Jump to content

VF-20 Einherjar (aka SW-XA II Schneegans)


Justiciar
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm sure you guys remember this guy as well:

sw-xaii-schneegans-fighter.gif

One of my favorite designs, though unfortunately still non-canon. I'm having it modeled as well, and there will be transformations for it, too. Mine will be slightly different than the one physical model. I'm doing the shoulders a little different and the entire back plate/crossed wings will look different.

Similar to how the YF-21 became the VF-22 Sturmvogel II, I'm considering the Kawamori's original art to be the prototype. I'm calling mine the VF-20 Einherjar, manufactured by Northrom. For those keeping score, same manufacturer of the original Valkyrie, similar transformation mechanism, Scandinavian name related to the Valkyrie (the Einherjar were the warriors who died in battle and were then selected by the Valkyrie to fight in Ragnarok).

Backstory-wise, I'm considering it a contemporary to the VF-17/19/22. She was part of the original competition that resulted in the VF-17. Ever-changing specs that just happened to match General Galaxy's YF-17 offering led Northrom to believe that the competition was rigged, and existed only to meet legal requirements preventing no-bid contracts. Though they lost, Northrom continued development on the SW-XA II. When proof that the competition was rigged surfaced several years later, Northrom was able to parley that into a new, limited contract to provide a new, limited production special forces variable fighter. The greatest coup of the new deal was access to General Galaxy's VF-22 technology, resulting in numerous performance increases. The official story was that the contract was awarded due to the VF-1s unsurpassed combat and data & analysis records. Though Northrom did have the manufacturing infrastructure and supply chain experience to handle the contract, pessimists claimed the entire deal was nothing more than a "Thank you for the VF-1, now go away" response to Northrom leadership's claims of being excluded from front-line combat units for almost 30 years. That it had actually happened for at least a decade was entirely irrelevant.

Anyway, the VF-20 Einherjar:

VF-20_1_zps101c348b.jpg

VF-20_2_zpsb21429d9.jpg

VF-20_3_zps762d6065.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am excited about this model!!

I envisioned it as the VF-10 "Spitfire II" myself. The loser in the competition that saw the VF-11 Lightning III become the UN Spacy main fighter.

In my fantasy history ( ;)) the fighter was adopted by the UN Marines as they favored forward swept wings that made it ideal for trans-atmospheric engagements. The wing design also gave it exceptional maneuverability in the atmosphere where the Marines would often be called upon to fight.

It is unusual to have more than two fighters competing for a final procurement contract. IMHO to put it in the same competition with the VF-17 wouldn't work as the specs for that competition would be much different. The competition between the YF-19 and YF-21 was settled. So that left me with the competition that the VF-11 ultimately won.

The idea comes from the F-16 competition where the Northrop YF-17 Cobra lost the competition to the GenD YF-16. The YF-17 was further developed into the MacD F-18 which the US Navy still uses today.

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the limited info says that it was supposed to exceed the VF-17's capabilities, so I was actually wrong in placing it as a competitor to the VF-17. But it does come way after the VF-11.

AFAIK there was no other, official, competitor to the VF-17. Even if my original timeline were correct, it would not be "more than two fighters competing..." It would have been two. And while yes, they have different specs, look at your very own example: The LWF (Lightweight Fighter) competition between the Northrop YF-17 and GD YF-16. They might both be lightweight, but that's pretty much the only similarity. They're different size, different weight (by a lot), different speeds, maneuverability and performance, and different ordnance. The only things they have in common is that they're single-seaters and mount an M61 Vulcan. Yet they competed for the same contract.

What might make more sense, for me, is to say that it started as a joint project with Shinsei (formerly Stonewell Bellcom). Northrom and Shin/SB had a long working relationship with the VF-1, so it would make sense. The relationship soured when Northrom wanted a conventional transformation sequence and Shinsei wanted a new, unique mechanism (Kind of like the fight between Nintendo and Sony during N64 development that resulted in Sony going out on its own and making the PS), and Shinsei was chosen as a finalist in the Super Nova project over Northrom. The YF/VF-19 has a lot in common with the SW-AXII. One could even argue that the YF-19 was derived from the SW-AXII. From there, it's not much of a leap to say that Shinsei made off with and used Northrom proprietary technology in the YF-19, and that that's what led to Northrom eventually getting this limited "VF-20" contract. That would make this both predecessor and successor to YF-19. Maybe the prototype was called YF-18, and production became VF-20. This would somewhat mirror what you pointed out in the YF-16 vs YF-17 contract, where the YF-16 won, but the YF-17 continued developed and eventually won its own contract and became the F-18.

Of course, YMMV. I'm not Kawamori and it's a non-canon design, so of course everyone should feel free to use it (or not) as they see fit. I'm simply pointing out that according to the very limited info available, it came well after the VF-11. And, to me, it looks contemporary to the VFs-19 & -22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The YF-29 stole so much from this design, yet it's nowhere near as cool.

There's a backhanded acknowledgement of that in Variable Fighter Master File: VF-25 Messiah... page 27 has a YF-29 shown in exactly the same paintjob as the SW-XA II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the limited info says that it was supposed to exceed the VF-17's capabilities, so I was actually wrong in placing it as a competitor to the VF-17. But it does come way after the VF-11.

I am skeptical about referencing material (without footnotes) where the design was apparently a project to update both the VF-1 and YF-19 (or perhaps VF-9) fighter designs with Kawamori's design aesthetics of the day. They were experiments that needed to be be identified among the other canon fighters before publication it appears. No fan of the original VF-1 would accept the SW-XA as a redesign of the VF-1 (which it is seems it clearly is) or the SW-XA II as a re-design experiment to the YF-19 or VF-9. I also believe , iirc, prototype toys were developed from them as well.

AFAIK there was no other, official, competitor to the VF-17. Even if my original timeline were correct, it would not be "more than two fighters competing..." It would have been two. And while yes, they have different specs, look at your very own example: The LWF (Lightweight Fighter) competition between the Northrop YF-17 and GD YF-16. They might both be lightweight, but that's pretty much the only similarity. They're different size, different weight (by a lot), different speeds, maneuverability and performance, and different ordnance. The only things they have in common is that they're single-seaters and mount an M61 Vulcan. Yet they competed for the same contract.

The LWF project had specific parameters that both sides had to meet. Both developers presented different takes on those requirements for the competition. The YF-17 was lighter than the F-14 and was deemed capable enough to particpate in the final competition stage, but ultimately lost.

In the YF-16 competition the lighter weight YF-17 met the Navy's new requirements for CVN fighters and it's twin ending design made it ideal for US Naval Operations, but did not make it useful to the US Airforce.

In a VF-17 competition stealth would be a primary requirement, which the SW-AX II does not seem to have unless it took an "Active Stealth" approach to the VF-17's "Passive Stealth". However, no documentation exists to support that guess.

What might make more sense, for me, is to say that it started as a joint project with Shinsei (formerly Stonewell Bellcom). Northrom and Shin/SB had a long working relationship with the VF-1, so it would make sense. The relationship soured when Northrom wanted a conventional transformation sequence and Shinsei wanted a new, unique mechanism (Kind of like the fight between Nintendo and Sony during N64 development that resulted in Sony going out on its own and making the PS), and Shinsei was chosen as a finalist in the Super Nova project over Northrom. The YF/VF-19 has a lot in common with the SW-AXII. One could even argue that the YF-19 was derived from the SW-AXII. From there, it's not much of a leap to say that Shinsei made off with and used Northrom proprietary technology in the YF-19, and that that's what led to Northrom eventually getting this limited "VF-20" contract. That would make this both predecessor and successor to YF-19. Maybe the prototype was called YF-18, and production became VF-20. This would somewhat mirror what you pointed out in the YF-16 vs YF-17 contract, where the YF-16 won, but the YF-17 continued developed and eventually won its own contract and became the F-18.

It is an interesting premise, I personally find it to be shoe horning the SW-XA II into a period it may not easily fit. Using an assertion from materials we have not yet established.

Of course, YMMV. I'm not Kawamori and it's a non-canon design, so of course everyone should feel free to use it (or not) as they see fit. I'm simply pointing out that according to the very limited info available, it came well after the VF-11. And, to me, it looks contemporary to the VFs-19 & -22.

I am not familiar with the assertion it was developed post VF-11 and would like to know where you are referencing that from?

They are gorgeous designs and I am glad they were published. However, since they remain largely outside of accepted canon as only concept designs, I agree that we can have them exist where we wish them to fit as individual fans.

In my fantasy it could just as easily be designated a VF-12 since no "known" VF-12 fighter exists in canon as of yet and a VF-10 seems too close to the VF-9 series....

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're basically proving my point: Two very different designs that had to meet the same requirements. (Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that YF-17 did meet the Navy's requirements. The only reason they looked at it is because they were ordered to, and they flatly refused to even look at the YF-16, orders or no. It was substantially re-designed and re-engineered. They look similar, but the final design went from 17,200 lbs to 23,000 lbs. Same overall length, but a re-designed and widened fuselage, new wings and whole host of other stuff.)

I'm not sure you can be so bold as to say "no fan would accept..." I'm a fan. I see nothing wrong with the sw-xa being a re-done VF-1 (so much meta-story here... The VF-0 is clearly more advanced than the VF-1, even though it's older and not nearly as developed. Obviously it's because Kawamori learned a lot in the 20 years between their designs and animation quality has advanced greatly. But instead of just coming out and saying as such, we get various in-universe explanations. Is the VF-0 more advanced and more costly so they had to go with the VF-1? Or is it that what we see in SDFM and DYRL are the in-universe TV series and movie, respectively, telling the story to the in-universe audience, and their producers were using the tools they had access to? Like when we used to make WW2 movies and have Shermans representing Tigers, and other similar "because its what we have" stand-ins). The point is, fans come up with a lot and accept a lot. I rolled my eyes when Trek came up with why new Klinks had ridges and old ones didn't, and I laugh at Trekkies that complain about ST:E being more advanced that TOS. I generally feel the same here. But, if I'm going to play the game, then here's my take on it.

I got my information from Mr. March's site. I don't know if he did the translation or someone else. It says there that the Schneegans was the result of a program to combine stealthiness with air combat ability rivaling the VF-17. Maybe that's completely wrong, but that's all that I have to go on. (The legend is that Kawamor did that design work for a project that was cancelled and/or evolved into Macross Plus. I'm not sure the times match up, but whatever.) For my little corner, I choose to use Mr. March's entry as the basis and "shoe horn it in" because the only alternative is to completely disregard that information, regardless of its accuracy, and simply put it wherever one feels. That's the crux of our disagreement. You're asserting that it's a contemporary to the VF-11 with no evidence whatsoever to back that up. I'm saying it's a contemporary to the VF-19 because the one source we have says that it was designed to exceed the VF-17, and then trying to figure why it looks so much like the YF-19.

YF-19 vs. YF-21 are like your YF-16 vs YF-17 example: Two dramastically different designs trying to meet the same specs. If you accept it as the only info we have to go on, the SW-XAII entry basically says there was another competition after the VF-17 (initial design in 2026, first flight 2035) and before the Super Nova competition (2034-2040), the result of which is the SW-XAII. Who knows why UNG/UNS had a new competition? The VF-17 entry says they were hoping to exploit OverTechnology. Maybe they were antsy at how long VF-17 was taking? Maybe they wanted to explore other advances? Maybe it's just because humanity was spreading out into the galaxy and the left hand wasn't talking to the right hand. But there was another program.

After a time, for whatever reason, it wasn't picked up. Maybe it was too expensive, over-budget, prototyping new technologies, not promising or advanced enough, political problems, etc. It could have been killed off much the same as when the US Army pulled the plug on the AAFCS project (AH-56A Cheyenne) and replaced it with the AAH project (which resulted in the AH-64 Apache). On that AAH project, Lockheed submitted a proposal for a modified AH-56, which was rejected. Here we would be saying that SW-XAII program was killed and replaced by the Super Nova project. A simpler version, the YF-19, was submitted by one of the partners on the winning SW-XAII program (Shinsei). The other partner, Northrom, kept plugging away at it on their own time on their own dime, similar to how Sikorsky developed the X2 on their own, several years before the Army's request for the Armed Aerial Scout program.

All sorts of weird stuff happens during design, competition, procurement, upgrading to new blocks, etc. No, I have nothing to go on that Shinsei, formerly Stonewell Bellcom, and Northrom were working together on SW-X project, except that the two worked together on VF-1 and so did have a history. Alliances are made and broken all the time. Remember how we used to have Republic, North American, Curtis, Bell, McDonnel, Douglas, Lockheed, Boeing, Vought, Grumman and whoever else I'm forgetting, and now we have Boeing and Lockheed. Stuff happens.

All that said, I do like the VF-9 through VF-14 era. Interesting designs and probably the most interesting time in the story-line. Too bad it's under-developed. And who knows, maybe it does make sense to put it in that generation. I don't think it could be VF-10 (because '10' was taken by VF-X-10, which is clearly the VF-9), but it could be VF-12, VF-15 or VF-16, AFAIK. Then we could make a VF out of the F-22 (the Macross New Horizons project did, and they call it the VF-36 Thor, and I think it's way out of place there. No way is it more advanced than the VF-24/25/27/29)

TL; DR -- Yes, we all agree that they're non-canon and people should take anything written with a huge grain of salt and instead just use them however they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is precedent for re-using the VF-1 body multiple times over across the Macross Franchise. The 3000 and 5000 were both modifications on a tested formula. Sticking the SW-XAII in the timeframe right after the VF-9 might make sense, as that's a General Galaxy project. It could have been an attempt by Shinsei to produce something cheaper on a tested platform that could out-perform the 9. Then again it could still fit in as a prototype they did try to use to beat out General Galaxy with the VF-17 as the VF-1 has been used as the basis for the VF-4, 3000, 5000 and 11 and you could call this the last attempt with that stable air-frame before pushing on to the 19 design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information for the SW-XA fighters that appears on the Macross Mecha Manual is taken from the Egan's Macross Compendium under the SW-XA1 Schneeblume (http://macross.anime.net/wiki/SW-XA1_Schneeblume). Keep in mind the written trivia about the VF-X Experiment from Character Model magazine speaks in vague terms only about the SW-XA series and this trivia may relate more to the SW-XA1 Schneeblume than the SW-XA2 Schneegans. Regardless there isn't a lot of translated information on either and they are clearly designated as craft that are outside the official continuity. Think of them best as concept art work and treat them as such. So basically, any theory about them should be just as good as another :)

Personally, I feel both craft are very much a product of their era. They feel incredibly Macross Plus-like in their low-radar-cross-section hull designs and overall hull style. Both designs clearly borrow from pre-existing official Valkyries, most obviously the YF-19, VF-11, VF-17 and original VF-1 craft. But they don't feel anywhere outside of the 2040s era to my mind and may even be a little before that era. IMO, the SW-XA1 Schneeblume looks like what the VF-0 Phoenix might have been (or perhaps a proto-VF-11 Thunderbolt if the Thunderbolt never was) and the SW-XAII Schneegans looks like what the YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur could have been.

Edited by Mr March
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is precedent for re-using the VF-1 body multiple times over across the Macross Franchise. The 3000 and 5000 were both modifications on a tested formula. Sticking the SW-XAII in the timeframe right after the VF-9 might make sense, as that's a General Galaxy project. It could have been an attempt by Shinsei to produce something cheaper on a tested platform that could out-perform the 9. Then again it could still fit in as a prototype they did try to use to beat out General Galaxy with the VF-17 as the VF-1 has been used as the basis for the VF-4, 3000, 5000 and 11 and you could call this the last attempt with that stable air-frame before pushing on to the 19 design.

I am not sure about the "stability" assertion, forward swept wings by their nature are very unstable making for a very maneuverable aircraft, but I do follow your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you can be so bold as to say "no fan would accept..." I'm a fan. I see nothing wrong with the sw-xa being a re-done VF-1 (so much meta-story here... The VF-0 is clearly more advanced than the VF-1, even though it's older and not nearly as developed.

I can be "bold" based upon the discussions I've participated in and witnessed on these very boards. Some folks absolutely will not accept change of any kind.

I can accept the VF-0 seeming more advanced, and find the explanation for it to be sufficient. It carried all the technical bells and whistles the development team wanted to put in it as it function was as a technology test bed. It carried things that would be too expensive to make it into a production model fighter. Similarly the VF-19 didn't have as much gear as the YF-19 and the VF-22 didn't have all the tech found in the YF-21.

I do see your point, however.

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about the "stability" assertion, forward swept wings by their nature are very unstable making for a very maneuverable aircraft, but I do follow your logic.

I mean anything based off the VF-1 airframe is going to be rock-solid in terms of engineering because it's a well tested body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about the "stability" assertion, forward swept wings by their nature are very unstable making for a very maneuverable aircraft, but I do follow your logic.

That's incorrect, actually - foreward swept wings are comparable to straight and rear swept wings in most flight regimes and actually have better stability as they near a stall, because they do so from the root out rather than the tip in like conventional swept wings, and therefore do not suddenly make the aircraft try to roll toward the one that stalls first to nearly the same degree. The Grumman X-29 was notoriously unstable in flight because it was designed to be, with short-coupled control surfaces and a center of balance well off from its center of lift.

I myself flew a 6ft wingspan RC glider with a similar design to the Rutan Long-EZ but a FSW for several years, which I would horrify the other club members with by tossing it in a flat spin from one wingtip off the top of the hill, and then take control of after it corrected itself to stable flight. (It wouldn't ALWAYS do this, but as a foamie it was too durable to actually break on those occasions it crashed, until it piled in from a couple hundred feet due to radio failure on a gusty day.) I should reconstruct that plane, it was awesome and I have a car big enough to transport it again.

Edited by dialNforNinja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's incorrect, actually - foreward swept wings are comparable to straight and rear swept wings in most flight regimes and actually have better stability as they near a stall, because they do so from the root out rather than the tip in like conventional swept wings, and therefore do not suddenly make the aircraft try to roll toward the one that stalls first to nearly the same degree. The Grumman X-29 was notoriously unstable in flight because it was designed to be, with short-coupled control surfaces and a center of balance well off from its center of lift.

I myself flew a 6ft wingspan RC glider with a similar design to the Rutan Long-EZ but a FSW for several years, which I would horrify the other club members with by tossing it in a flat spin from one wingtip off the top of the hill, and then take control of after it corrected itself to stable flight. (It wouldn't ALWAYS do this, but as a foamie it was too durable to actually break on those occasions it crashed, until it piled in from a couple hundred feet due to radio failure on a gusty day.) I should reconstruct that plane, it was awesome and I have a car big enough to transport it again.

The SU-47 Berkut was also a forward swept wing configuration test aircraft. It is true that this configuration gave it more stability in certain situations as you assert, however, it's triplane configuration (three lifting surfaces) made it unstable in flight, as well as gave it its superior maneuverablity. The principal problem it had was that with its wingtips being at the leading edge, the wings tended to twist under load. Special composites were used to counter this twisting. The Russian PAK T-50 fighter is based upon the Berkut, but the forward swep wings were not incorporated into that design. The forward swept wings were not used in the PAK T-50, likely due to considerations regarding its stealth requirements.

Perhaps Kawamori learned of this wing twist issue, because the VF-19F and S models (space optimized) were configured with thicker non variable wings, whereas the A,C, Kai and P models kept the variable wing systems. I speculate this was to allow them to be used as air superiority fighters in atmospheric situations (not only because the A&C fighters were favored by fans :)). So the SW-XA2 would also have that atmospheric maneuvarabilty as well.

The VF-19A&C models also have "switch blade" type of variable wings apparently borrowed from Northrop's Switchblade fighter bomber project, where the wings could swing up to the forward sides of the fuselage. The Northrop Switchblade was the successor project to the X-29 fighter, but never left the drawing board.

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not familiar with the assertion it was developed post VF-11 and would like to know where you are referencing that from?

Kawamori's VF-Experiment column in Character Model magazine... the (explicitly non-canon) fluff provided indicated that all the Stealth Wing X work was done to create a companion craft to operate alongside the VF-17 Nightmare as an air superiority and defense fighter to complement the long range attack-oriented VF-17. The SW-XA I was built around a VF-1 airframe, while the SW-XA II was... not.

(Yes, slowpoke.jpg, but I hope the little clarity I can lend to this helps somewhat.)

In a VF-17 competition stealth would be a primary requirement, which the SW-AX II does not seem to have unless it took an "Active Stealth" approach to the VF-17's "Passive Stealth". However, no documentation exists to support that guess.

If its role was, as indicated, air superiority and area defense, it probably wouldn't need to worry about active or passive stealth as much as the Nightmare with its long range attack operational profile.

Edited by Seto Kaiba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kawamori's VF-Experiment column in Character Model magazine... the (explicitly non-canon) fluff provided indicated that all the Stealth Wing X work was done to create a companion craft to operate alongside the VF-17 Nightmare as an air superiority and defense fighter to complement the long range attack-oriented VF-17. The SW-XA I was built around a VF-1 airframe, while the SW-XA II was... not.

(Yes, slowpoke.jpg, but I hope the little clarity I can lend to this helps somewhat.)

Really? Even though the SW-XA II clearly shares all basic features and the same transformation. Or is that some sort of technicality and it's really based off of the 3000 or 5000 (which are VF-1 derivatives themselves.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Even though the SW-XA II clearly shares all basic features and the same transformation. Or is that some sort of technicality and it's really based off of the 3000 or 5000 (which are VF-1 derivatives themselves.)

You could call it a question of degree... when I said the SW-XA I Schneeblume was built around a VF-1 airframe, I did mean it quite literally. Take out all of the external passive stealth refinements to the skin and various system improvements and what you're left with is a bog-standard, almost entirely unmodified VF-1 airframe. If the Schneegans is based off a VF-1 airframe too, at least that saw some significant modification. The Schneeblume is basically just a VF-1 with a coat of black paint and some extra panels stitched on.

Edited by Seto Kaiba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could call it a question of degree... when I said the SW-XA I Schneeblume was built around a VF-1 airframe, I did mean it quite literally. Take out all of the external passive stealth refinements to the skin and various system improvements and what you're left with is a bog-standard, almost entirely unmodified VF-1 airframe. If the Schneegans is based off a VF-1 airframe too, at least that saw some significant modification. The Schneeblume is basically just a VF-1 with a coat of black paint and some extra panels stitched on.

Right, I agree. Just wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kawamori's VF-Experiment column in Character Model magazine... the (explicitly non-canon) fluff provided indicated that all the Stealth Wing X work was done to create a companion craft to operate alongside the VF-17 Nightmare as an air superiority and defense fighter to complement the long range attack-oriented VF-17. The SW-XA I was built around a VF-1 airframe, while the SW-XA II was... not.

(Yes, slowpoke.jpg, but I hope the little clarity I can lend to this helps somewhat.)

If its role was, as indicated, air superiority and area defense, it probably wouldn't need to worry about active or passive stealth as much as the Nightmare with its long range attack operational profile.

That would explain how they could be a contemporaries to the VF-17, but not part of its development competition. As escort fighters, based on established airframes, it explains the appearance of the aircraft and the era they would have seen service (non-canon of course).

Thanks Seto.

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photos of the Einerjhar still missing...

Don't expect to see them back. Had a pm discussion with Justiciar and he's rather litigation phobic regarding copyright issues. Though ithat doesn't explain his initial post at all l!

No amount of argument would sway him. I pointed to deviantart and pixiv forums and he was not to be moved. He kept referring back to Lucasfilm and Paramount's Star Trek under Bergman's reign...

Why post images of something you are so concerned of being sued over in the first place????

Just another mystery I guess.

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect to see them back. Had a pm discussion with Justiciar and he's rather litigation phobic regarding copyright issues. Though ithat doesn't explain his initial post at all l!

No amount of argument would sway him. I pointed to deviantart and pixiv forums and he was not to be moved. He kept referring back to Lucasfilm and Paramount's Star Trek under Bergman's reign...

Why post images of something you are so concerned of being sued over in the first place????

Just another mystery I guess.

That's not the reason he took them down and I can't/won't explain the reason....let's just say it's personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, straight from Sketchley's Macross Chronicle translations. Tried-and-true VF-1.

"SW-XAII Schneegans*
The SW-XAII is an air defence fighter aircraft developed based on a remodelled latter period VF-1 model originating in the "SWX", just like the SW-XAI. As its development was delayed more than the XAI, its engines and avionics are stronger ones than those in the XAI."

http://sketchleytranslation.host-ed.me/MCRgoods/05ValkyriesAppearInPubAndGam.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, straight from Sketchley's Macross Chronicle translations. Tried-and-true VF-1.

"SW-XAII Schneegans*

The SW-XAII is an air defence fighter aircraft developed based on a remodelled latter period VF-1 model originating in the "SWX", just like the SW-XAI. As its development was delayed more than the XAI, its engines and avionics are stronger ones than those in the XAI."

http://sketchleytranslation.host-ed.me/MCRgoods/05ValkyriesAppearInPubAndGam.php

They are obviously based upon the VF-1 air frame, the question became what the differences were besides the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

All that said, I do like the VF-9 through VF-14 era. Interesting designs and probably the most interesting time in the story-line. Too bad it's under-developed. And who knows, maybe it does make sense to put it in that generation. I don't think it could be VF-10 (because '10' was taken by VF-X-10, which is clearly the VF-9), but it could be VF-12, VF-15 or VF-16, AFAIK. Then we could make a VF out of the F-22 (the Macross New Horizons project did, and they call it the VF-36 Thor, and I think it's way out of place there. No way is it more advanced than the VF-24/25/27/29)

TL; DR -- Yes, we all agree that they're non-canon and people should take anything written with a huge grain of salt and instead just use them however they want.

Tho shed a little light on the VF-36 Thor, I think the creator intended to name it out of sequence in a similar situation to the real world F-35 Lightning II being named after it's X-35 equivalent. I'll have to ask and confirm.

Edited by Falconkpd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the F-22 and F-35 are out of sequence. I would suspect they are actual production models that made it past the official design phase. The US hasn't mass produced a new generation of fighter since the F-18 and they were first deployed in 1983. One could argue the F-18F Super Hornet is the last "new" production model built in the 90's, however the general design of the air frame is largely the same.

Edited by Zinjo
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...