AVF Upgrade Candidates

[grigolosi]

That is true what Driver said. The use of MER pylons would allow the aircraft to carry multiple weapons on one hardpoint but in the SMS (stores management system) it would only register as one hardpoint but would show multiple weapons loaded on it. I can imagine the RMS and MDE missiles though large are actually lighter or equal in weight too the modern 1-2000 lb bomb.

Edited August 4, 2015 by grigolosi

[Seto Kaiba]

Just because it's one hardpoint, doesn't mean it's only one station. It is possible that the wings and hardpoints might be able to support more weight (like the F-15E, or F-16XL).

True... though, with VF's, weight seems to be less a concern than the physical size of the munitions being carried.

(vs. a F-14, the VF-1 had approximately 1.65x the per-pylon loading limit.)

With the known pylon arrangements for fighters of its generation, the only way I could possibly see the YF-30 carrying heavier armament than a VF-25 would be if its pylons had wider spacing... allowing it to go two-a-pylon on RMS-7's, or carry four PaCSWS-1G's or Dimension Cutters.

That is true what Driver said. The use of MER pylons would allow the aircraft to carry multiple weapons on one hardpoint but in the SMS (stores management system) it would only register as one hardpoint but would show multiple weapons loaded on it. I can imagine the RMS and MDE missiles though large are actually lighter or equal in weight too the modern 1-2000 lb bomb.

The only reaction missile for which a stated weight is given is the RMS-1, which is about 348lb heavier than a Mk.84.

[grigolosi]

The Mk-84's actual weight is roughly 1900-2000lb (this weight is located on the bomb itself in yellow print). The weights of the bomb varies depending on the weight of the fuse, fins, and guidance system and adding the 945 lbs of of Tritanol explosive. 1000/2000 lb is the general weight description given for their classifications. So the 2 are fairly close weight wise.

Munition size and ejection spread area do determine how of any type can be loaded. The TER rack used on the F-16 is limited to 2 bombs, one loaded on the bottom and the other on the outboard postion. Any bomb loaded on the inboard position can strike the external fuel tank when punched off so that position is not used unless it is a maverick loadout.

[Seto Kaiba]

The Mk-84's actual weight is roughly 1900-2000lb (this weight is located on the bomb itself in yellow print). The weights of the bomb varies depending on the weight of the fuse, fins, and guidance system and adding the 945 lbs of of Tritanol explosive. 1000/2000 lb is the general weight description given for their classifications. So the 2 are fairly close weight wise.

OK, definitely should've qualified that... I based that on the 2,039lb published mass of the Mk.84 under normal conditions. The RMS-1's weight is only given in one source (the old Sky Angels book), but it's given as 2,387lb.

Munition size and ejection spread area do determine how of any type can be loaded. The TER rack used on the F-16 is limited to 2 bombs, one loaded on the bottom and the other on the outboard postion. Any bomb loaded on the inboard position can strike the external fuel tank when punched off so that position is not used unless it is a maverick loadout.

Munition size is a factor, but mercifully only in terms of the possibility of ejected missiles striking other hung ordinance and the ability to retain that ordinance with the wings folded in battroid mode... external fuel tanks having become largely unnecessary thanks to the adoption of thermonuclear reaction turbine engines.

Very few VF-carried missiles and bombs are so large that multiples can't be hung from a single pylon... but reaction missiles, para-cruising stealth warheads, and dimension cutters all seem to fall into that category under normal conditions.

[Valkyrie Driver]

The VF-1 could carry 2 RMS-1's on one hardpoint (total loadout of 6 missiles), so nothing says a YF-30 couldn't do the same with newer generation missiles. Also, Grig, the problem you described occurred on the B-52 as well, with putting TERs on the wing stations. They disabled the inboard ejector, so the bomb would just drop from the station rather than eject. I'm sure there were instances where they did the same with the F-16 (I'm pretty sure I've seen fully loaded TERs on F-16s in pictures, don't remember where, it might be a local policy to only load 2 bombs, or I'm mistaken).

There are ejector racks that are tandem TERs. To me it looks like there is enough space that you could mount tandem DERs (4 missiles 2x2) of reaction missiles and one Dimension cutter outboard. The Dimension cutter would be too big, I think, to do a DER or tandem arrangement. The Tandem arrangement would likely be an inboard thing only, as there's enough wing area to support that pylon.

The way everyone wants to pose the missile pack, that is transverse to the axis of motion, feels weird to me, I'd position the pod along the central axis, with the missiles firing to the sides, similar to the way the Q-Rau/Q-Rhea and GBP sets do it. With the missiles being all high maneuverability (compared to, say, an AIM-9) this wouldn't pose much of a problem, except maybe in atmo, but then you'd have all that drag to worry about instead.

That's why I felt the YF-30 seems to lend itself to that thinking, maybe not as much as the VF-27 with it's BFG, but close.

[Seto Kaiba]

The VF-1 could carry 2 RMS-1's on one hardpoint (total loadout of 6 missiles), so nothing says a YF-30 couldn't do the same with newer generation missiles.

The VF-1 did, yes... but oddly none of the fighters that came after it seem to have the capability. Even the VF-25's hardpoint & weapon set diagram shows only one RMS-7 per station (and the even larger PaCSWS-1G's and Dimension Cutters need to be spaced out to every other hardpoint normally). If the stations are spaced wider than they normally are, it'd be workable IMO... though the RMS-5 and RMS-7 are both a good deal larger than the old RMS-1.

The Dimension cutter would be too big, I think, to do a DER or tandem arrangement. The Tandem arrangement would likely be an inboard thing only, as there's enough wing area to support that pylon.

The Dimension Cutter is so large that Master File has it at "not more than 1 per wing".

The way everyone wants to pose the missile pack, that is transverse to the axis of motion, feels weird to me, [...]

That's the way it is in Macross 30.

That's why I felt the YF-30 seems to lend itself to that thinking, maybe not as much as the VF-27 with it's BFG, but close.

The VF-27 isn't an anti-ship attack specialist craft either... it's a super-high performance dogfighter with almost exclusively short-range weaponry (and, officially, a victim of crippling overspecialization).

[grigolosi]

Driver you will see publicity pics of the F-16's loaded with 3 per TER but for actual combat they are restricted to 2 per TER due to the air turbulence in that area when the bomb is pickled, it causes the bomb to push out toward the tank. CBU's are definitely limited to 2 since they spin upon jettisoning.

Also is that in zero G the RMS and MDE's jettison and then the motor fires. A rail would make more sense for both of them but due to their size when loading, sliding them onto one would be difficult. I only included the F-16 info as an example of why some munitions would be limited in numbers on the pylons. But like you said since ext tanks are not used on VF's unless you count the Super Packs, which sit out of the way anyway, the biggest danger would be the munitions possibly striking other mounted ordinance upon pickling. I noticed in MF when both RMS's and MDE's were used they would push downward due to the ejector feet. If they did this while being mounted side by side on the pylon with loaded pylons on either side things could get ugly really quick.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Driver you will see publicity pics of the F-16's loaded with 3 per TER but for actual combat they are restricted to 2 per TER due to the air turbulence in that area when the bomb is pickled, it causes the bomb to push out toward the tank. CBU's are definitely limited to 2 since they spin upon jettisoning.

Also is that in zero G the RMS and MDE's jettison and then the motor fires. A rail would make more sense for both of them but due to their size when loading, sliding them onto one would be difficult. I only included the F-16 info as an example of why some munitions would be limited in numbers on the pylons. But like you said since ext tanks are not used on VF's unless you count the Super Packs, which sit out of the way anyway, the biggest danger would be the munitions possibly striking other mounted ordinance upon pickling. I noticed in MF when both RMS's and MDE's were used they would push downward due to the ejector feet. If they did this while being mounted side by side on the pylon with loaded pylons on either side things could get ugly really quick.

Who's to say they're still using the same jammers that we are today... Maybe they have more precision...

[grigolosi]

I wouldn't doubt that Driver. Hell they more than likely don't even use impulse carts for weapons jettison. I know on Macross Plus I did see a jammer being used in one of the scenes where the YF-22 was in the hangar.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Tandem Double Ejector Racks makes a bit more sense than rails though, as the last thing you want is to bathe the front of the aft missile in flame from the rocket exhaust and compromise the missile.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Does anyone have any theories as to what the additional shoulder pieces on the VF-19 Advance super parts are supposed to be? Some thoughts are that they're missile bays, but they look a bit shallow to be that.

[Seto Kaiba]

Does anyone have any theories as to what the additional shoulder pieces on the VF-19 Advance super parts are supposed to be? Some thoughts are that they're missile bays, but they look a bit shallow to be that.

What I have isn't exactly a theory... I'd call it an educated guess/probable answer.

The YF-19/VF-19 1st Mass Production Type's conformal FAST packs have a pack with an almost identical configuration in that same placement. It's a conformal fuel tank (NP-FB-FA07 conformal fuel tank). This looks like a slightly modified/enlarged NP-FB-FA07 tank.

[Valkyrie Driver]

What I have isn't exactly a theory... I'd call it an educated guess/probable answer.

The YF-19/VF-19 1st Mass Production Type's conformal FAST packs have a pack with an almost identical configuration in that same placement. It's a conformal fuel tank (NP-FB-FA07 conformal fuel tank). This looks like a slightly modified/enlarged NP-FB-FA07 tank.

Just so we're on the same page, I was talking about the ones that go on top of the shoulders, not the ones that go on the end.

[Seto Kaiba]

Just so we're on the same page, I was talking about the ones that go on top of the shoulders, not the ones that go on the end.

They're directly over an active airflow control inlet... so probably more fuel tanks, or if not, then just armor for the inlet.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[Valkyrie Driver]

They're directly over an active airflow control inlet... so probably more fuel tanks, or if not, then just armor for the inlet.

Possibly enhanced sensors? So that they're actually Fuel And Sensor Tactical packs?

[Seto Kaiba]

Possibly enhanced sensors? So that they're actually Fuel And Sensor Tactical packs?

That'd be a pretty useless place to put sensors, IMO... though it's noted that, in Macross, FAST's meaning changed to Fuel, Arms*, and Sensors Tactical. Just about any bolt-on augmentation pack in Macross has several sensors built in, even if they're just for posture control or to function in place of body sensors that ended up being covered by the pack. The sensors are often the means to an end, rather than the end itself, but they're there.

The position of the pack in question (esp. its proximity to a known conformal fuel tank) and its connection to the same active airflow inlet that the conformal tank on the opposite side is, suggests to me that it's the same old song and dance the UN Forces have been doing since the First Space War... inlets unnecessary to space flight get stuffed with additional fuel bladders to extend range.

* In the "weapons" sense, not limbs.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I suppose that makes sense. The 19 supposedly didn't need additional boosters, and in fact since it didn't have the ISC system (to my knowledge it never gained it either), boosters would only strain the pilot correct? I mean the thrust to weight ratio is already up there, I mean the VF-17 produced more thrust, but it had more mass to push so that makes sense. The VF-25 produces ridiculous amounts of thrust, more than twice what the Y/VF-19A/B/C/D did ( at least according to Macross Mecha Manual). It has the ISC system, so it's handled, but unmodified that amount of thrust would crush any normal human pilot right? So Why boosters on the VF-19Advance (aside from the rule of cool)?

[Seto Kaiba]

The 19 supposedly didn't need additional boosters, [...]

True, the VF-19 doesn't actually need the additional thrust of a booster system... but there are other advantages beyond raw acceleration.

and in fact since it didn't have the ISC system (to my knowledge it never gained it either), boosters would only strain the pilot correct? I mean the thrust to weight ratio is already up there, I mean the VF-17 produced more thrust, but it had more mass to push so that makes sense.

Well, yes... the excess acceleration from a booster (unless accompanied by reductions in main engine thrust output, would most certainly put additional strain on an already overstressed pilot. Isamu is definitely an above-average fighter pilot, but even his fleshy meats have limits.

(Also, the VF-17 only produced more thrust vs. the initial YF-19 turbine... subsequent engines solved that.)

The VF-25 produces ridiculous amounts of thrust, more than twice what the Y/VF-19A/B/C/D did ( at least according to Macross Mecha Manual). It has the ISC system, so it's handled, but unmodified that amount of thrust would crush any normal human pilot right? So Why boosters on the VF-19Advance (aside from the rule of cool)?

Unmodified, the kind of instantaneous acceleration you get from a 3,240kN kick in the pants (at a T/W ratio of 39) would do all kinds of horrifically unpleasant things to the pilot... just imagine what a YF-30's 4220kN at 53, or YF-29's 7,150kN at 61 would do!

My assumption WRT the VF-19EF/A "ADVANCE" using the SPS-25 Super Pack booster elements would be the redonkulous amount of missiles that supposedly were crammed into the launcher assembly (90 a side, per Master File) or range extension in space. Macross Chronicle has absolutely nothing to say on that front.

[JB0]

Just about any bolt-on augmentation pack in Macross has several sensors built in, even if they're just for posture control or to function in place of body sensors that ended up being covered by the pack. The sensors are often the means to an end, rather than the end itself, but they're there.

Fuel level sensors. So they can be technically correct without providing any meaningful information in the name.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I actually kind of like T-rex's take on the auxiliary intake covers, that they're missile pods, just because the VF-25's super parts added so many missiles, and the base YF-19 packs didn't add that much in the way of additional armaments. More missiles would definitely put the Armaments into Fuel, Armaments (I know you said Arms but this sounds better and more military), Sensor, Tactical packs.

I'm just going to imagine additional Missiles, and targeting sensors for those missiles, and some enhanced EW capability.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I'm also curious about the VF-19P when did it get the internal missile launcher ports? Is that a pallet modification or an airframe modification?

[Seto Kaiba]

I actually kind of like T-rex's take on the auxiliary intake covers, that they're missile pods, just because the VF-25's super parts added so many missiles, and the base YF-19 packs didn't add that much in the way of additional armaments.

...

...

...

That makes no sense at all. The panels covering the front of the VF-19's dorsal active airflow inlet are too small to hold more than maybe one missile... it hardly seems worth the effort to add one or two missiles to an area better suited to fuel tanks, especially in light of the wing-mounted packs already holding something like 180 missiles!

The conformal FAST packs used by the YF-19 and VF-19 1st mass production type were designed to expand the VF-19's weapon and fuel capacity without sacrificing passive stealth. Even so, it still doubled the VF-19's internal weapons capacity. Packs like the VF-19 2nd mass production type's or the VF-25's throw passive stealth to the wind in favor of carting along roughly enough micro-ordinance to blow up an entire battalion.

More missiles would definitely put the Armaments into Fuel, Armaments (I know you said Arms but this sounds better and more military), Sensor, Tactical packs.

... so, the 180 missiles the VF-19EF/A (ADVANCE)'s FAST packs are already carrying wasn't armament enough to justify the A in FAST?

I'm just going to imagine additional Missiles, and targeting sensors for those missiles, and some enhanced EW capability.

The pack in question is way, WAY too small for all that... probably way too small for any one of those.

I'm also curious about the VF-19P when did it get the internal missile launcher ports? Is that a pallet modification or an airframe modification?

There isn't a lot of coverage of the VF-19P in general, but from what little has been said it seems pretty definite that it's a change to the airframe itself. The VF-19P was the first "monkey model" export variant to appear in Macross, and exchanging the pallets for a internal micro-missile launcher seems to have been one of several modifications made to the VF-19's 2nd mass production type to reduce its combat capability.

(Master File mentions other decreases in capability coming from functional restrictions added to the avionics and changes to make the target discovery for the micro-missiles launchers take longer.)

[Valkyrie Driver]

That makes no sense at all. The panels covering the front of the VF-19's dorsal active airflow inlet are too small to hold more than maybe one missile... it hardly seems worth the effort to add one or two missiles to an area better suited to fuel tanks, especially in light of the wing-mounted packs already holding something like 180 missiles!

I was just saying I liked the idea, not that it was the gospel truth. It's probably fuel like you said, or possibly some kind of electronics suite to make up for the Super large boosters in the advance pack. You seem convinced that it's fuel, but there's conformal tanks on the legs, and the tanks on the trailing edges of the shoulders, how much fuel could those really add, and wouldn't adding extra capability like enhanced EW, or targeting for the external armament packs be a better idea? They could be multi purpose stations, with hook ups for either fuel or sensors. Fact is, the intake is now blocked, and so is the exhaust so who's really to say?

The conformal FAST packs used by the YF-19 and VF-19 1st mass production type were designed to expand the VF-19's weapon and fuel capacity without sacrificing passive stealth. Even so, it still doubled the VF-19's internal weapons capacity. Packs like the VF-19 2nd mass production type's or the VF-25's throw passive stealth to the wind in favor of carting along roughly enough micro-ordinance to blow up an entire battalion.

I like ordnance. I'd tend to think the VF-19 advanced pack is probably scalable. You could probably do without the boosters if you need more armaments without sacrificing the stealth characteristics, or add the boosters if you're on a balls out attack run.The advance pack in general is probably a versatile set, meaning you could fit it out for numerous missions.

... so, the 180 missiles the VF-19EF/A (ADVANCE)'s FAST packs are already carrying wasn't armament enough to justify the A in FAST?

I meant in relation to the base YF-19 style packs.

There isn't a lot of coverage of the VF-19P in general, but from what little has been said it seems pretty definite that it's a change to the airframe itself. The VF-19P was the first "monkey model" export variant to appear in Macross, and exchanging the pallets for a internal micro-missile launcher seems to have been one of several modifications made to the VF-19's 2nd mass production type to reduce its combat capability.

So you're saying the VF-19A/B/C/D didn't have the capability of mounting internal micro-missile launchers, or that those launchers were palletized? By second mass production type do you mean the VF-19E/F/S?

[Seto Kaiba]

It's probably fuel like you said, or possibly some kind of electronics suite to make up for the Super large boosters in the advance pack.

Kind of a weird place to put such a thing, since its line of sight anywhere other than directly up would be blocked by the packs and directly forward is already covered by multiple camera systems and the radar.

You seem convinced that it's fuel, but there's conformal tanks on the legs, and the tanks on the trailing edges of the shoulders, how much fuel could those really add, [...]

What else could they realistically be? They're not large enough to contain weapons systems, the placement is between awful and redundant for sensors, and there's not really a need to up-armor that area. The only logical explanation I can imagine for it is that they're an expansion of the conformal tank through the unused (in space) dorsal inlet the way Master File asserts the VF-1 did for range extension in space.

I like ordnance. I'd tend to think the VF-19 advanced pack is probably scalable. You could probably do without the boosters if you need more armaments without sacrificing the stealth characteristics, or add the boosters if you're on a balls out attack run.The advance pack in general is probably a versatile set, meaning you could fit it out for numerous missions.

Without the boosters, you just have something pretty much identical to the YF-19/VF-19 1st type conformal FAST pack.

With the boosters, that's explicitly true... they're known to be every bit as versatile (possibly more so) than the VF-1's FAST packs, with Super, Strike, missile container, extended fuel, and other variants.

So you're saying the VF-19A/B/C/D didn't have the capability of mounting internal micro-missile launchers, or that those launchers were palletized? By second mass production type do you mean the VF-19E/F/S?

The VF-19's 1st and 2nd mass production types had micro-missile pallets for the leg bays... the sole known exception being on the VF-19P, where the ordinance bay was replaced by a stock micro-missile launcher.

By "1st Mass Production type" I mean the VF-19 variants based directly upon the YF-19 prototype... the VF-19A, -B, -C, -D, and/or VF-19E if Macross 30's VF-19E is the "true" VF-19E (which would be consistent with most of what's said in Macross Chronicle WRT the VF-19 Custom's origins vs. Master File's version).

By "2nd Mass Production type" I mean the VF-19 variants developed and produced based on Shinsei's refinement and simplification of the design to improve control, stability, and optimize the design for space use... the VF-19F, -S, -P, Custom, and derivatives of the 2nd type (e.g. VF-19EF Caliburn, VF-19ACTIVE "Nothung", and VF-19EF/A "Excalibur ADVANCE").

[Gubaba]

I guess approaching everything "with an air of confidence" isn't good enough, sometimes...

[Valkyrie Driver]

With the boosters, that's explicitly true... they're known to be every bit as versatile (possibly more so) than the VF-1's FAST packs, with Super, Strike, missile container, extended fuel, and other variants.

I'd be interested in seeing what a strike version of the Frontier boosters look like.

[Seto Kaiba]

I'd be interested in seeing what a strike version of the Frontier boosters look like.

If you have a copy, there's some line art for the Strike and extended-range packs on page 77 of Variable Fighter Master File: VF-25 Messiah.

Three different trial variations of the NP-FAD-23's beam cannon option packs... one originally intended for atmospheric use.

(The majority unfortunately only exist in text descriptions, same as the VF-1's.)

Edited August 10, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[Mr March]

I'd be interested in seeing what a strike version of the Frontier boosters look like.

Would ya, now?

[Valkyrie Driver]

Would ya, now?

You, sir are amazing!

[Mommar]

My assumption WRT the VF-19EF/A "ADVANCE" using the SPS-25 Super Pack booster elements would be the redonkulous amount of missiles that supposedly were crammed into the launcher assembly (90 a side, per Master File) or range extension in space. Macross Chronicle has absolutely nothing to say on that front.

I have a question about this Seto. I can't read the text but looking at the cutaway and doing some basic math they're showing a lot more than 90 missiles per assembly in the MF book on page 76. Skimming over the text I see where it says 90 (though I can't read it so I'm only assuming it's talking about the missiles there), but they show twenty missiles, 4x5, in a row of 8 stacked 2 high in the cutaway. That's 320 total per pack. Their text and art don't correspond at all.

[sketchley]

I have a question about this Seto. I can't read the text but looking at the cutaway and doing some basic math they're showing a lot more than 90 missiles per assembly in the MF book on page 76. Skimming over the text I see where it says 90 (though I can't read it so I'm only assuming it's talking about the missiles there), but they show twenty missiles, 4x5, in a row of 8 stacked 2 high in the cutaway. That's 320 total per pack. Their text and art don't correspond at all.

Is that Pg 076? One of the few things I translated on that page... http://www.monkeybacon.host-ed.me/OTvfmf/VFMFvf25messiah.php#FAST

[Seto Kaiba]

I have a question about this Seto. I can't read the text but looking at the cutaway and doing some basic math they're showing a lot more than 90 missiles per assembly in the MF book on page 76. Skimming over the text I see where it says 90 (though I can't read it so I'm only assuming it's talking about the missiles there), but they show twenty missiles, 4x5, in a row of 8 stacked 2 high in the cutaway. That's 320 total per pack. Their text and art don't correspond at all.

Yeah, that's an acknowledged problem more than a lot of folks have noticed with the NP-FAD-23 art in Master File.

The caption on the image says the Bifors CIMM-3A micro-missile option pack holds a maximum of 90 HMM-25 micro-missiles. Though there is no official stat for the CIMM-3A's capacity in Macross Chronicle or any other source that leaps to mind, the 90 fits better with the other official information about the VF-25. If it has 686 micro-missiles, that would give the VF-25's Super Pack WAY more firepower than the Armored Pack (allegedly the most heavily armed FAST pack). The 90 per CIMM-3A figure gives the VF-25 Super Pack a total of 226, less than the Armored Pack's 244 (274 if you count its anti-armor rockets).

[Valkyrie Driver]

So begging the question, How many missiles do the CFT/CWB hold on the 1st Gen VF-19 packs? and assuming the 180 missile figure is correct, the would be 180+? for a total of how many missiles?

I really like the idea of the Frontier style Strike parts, especially on the VF-19Advance, because missiles alone are not enough, sometimes you just need bigger guns...

[Mr March]

You, sir are amazing!

You're most welcome.

When writing the mecha profiles, I do often think about missile counts in Macross. I wonder though, are the increase in missile counts from old valkyries to the latest valkyries entirely an in-universe development? For sure, advancement of technology and a general increase in the size of the variable fighter (and perhaps decrease in missile size) means more missiles can be loaded per valkyrie. But I think outside the Macross universe - on the production side of the Macross animated films and series - the introduction of computer modelling may have had an impact upon missile counts. Rather than "guessing" how many missiles might fit into a particular hold, CG models of the various mecha in Macross would allow for exact volume allowance because of the exact physical dimensions of each model. Of course, they could still cheat if they wanted, but the option to attain a more precise volume measurement would naturally allow for optimization.

[Mommar]

Would ya, now?

I can't read any of it but 1, 3 and 4 are fairly obvious. But what is 2? is that an atmospheric version or something?