all directions. BSG Vipers had RCS thrusters much the same way a modern space shuttles do, but I never saw a reverse thruster to deal with Newton's first law - Starbuck elegantly solves this problem by simply flipping the fighter over.

[s001]

Valid point

You know, honestly, it makes sense. The first variable fighters were designed, primarily, for atmospheric combat. As time progressed, space combat became more and more prevalent, and so, air combat features are being neglected, in favor of better spaceframe design.

I don't like that. Valkyries are cool because they look like planes on fighter mode. I don't want valks to end up looking like gundams.

[Ghost Train]

Iron rule of realistic space fighter designs: If it looks too much like a 4+ Generation fighter jet, it's probably not a "realistic" design.

[Vic Mancini]

One thing Macross Zero demonstrated was the offensive capabilities of the head guns. They can pop out of the fuselage (in many cases) and be used like a turret. Unfortunately it isn't used as often as I'd like in the shows...

As for dog fighting, there are many ways to get behind your opponent-air speed, bank turns, rolls, etc... In space, dog fighting is very different. I think on BSG we got to see for the first time what actual zero-g dog fighting would be like.

That's a good point on the space dog fighting. But in Macross it's rarely portrayed that way.

In Macross air planes in space seem to fly the same as air planes in the air. (Kind of like Star Wars space combat). Personally speaking, if I'm flying a space ship that handles like an air plane, and I know I'm going to be pulling way more positive G turns than negative G turns, I want a defensive laser turret facing aft, and even more importantly upwards by 15-45 degrees. Because if I have a bogey on my tail, that's where he's going to be.

PS. When were the head lasers used offensively in Mac Zero? I don't remember that. I'd love to go re-watch that scene.

[akt_m]

What just kills the design are those twin auxiliar engines...

If they had just made a mixed breed of the VF-25 and the YF-19 it would've been so cool.

Actually i've made a CG attempt of how it would look like: http://takm.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1xu6hh

[SchizophrenicMC]

I don't like that. Valkyries are cool because they look like planes on fighter mode. I don't want valks to end up looking like gundams.

Would you rather they look like this:

lolrobotech

Iron rule of realistic space fighter designs: If it looks too much like a 4+ Generation fighter jet, it's probably not a "realistic" design.

Realism? It's a Japanese cartoon about transforming giant robot planes that fight aliens while piloted by angsty teenagers. We transcended realism a LONG time ago.

What just kills the design are those twin auxiliar engines...

If they had just made a mixed breed of the VF-25 and the YF-19 it would've been so cool.

Actually i've made a CG attempt of how it would look like: http://takm.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1xu6hh

Agreed. It is far sexier.

[Vic Mancini]

What just kills the design are those twin auxiliar engines...

If they had just made a mixed breed of the VF-25 and the YF-19 it would've been so cool.

Actually i've made a CG attempt of how it would look like: http://takm.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1xu6hh

That's beautiful.

[anime52k8]

As for dog fighting, there are many ways to get behind your opponent-air speed, bank turns, rolls, etc... In space, dog fighting is very different. I think on BSG we got to see for the first time what actual zero-g dog fighting would be like.

This whole "realistic Zero-G dog fighting" notion is absolutely hilarious. The very notion of small craft flying out and engaging each other in close range, maneuvering fights in space is completely unrealistic; any space battle is going to consist entirely of (relatively) slow moving craft shooting high powered lasers at each other from extremely long ranges.

Actually i've made a CG attempt of how it would look like: http://takm.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1xu6hh

it's slightly better but it's still physically painful to look at.

[Raptor One]

What just kills the design are those twin auxiliar engines...

If they had just made a mixed breed of the VF-25 and the YF-19 it would've been so cool.

Actually i've made a CG attempt of how it would look like: http://takm.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1xu6hh

That looks amazing! I guess something like that would have been a bit too derivative* to be official though

*inb4 "As opposed to the current YF-29?"

[Graham]

Actually i've made a CG attempt of how it would look like: http://takm.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1xu6hh

That looks great. I'd buy a toy of that in a heartbeat.

You should post the pic or, or do you mind if I post it, as I have no pic posting limits?

Graham

[valkyriechild]

That is an amazing pic, perhaps VF-25 varian is more appropriate, like VF-25XZ err.. or whatever cool names you can come up with.

[Vic Mancini]

This whole "realistic Zero-G dog fighting" notion is absolutely hilarious. The very notion of small craft flying out and engaging each other in close range, maneuvering fights in space is completely unrealistic; any space battle is going to consist entirely of (relatively) slow moving craft shooting high powered lasers at each other from extremely long ranges.

Yeah, that's another good point. You could be 186,000 miles away still give your target less than 1 second to move out of the way from a high powered beam weapon. Shows like Star Trek where huge spaceships are getting up close to each other and maneuvering around like slow-moving fighter jets always used to give me a chuckle. At some point you just have to suspend your disbelief and go with it though.

[Graham]

Iron rule of realistic space fighter designs: If it looks too much like a 4+ Generation fighter jet, it's probably not a "realistic" design.

Iron rule of realistic atmospheric fighter designs: If it looks too much like a 4+ Generation fighter jet, it's probably not a "realistic" space fighter design.

Graham

[SchizophrenicMC]

lolspacefighter

[Product9]

This whole "realistic Zero-G dog fighting" notion is absolutely hilarious. The very notion of small craft flying out and engaging each other in close range, maneuvering fights in space is completely unrealistic; any space battle is going to consist entirely of (relatively) slow moving craft shooting high powered lasers at each other from extremely long ranges.

So, you're saying in the future strategic weapons will render tactical weapons useless? Kind of like how nuclear weapons have made the infantryman useless today?

No offense, but have a little foresight. I can think of at least three situations off the top of my head where a large laser weapon would be useless against a smaller, more nimble target. And I haven't even got to thinking about it yet.

Anyway, this is all off topic.

The YF-29 does certainly seem uninspired, but I'll have to wait until I see it in action before I can really decide what I think about it. It does seem a little... poorly designed. From an aesthetic standpoint. I understand that Bandai owns Frontier, and their principle motivation is sales, but I expected something a little... better.

Still curious about it, though. I'm sure it has some tricks up its sleeves. And I'm curious about battroid.

Also, @SchizophrenicMC, what is that anyway?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Product, it's the Vic Viper from the Gradius games.

[anime52k8]

So, you're saying in the future strategic weapons will render tactical weapons useless? Kind of like how nuclear weapons have made the infantryman useless today?

No offense, but have a little foresight. I can think of at least three situations off the top of my head where a large laser weapon would be useless against a smaller, more nimble target. And I haven't even got to thinking about it yet.

I'd love to here your reasoning, really I would. A powerful laser will be able to kill targets at tens and even hundreds of thousands of kilometers distance with zero perceptible delay between firing and impact. there's no way a maned fighter craft could possibly avoid being shot down long enough to close the massive distances in space needed for them to become effective (without killing the pilot).

Also, given the huge distances one needs to cover in deep space it's highly impractical, if not impossible, to equip small craft with sufficient propulsion and life support to make those kinds of trips.

In fact the only situation in which craft the size of modern fighters would be useful in space would be within the orbit of planets, where you still couldn't effectively maneuver because of gravity.

The fact of the matter is, excluding unlimited technological developments/technologies and materials beyond are current understandings of science, small craft the size of modern jet aircraft that zip around having dog fights within visual range will never be practical in deep space.

So yeah, space fighters are impractical and only exist in fiction because they look cool. The YF-29 doesn't look cool so it has no reason to exist.

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

I'd love to here your reasoning, really I would. A powerful laser will be able to kill targets at tens and even hundreds of thousands of kilometers distance with zero perceptible delay between firing and impact.

I'll bite.

In this particular space universe (and many others) we have the ability to fold/warp in close. Multiple space fighter craft would give a BFG Ship no chance unless it had its own similarly sized defense forces. You are also assuming that there are no counter measures whatsoever available to the defending craft such as electronic warfare and interference that may upset the targeting systems. A nearly imperceptible level of distortion at 186 000 miles would cause one hell of a miss.

With that being said, I can agree that capital ship slug fests would probably figure more prominently in reality, but to say that small maneuverable craft would have no place is just wrong. As far as Macross is concerned, it is just more interesting (and dramatic) to see the fighters fighting, so thats what the focus is on.

Just realized I am off topic..Um, yeah the YF-29 is ugly and unnecessary but I am sure after the second movie we will all come to like it at least a little. Other then the VA-3 Invader (IMO) is there a Kawamori design that is actually disliked? It will just take some warming up to it though it is upsetting to see $ making his design decisions.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX

[Graham]

Other then the VA-3 Invader (IMO) is there a Kawamori design that is actually disliked? It will just take some warming up to it though it is upsetting to see $ making his design decisions.

I really like the VA-3M from VF-X2.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

I still don't like the VF-0 much, just a lazy ret-con of the VF-1 IMHO. The VF-0D however, is nice--and is what the standard V-0 design should have been to start with.

[sketchley]

Other then the VA-3 Invader (IMO) is there a Kawamori design that is actually disliked? It will just take some warming up to it though it is upsetting to see $ making his design decisions.

I like the VA-3 Invader, too. A chunk of that is for the creativity of the design; it's unlike anything seen before (in the Macross universe).

For disliked designs: the Tornado Pack for the VF-25.

I'm leaning on the side of liking the YF-29. One of the main reasons is that it's the first (canon) YF-24 derivative craft with internally carried missiles in the leg nacelles (something that has been pretty much standard on VFs since the VF-5000. Or VA-3 and VF-4, pending development time and what one defines as "internally carried".)

[akt_m]

That looks great. I'd buy a toy of that in a heartbeat.

You should post the pic or, or do you mind if I post it, as I have no pic posting limits?

Graham

I was going to re-render the same image in higher-res, but i had problems with the textures, so i decided to re-render it just using some plain colors, then i edited at photoshop a little, posting them now.

[Product9]

I'd love to here your reasoning

Happy to oblige.

A powerful laser will be able to kill targets at tens and even hundreds of thousands of kilometers distance with zero perceptible delay between firing and impact. there's no way a maned fighter craft could possibly avoid being shot down long enough to close the massive distances in space needed for them to become effective (without killing the pilot).

Also, given the huge distances one needs to cover in deep space it's highly impractical, if not impossible, to equip small craft with sufficient propulsion and life support to make those kinds of trips.

I have to agree with you as far as deep space is concerned. In deep space there is no cover, so range is unlimited. However, I can't think of any good reasons to have a battle in deep space anyway

Anyway, as for my reasoning. Most of this is based on political motivation/rules-of-engagement, but I think that will still be relevant in the future. If you see any holes in my logic, please feel free to point them out.

Reason the first: Urban warfare. Or, any warfare that takes place near populated areas. This can be space colonies, space stations, what have you. In close combat like that, large lasers and other heavy weapons would be rendered useless.

Reason the second: Tactics. If party B were to position their ship or squadron between party A's ship and, say, the aforementioned space colony, a directed energy weapon would be a liability, and most likely discouraged by the upper echelons (barring of course the possibility of a corrupt government).

Reason the third: Cover. If the battle were to happen in something like an asteroid field (such as the one that perpetually surrounds Frontier for some reason), a directed energy weapon might not be the best choice. Unless it had unlimited power and could blast through any cover, and the ships sensors were unspoofable, but in practice this... isn't likely.

So yeah, space fighters are impractical and only exist in fiction because they look cool.

I have to disagree. Well, I agree that they (generally) look cool, but I think they would be/will be far from impractical. Maybe in some situations they wouldn't be the best choice to use, but there are always going to be situations where finesse is paramount. You can't rescue hostages with a nuclear bomb... unless you're trying to rescue them from living.

The YF-29 doesn't look cool so it has no reason to exist.

Here we seem to be in full agreement

[nexxstrait]

Other then the VA-3 Invader (IMO) is there a Kawamori design that is actually disliked?

SV51, VA3, VF9, VF11Maxl, VF14 (and derivates, like all the Protodevil VFs), YF21 (can't stand the head), VF25 (Tornado pack only), VF27

On the VF29 I won't comment, yet (battroid is goind to make it or break it)

So for me the answer to your question is "absolutely yes"

Edited January 16, 2011 by nexxstrait

[Graham]

I'm leaning on the side of liking the YF-29. One of the main reasons is that it's the first (canon) YF-24 derivative craft with internally carried missiles in the leg nacelles (something that has been pretty much standard on VFs since the VF-5000. Or VA-3 and VF-4, pending development time and what one defines as "internally carried".)

It's debatable whether the YF-29's leg micro-missile launchers are actually internal to the leg per se. Rather it looks more like they are mounted externally onto the leg.

After studying the DX toy CAD art and model kit photos it looks like the leg micro-missle launchers are actually just FAST packs bolted onto the outside of standard VF-25 legs.

We've had something of an indirect debate about this in the YF-29 toy forum thread.

Graham

[anime52k8]

In this particular space universe (and many others) we have the ability to fold/warp in close. Multiple space fighter craft would give a BFG Ship no chance unless it had its own similarly sized defense forces.

question: if you have FTL technology that lets you get that close to your target without them being able to retaliate, why not just strap a thermonuclear device to a fold drive and fold it to within range of your target?

Reason the first: Urban warfare. Or, any warfare that takes place near populated areas. This can be space colonies, space stations, what have you. In close combat like that, large lasers and other heavy weapons would be rendered useless.

admitedly when you move closer to large bodies like asteroids, space colonies and the planets they would be orbiting smaller craft would be more useful. You wouldn't have small MANEUVERABLE craft though. The problem is that as you get closer to large bodies in space, gravity becomes a huge factor in how you move. put simply you can't rapidly accelerate, decelerate, or change directions while under the influence of gravity because you'll either be pulled into the source of said gravity or be flung out into deep space.

Reason the third: Cover. If the battle were to happen in something like an asteroid field (such as the one that perpetually surrounds Frontier for some reason), a directed energy weapon might not be the best choice. Unless it had unlimited power and could blast through any cover, and the ships sensors were unspoofable, but in practice this... isn't likely.

The problem is you'd never want to/be able to hide in an asteroid field. It's not like in the movies where you have hundreds of slow moving large objects with room to zip between. An asteroid field is going to have hundreds of large objects, thousands of medium size objects and hundreds of thousands of small objects all moving at high speeds in different directions, all of which will take out your ship if they hit you. If your opponent where to enter an asteroid field you'd be better off calling it a day and heading home, as the other guy will probably be crushed/pelted to death by the millions of high speed projectiles in that asteroid field.

[jenius]

question: if you have FTL technology that lets you get that close to your target without them being able to retaliate, why not just strap a thermonuclear device to a fold drive and fold it to within range of your target?

Silly, the goal isn't to blow up their ship, the goal is to punch a hole in their hull, slip inside, and make them change to your side by singing to them. How are you going to do that with a light speed nuke?

Next you're going to tell me that The Last Starfighter isn't scientifically accurate. Pfft... as if.

[Xx-SKULL-ONE-xX]

SV51, VA3, VF9, VF11Maxl, VF14 (and derivates, like all the Protodevil VFs), YF21 (can't stand the head), VF25 (Tornado pack only), VF27

On the VF29 I won't comment, yet (battroid is goind to make it or break it)

So for me the answer to your question is "absolutely yes"

Better question would almost be which ones do you like? Good call with the MAXL and Protodevlin VF's. I still kinda like the base VF-14 though.

I Don't expect the YF-29 battroid to look significantly different from the VF-25/27...I mean, why would it?

Alot of closet VA-3 fans I guess, just looks silly to me, to each his own.

[anime52k8]

I love the VA-3.

I also love the VF/VA-14, the YF-21/VF-22, the VF-27 and the VF-11MAXL

[David Hingtgen]

I think the question was intended more like "is there a valk design that is UNIVERSALLY disliked?"

[SchizophrenicMC]

I think the question was intended more like "is there a valk design that is UNIVERSALLY disliked?"

YF-1R