AVF Upgrade Candidates

[GuardianGrey]

With resent reading of this thread, it does bring up a question set.

How important are internal missile/weapon stores?

With updating the design, if Active Stealth System is included, would not moving the weapon bays to wing pylons to facilitate newer turbines (& frame reinforcements that may be needed) make more sense for versatility?

An off example of this might be the VF-11B Thunderbolt Interceptor, since the VF-11C had the same turbines as the B-series and had internal stores in the legs.

Of course this brings up was the VF-0/VF-1 the only design that could fully transform into all 3-modes with wing stores in place?

Edited April 28, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Seto Kaiba]

I still don't know how you manage to keep all of this stuff straight, Seto.

A lot of different Macross sources tend to say the same thing in slightly different ways... once you've translated the same factoid in nine or ten different forms, it sticks with indecent tenacity.

How important are internal missile/weapon stores?

The generally unhelpful non-answer is "Anywhere from 'not at all' to 'essential' depending upon the fighter and mission in question".

With updating the design, if Active Stealth System is included, would not moving the weapon bays to wing pylons to facilitate newer turbines (& frame reinforcements that may be needed) make more sense for versatility?

An off example of this might be the VF-11B Thunderbolt Interceptor, since the VF-11C had the same turbines as the B-series and had internal stores in the legs.

Well... I suppose part of it is that active stealth isn't infallible, and becomes less effective as the power of the enemy radar increases, necessitating some measures to preserve passive stealth design.

Having internalized armaments also has the advantage of reducing drag, which I'd imagine would be a pretty vital consideration for aircraft that are as acrobatic and prone to sudden acceleration as the later generation VFs. (It'd probably also help with their flying near-hypersonic at ~10km.)

Of course this brings up was the VF-0/VF-1 the only design that could fully transform into all 3-modes with wing stores in place?

Nah... most can.

For oversized loads, they just leave the wings unfolded (e.g. VF-1 carrying UUM-7 pods or Super Valkyrie). The ones that can't, but don't also fully internalize their armaments, are pretty rare... seems to mostly be a FSW problem (except on the YF-29).

[Valkyrie Driver]

Seto, your comment about Active stealth being fallible, also brings a real world parallel into the mix. The argument against the US Military's direction of an almost all stealth air arsenal, is that stealth isn't required for every mission. Even the F35 (and I believe the F-22) have the capability to mount external stores, for added versatility. Now obviously this negates the stealth features of the aircraft (unless you use something like Boeing's External Weapons Pod, which is an option), which could be troublesome. The great thing about passive stealth features, is they're there when you need them, but if you don't need to be stealthy, you can just hang all the external stores on them that you need to get the job done. In fact some missions are difficult to perform with a stealth aircraft, SEAD being one, where you need radar lock to kill the air defense (You get the A/D radar to lock you up, and then you fire a HARM down its throat). If you need larger payload and stealth, and high speed, you can use the external weapons pod.

If I were to spec out a VF-19F for a ground attack mission it would go like this:

GU-15 Gun Pod

2x micromissile pallets in internal bays ( 12 HMM-20e missiles)

2x External Weapons pod loaded with SDBII's, or a triple rack with GBU-15's, Mk82's, or AGM-65's

2x Triple rack of AG-65's or Medium range air to air missiles

2x twin rail or anti radiation missiles or medium range air to air missiles (depending on the rest of the load out).

Obviously this would all end up in external weapons pods if stealth were required.

Also, what happens to the racks and rails on the wings when the fighter transforms? Do they tuck away somehow? Or do they eject them? Ejecting them seems like a waste.

Now next question up, I'm interested in the VF-19EF Caliburn, what exactly makes it a monkey model? According to the info I could find, it has the same thrust specs as the YF-19, obviously less than the E/F/S it was based on, but still it probably out guns and outruns the VF-171 (Maybe not the EX, which it would keep pace with). Is it just the ease of control and lower engine output that makes it a monkey model or is it something else that I"m not seeing?

[Seto Kaiba]

Seto, your comment about Active stealth being fallible, also brings a real world parallel into the mix. The argument against the US Military's direction of an almost all stealth air arsenal, is that stealth isn't required for every mission. Even the F35 (and I believe the F-22) have the capability to mount external stores, for added versatility.

There's a distinct nod to this in the Variable Fighter Master File: VF-22 Sturmvogel II book as well.

Also, what happens to the racks and rails on the wings when the fighter transforms? Do they tuck away somehow? Or do they eject them? Ejecting them seems like a waste.

On most VFs, there's enough clearance to keep the pylons in place... and it looks like that's probably still true for the VF-19. When the VF-19 transforms to battroid, the wings fold, and that fold puts the underside of the wing facing in towards the space behind the battroid's legs. The diagrams on page 076 of Variable Fighter Master File: VF-19 Excalibur bear this out, and from their art it looks like the VF-19's folded wings have enough clearance to leave the pylons in place.

Now next question up, I'm interested in the VF-19EF Caliburn, what exactly makes it a monkey model? According to the info I could find, it has the same thrust specs as the YF-19, obviously less than the E/F/S it was based on, but still it probably out guns and outruns the VF-171 (Maybe not the EX, which it would keep pace with). Is it just the ease of control and lower engine output that makes it a monkey model or is it something else that I"m not seeing?

Well, according to the specs and description published as part of Macross the Ride, the VF-19EF produced by the Macross Frontier fleet was an attempt to enhance the monkey model spec they'd been given for the VF-19E. It's mentioned that they had to produce their own local version of the airframe control AI and sensors... and that limiters were installed in several systems.

I'm sure it outruns and outmaneuvers the comparatively mild VF-171, though I'd wager the weapons are probably at the same level unless we're counting the Caliburn's usage of the GU-17 on a field test basis. The kicker, I'm sure, is that the VF-19EF is probably still more expensive to build, maintain, and operate than the Nightmare Plus.

[Andras]

I asked about missile pods for the VF-19 in the other thread, here's a VF-19 model with the VF-11 single pods under wing. I see "MML" in the last caption, are they saying those are missile pods?

http://wind.ap.teacup.com/eminence/1549.html

Edited April 29, 2015 by Andras

[Valkyrie Driver]

I think that's the gist of it, when I had google translate the page, it was really just a jumble of words. I can't really think what else they could be.

[Seto Kaiba]

I asked about missile pods for the VF-19 in the other thread, here's a VF-19 model with the VF-11B single pods under wing. I see "MML" in the last caption, are they saying those are missile pods?

Probably?

The actual statement (the last one at the bottom) just says that those are supposed to be VF-19E types with the F-type wing and "MML"... which I would assume to mean "Micro-Missile Launcher". That would appear to be the same micro-missile pod used in Macross the Ride¹ on the model for Anthony Clemens' VF-11C Thunderbolt Interceptor. If it adheres to the usual convention for micro-missile pods, it'd hold 24 micro-missiles (No. of ports x 3).

WRT your inquiry in the other thread about the device Master File refers to as the SPP-8 propelled mass driver pod, the only source that offers any commentary on it is toy manuals, which affirm the Master File identification. The SPP-8 does not appear to be a micro-missile launcher pod.

1. Macross the Ride's visual books identify the one on the VF-11C Thunderbolt Interceptor as a micro-missile launcher pod.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[Andras]

Do you know if there is any specific designation for those -11C pods?

Thanks again.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Those 19 variants were pretty dang cool. It seems to me that there isn't a ton of uniformity in many of the Variable fighters. I would think that there would have to be Block and Model designations very similar to the real world, or are many of these just custom jobs?

[Seto Kaiba]

Do you know if there is any specific designation for those -11C pods?

Thanks again.

Sadly, none that I am aware of.

Those 19 variants were pretty dang cool. It seems to me that there isn't a ton of uniformity in many of the Variable fighters. I would think that there would have to be Block and Model designations very similar to the real world, or are many of these just custom jobs?

Well, most VFs do have proper variant letters... and most of the 2050s era ones have a special designation section indicating what fleet or emigrant planet they belong to... though Master File does give production block numbers in detail for some of the covered craft. (Principally VF-1 and VF-19).

[Sildani]

Messiahs got block numbers as well in their Master File.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Ok, I guess there are tons of one off mods then. Most of what we know about fighter combat is rooted in atmosphere and gravity, and pilots do what's called "Flying the Egg", would it be a sphere in space since there is no gravity? Also, how do you think the attributes of the VF-19 would aid it against a fighter with superior thrust and maneuverability? Would they instead be a detriment?

[JB0]

Most of what we know about fighter combat is rooted in atmosphere and gravity, and pilots do what's called "Flying the Egg", would it be a sphere in space since there is no gravity?

It'd be, to my understanding, drastically and startlingly different.

While gravity is no longer a major concern, neither is drag. This has very significant effects on how your vehicle handles.

Constant thrust no longer equals constant speed. It now equals constant acceleration.

If you want to turn, it's not enough to get your vessel pointed the right way and let nature take it's course. You have to use thrust to cancel out the old flight vector as well as get you going on the new one, so you have to overturn sort-of.

It's not intuitive, but it's how it works. Basically, go play Asteroids for an hour or two, and you'll have a much better feel for it. And it's the most fun you can have while studying physics.

And if your engines die, you can't try to glide home unpowered. You simply cease to be the master of your fate.

Also, while not related to actually FLYING, on a clear day you can see for miles. Hundreds of thousands of miles. And it's ALWAYS a clear day. No horizon, no clouds. There's not near as many places to HIDE, but there's a lot more places to BE. That's GOTTA affect combat.

Macross typically animates planes in space as flying very similar to planes in atmosphere(engines burning constantly to maintain speed, sweeping banked turns, et cetera), but that's more because it LOOKS right than because it IS right.

[Seto Kaiba]

Ok, I guess there are tons of one off mods then.

Of the VF-19? Sort of... there are a lot of limited-production modifications and locally-produced versions of specific variants. There aren't many true "one-off" designs though.¹ The locally produced versions still get built by the dozens or the hundreds, like the -EF version built by the Frontier fleet², the Macross Galaxy fleet's VF-19C local spec³, or the VF-19A2 built for flight demonstration team use.

Most of what we know about fighter combat is rooted in atmosphere and gravity, and pilots do what's called "Flying the Egg", would it be a sphere in space since there is no gravity? Also, how do you think the attributes of the VF-19 would aid it against a fighter with superior thrust and maneuverability? Would they instead be a detriment?

Quite possibly, yes... we're not really given a ton of information on patrol circuits and so on for VF operations, esp. since the ranges attributed to shipboard and fighter-carried sensor systems are pretty significant... sometimes easily exceeding the practical range of fighters without fold boosters.

As far as the attributes of the VF-19 aiding it against an enemy with superior thrust and agility... that's a tough one. An enemy that has superior engine power and maneuverability is likely going to be either a next-gen VF with an ISC or something like the Feios Valkyrie. In most cases, the big advantage might be in ordinance carrying capacity (unless you're dealing with a VF-25, in which case all bets are off), since most of the super-high performance fighters exceeding the VF-19's capabilities tend to internalize their armaments and therefore carry less (or less variety).

1. The known "one-off" versions of the VF-19 are mostly evaluation craft built to field test new tactics and technologies. Basara Nekki's custom VF-19(F) was built to test equipment for "Project M", a UN Forces development program. Chelsea Scarlett's VF-19ACTIVE was built to test some of the hardware being developed for the YF/VF-25 Messiah. Isamu's is probably the only ace custom that was actually built to be a true ace custom... since it was built specifically for Isamu's use and to his specifications. Oscar Brauhitsch's VF-19A is a grey area, since that one is supposedly a mostly-stock VF-19A with later model engines... but is believed by some (in-series) to be an experimental aircraft for the VF-19's 2050s-era upgrade program.

2. The VF-19EF Caliburn, VF-19EFs Caliburn, and RVF-19EF Caliburn used by SMS and the NUNS Special Forces unit "Round Table", of which ~160 were built.

3. The VF-19C/MG21 Excalibur, a calculated "take that" aimed at Shinsei Industry if ever there was one... a technically superior VF-19 built by Shinsei's rival.

[Valkyrie Driver]

So later generation AVF's have less variety in weapons systems than the VF-19? That would mean that the VF-19 would have the edge in armaments, and likely have a greater chance of killing the opponent before they ever see a dogfight.

[Seto Kaiba]

So later generation AVF's have less variety in weapons systems than the VF-19? That would mean that the VF-19 would have the edge in armaments, and likely have a greater chance of killing the opponent before they ever see a dogfight.

They're pretty much on par when it comes to the variety (and modularity) of fixed, internal gun systems... it's missiles where the difference really comes into play.

On the Feios Valkyrie and most "5th Generation" VFs depicted so far, we don't really see a lot of armament versatility. The VF-22 has limited internal room the larger missiles, but is principally armed with guns and micro-missiles... barring the optional external body pylons in Master File. The Feios Valkyrie, VF-27, and YF-29 all go in for large numbers of micro-missiles but don't seem to have any concession to larger ordinance in common use. The YF-30 seems to have 2 or more pylons per wing but just never uses them. The VF-25's got either 6 or 8, depending on how official Master File's wing glove stations are.

So, against a newer, more agile opponent, a VF-19's best option might be to out-range them with HMM-111 or CHM-2 missiles.

[Andras]

It's not intuitive, but it's how it works. Basically, go play Asteroids for an hour or two, and you'll have a much better feel for it. And it's the most fun you can have while studying physics.

Or Kerbal Space Program.

https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/

[Valkyrie Driver]

So I just realized something. The thermonuclear reaction turbine engine is very similar to a number of technologies we have currently. Obviously the jet engine is the one it has the most in common with, but I was wondering, since it's shown in Macross Zero, does it also function like a pumpjet? Can a variable fighter function underwater as is shown in M0?

[JB0]

Actually... the VF-0 doesn't have a fusion turbine. It ALLEGEDLY uses jets.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Right, I was just wondering if other VF's had the capability it was shown having.

[JB0]

Presumably. Given they DON'T need air.

But I seriously can't think of a reason they couldn't use water for propulsion.

[Seto Kaiba]

So I just realized something. The thermonuclear reaction turbine engine is very similar to a number of technologies we have currently.

Well, it's similar to a number of technologies in theoretical development... and also contains the functionality of a number of things that already exist. The latter is very relevant to your question...

Obviously the jet engine is the one it has the most in common with, but I was wondering, since it's shown in Macross Zero, does it also function like a pumpjet?

The underwater battle scene in Macross Zero is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser in that we don't know how exactly they intended to get that bloody thing airborne again afterwards or if it had the necessary equipment to maneuver underwater since it didn't implement thermonuclear reaction turbine technology.

Normally, a VF would simply be able to use the MHD ion engine system that's built into every thermonuclear reaction engine as an aquatic MHD engine, and maneuver underwater using power from the reactor. Most likely, the VF would close the main intakes to protect the deactivated turbine blades while operating underwater.

Where it gets sticky is that, in Macross Zero, the VF-0 derives its propulsion from a pair of overtuned conventional jet engines... it may or may not have been outfitted with a separate MHD system to compensate for not having one built into the reaction turbine engines it was supposed to have had at that point. All we're told is that it can run for several minutes on power from the onboard capacitor banks when the engines are no longer supplying generator power. It's not really clear from the animation how much of Shin's underwater maneuvering is controlled "flight" and how much is simply drifting on the momentum he'd built up in the dive to attack the Octos. It does, however, appear that he may have been using the VF-0's Shinnakasu ARR-2 rocket sub-engines (in the "backpack") as a propulsion system after transforming to battroid mode in the fight... the rockets are definitely lit when we see him escape from the fight and head toward the surface.

Can a variable fighter function underwater as is shown in M0?

Per spec., the VF-1 Valkyrie was able to operate underwater to a depth of 100m (328ft).

Spec. gives the VF-0 a maximum underwater operating depth of 20m (65.5ft).

Macross VF-X2 had a specialized underwater variant of the VA-3 Invader.

Actually... the VF-0 doesn't have a fusion turbine. It ALLEGEDLY uses jets.

EGF-127 turbofan jet engines, yeah... whether or not they have a separate MHD for underwater use run off the generators and/or capacitors is unknown.

[JB0]

I just felt the underwater sequence was really weird for a canonically air-breathing mech.

I do admit that I forgot about the backpack rockets being, well, rockets, and thus anaerobic.

[GuardianGrey]

Ah, the VA-3M, the only cannon artwork for an aquatic & flying VF.

The only prior thoughts on was the VF-5, though the VA-3M has it beat by also having a submersible mode.

Other than having to deal with the danger/strain of re-entry, most VF only have to deal with atmospheric pressures from 0-25 PSI.

Then the turbines underwater, the thermonuclear ones are easy.

The EGF-127 might have been able to operate without air intake if the fuel was already oxygenated (usually in dragster hydro-methane, as an example) &/or (as being preproduction models that may have had) the MHD that broke down the water to hydrogen & oxygen for the turbines to use.

Edgar (I believe) commented that the VF-0 could operate underwater for up to 15 minutes (after Shin griped about him landing/floppy the VF-0D into the water). Though the intakes were supposedly closed to allow such actions, so it would lead to the oxygenated fuel mix (turbines used like rockets) theory (which, in turn would probably use up the fuel faster.

Edit Additional Post Script

I just read your bit, Seto Kaiba, and that also makes sense on the MHD unit.

Usually, most preproduction models have majority (>60%) of the production parts/systems.

Edited May 11, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[GuardianGrey]

I did have an additional thought on the subject of turbines.

Is the thrust ratings for the ground tests (mounted into a frame) and aircraft the same?

I do know/understand that there are different models of the same type of turbine (FF-2001 compared to FF-2001D), though can't comprehend why there would be a difference between bench and actual use of the same model.

Edited May 13, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Seto Kaiba]

Is the thrust ratings for the ground tests (mounted into a frame) and aircraft the same?

As far as I know, all of the thrust figures that've been quoted to us WRT thermonuclear reaction turbine performance are for the engine mounted on the aircraft itself.

[Valkyrie Driver]

So it is possible, but that function would not be used often if ever if the pilot could prevent it?

[Seto Kaiba]

So it is possible, but that function would not be used often if ever if the pilot could prevent it?

On the VF-0? Yeah, I think that's a fair summation.

With a maximum operating depth of just a few dozen feet and without a power plant capable of running underwater, the limited lifespan of the VF-0's capacitors would probably be enough to put all but the most daring or suicidal pilots off the idea of taking a swim. They'd have only a few minutes to surface and to restart the engines to avoid their dive becoming a one-way trip to the ocean floor.

[Valkyrie Driver]

You know the saying about old pilots and bold pilots right?

I need to go back a bit:

Normally, a VF would simply be able to use the MHD ion engine system that's built into every thermonuclear reaction engine as an aquatic MHD engine, and maneuver underwater using power from the reactor. Most likely, the VF would close the main intakes to protect the deactivated turbine blades while operating underwater.

You're talking about a Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster right? It's not a stretch to sub water for ionized gas, as it is essentially the same technology, but are you saying that in space the TN turbine functions as a MPD thruster? If that's the case, and I have to assume it is, where is the fighter fusing the reaction mass? Is it further up in the engine, where the burner cans in a traditional jet engine would be? Is the fighter using a premixed Tritium/Deuterium slurry for fuel? Or does it have an intermix chamber before it injects it to the engine? How does it prevent radiation from being ejected into the atmosphere with the superheated air?

[Seto Kaiba]

You're talking about a Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster right?

More of a Hall-effect magnetohydrodynamic thruster, but yes...

It's not a stretch to sub water for ionized gas, as it is essentially the same technology, but are you saying that in space the TN turbine functions as a MPD thruster?

We got a few real-world examples as I indicated via that link... but, yes, sort of.

To be precise, it's a sort of a hybrid of fusion rocket and magnetohydrodynamic plasma ion thruster system... which will seem uncannily familiar if you're at all familiar with the technology of Star Trek, because impulse engines work on the same basic principles. The plasma stream produced by the engine's reaction power system powers (and is further accelerated by) the MHD plasma ion thruster near the rear of the engine.

If that's the case, and I have to assume it is, where is the fighter fusing the reaction mass? Is it further up in the engine, where the burner cans in a traditional jet engine would be?

More or less, yeah... the diagrams in Sky Angels and Variable Fighter Master File show cutaways of thermonuclear reaction engines that look like variations on a low-bypass turbofan jet engine, just with the thermonuclear reaction power system situated directly behind (or partly overlapping with) the high-pressure stage of the compressor, so that plasma is bled directly into what would be the combustion chamber. Later engine designs show the "combustion" stage as having a few concentric "rings" of heat-exchange surface area. The MHD system is usually situated in or near the tail end of the turbine shaft.

Is the fighter using a premixed Tritium/Deuterium slurry for fuel? Or does it have an intermix chamber before it injects it to the engine? How does it prevent radiation from being ejected into the atmosphere with the superheated air?

By all accounts, the preferred fuel is hydrogen slush for a hydrogen-hydrogen reaction... one of the benefits of the thermonuclear reaction overtechnology is it's easy to maintain reactions like that in the plasma state, and they don't produce harmful radiation.

[Mommar]

By all accounts, the preferred fuel is hydrogen slush for a hydrogen-hydrogen reaction... one of the benefits of the thermonuclear reaction overtechnology is it's easy to maintain reactions like that in the plasma state, and they don't produce harmful radiation.

Mmm, slush! I like mine flavored raspberry... I have nothing useful to contribute.

[JB0]

Canonically, I think the VFs can fuse raspberry...

[Gubaba]

I think you're thinking of the blueberry jam from My Fair Minmay...

[Valkyrie Driver]

Mmm, slush! I like mine flavored raspberry... I have nothing useful to contribute.

Great, now I want a raspberry slush... Thanks a lot...

[JB0]

No, they showed 'em loading the raspberry jelly jars intd the Valkyries in Macross: New Generation!