Bandai DX VF-31

[seti88]

That's fine, let them work out the kinks with the regular 31's first

I have a feeling the 171 may be released first too tho as bandai has an option of just repainting the existing 171ex'ses....let the 31A be the last cherry on the top

Or even an armored 31A as the cherry!

[Saburo]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

jk, now we can save up

i'm with you guys

Thanks for reminding me. I gotta rewatch it again so I can enjoy this season even more.

Its going to be a crazy new season...

The other, most important reason why I don't mind a wait - and that's for Bandai to take their time and get these right the first time.

-b.

Exactly. I got back into Macross collecting when the Renewals were out so I was lucky to avoid the v1 Frontier Valks...

[Sandman]

That's fine, let them work out the kinks with the regular 31's first

I have a feeling the 171 may be released first too tho as bandai has an option of just repainting the existing 171ex'ses....let the 31A be the last cherry on the top

Or even an armored 31A as the cherry!

You're probably right but man it'll probably 2018 before we see a 31A. Who knows what can happen by then. I could be out of the hobby.

[Scyla]

I wonder if Bandai will release transforming toys other than the Valkyries. I would be all up for a Renewal Macross Quarter.

[IXTL]

http://hobby.dengeki.com/event/180838/

[Bub]

The character standees are acrylic stand key holders.

http://tamashii.jp/special/macross/

Chibi versions I saw up close this afternoon. Makina is extra cute.

[anime52k8]

I wonder if Bandai will release transforming toys other than the Valkyries. I would be all up for a Renewal Macross Quarter.

I kind of doubt bandai would revisit the quarter since the original didn't sell very well at all. Of course I also kind of think the original sold poorly because it wasn't a good toy and not because people don't care about ships.

[Kanedas Bike]

I kind of doubt bandai would revisit the quarter since the original didn't sell very well at all. Of course I also kind of think the original sold poorly because it wasn't a good toy and not because people don't care about ships.

Truth. And no reason to, if anything they'd venture into whatever capital ships are featured in Delta, and even that's a long shot based on exactly what anime52k8 just said.

And that Delta 02 - makes a grown man swoon.

-b.

[GabrielV]

http://hobby.dengeki.com/event/180838/

I'll just have to get Delta 2 and ignore that helmet skull thing, because otherwise it looks so damn good.

[Nekko Basara]

I'll just have to get Delta 2 and ignore that helmet skull thing, because otherwise it looks so damn good.

Nothing a giant UN Spacy Kite sticker won't fix, right?

[David Hingtgen]

Asuming that area is molded in grey and not painted, then it shouldn't be too hard to remove with rubbing alcohol.

[anime52k8]

the hooded skull thing is cool though, it looks like something you'd see on the tail of an F-14 in the late 80's.

Edited March 26, 2016 by anime52k8

[David Hingtgen]

[anime52k8]

exactly.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

how about a skull with crossbones... that'll look cool on a VF

[Kanedas Bike]

how about a skull with crossbones... that'll look cool on a VF

Don't hate. We like 04 too.

-b.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

Don't hate. We like 04 too.

-b.

[Sildani]

the hooded skull thing is cool though, it looks like something you'd see on the tail of an F-14 in the late 80's.

Exactly why I don't mind it. Like I've said, IF the 31A is never made (and I really hope it is), Delta 02 is as close to lo-viz as we'll get, itasha and all.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Sildani

[Valkyrie Driver]

I have to say, that I wasn't on board with the new valk, as it really looked too much like a rehash of the VF-25, but it's kinda growing on me. It has a lot in common with the VF25 for sure, and it would have been nice if it was more like the YF-30, just to be different, but it's not bad looking.

[M'Kyuun]

What's ironic is that as Kawamori moves into the future with Macross, his valk designs are becoming more retro, based off of older fighters. Granted, there were a lot of pretty fighters from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and I still like seeing them creatively redesigned into transformable mecha. Aesthetically, it's a practical choice, since nearly everything today has stealth attributes built in, giving many planes and UAVs a similar look. It's a look I like, personally, but I can see its limitations artistically.

Delta 02 looks amazing, and the art on its upper fuselage is very reminiscent of older warplanes. When I worked at Hurlburt Field, I used to see the guys airbrushing the Spectre noseart on the old Spooky AC-130 gunships, and later on the AC-130Us. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AC-130_AZRAEL_Angel_of_Death.jpg%C2'> Delta 02's helmed skull is a cool anachronism that has sadly become a scarcity in the modern USAF. I can't speak for our sister services.

[Nazareno2012]

What's ironic is that as Kawamori moves into the future with Macross, his valk designs are becoming more retro, based off of older fighters. Granted, there were a lot of pretty fighters from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and I still like seeing them creatively redesigned into transformable mecha. Aesthetically, it's a practical choice, since nearly everything today has stealth attributes built in, giving many planes and UAVs a similar look. It's a look I like, personally, but I can see its limitations artistically.

In-universe, the logical reason for the move away from passive stealth design is the use of active stealth on the fighters, making passive stealth unnecessary. Also, the VF-31 (and the VF-19) appear to be inspired by Grumman's Advanced Tactical Fighter Concept 9 proposal, which was supposed to be a "future" fighter that would be in service by today (instead the program resulted into the F-22):

[Sandman]

What exactly is passive and active stealth design and how does it relate to how a fighter looks?

[no3Ljm]

I'm liking the TEAL more and more.

Edited March 27, 2016 by no3ljm

[David Hingtgen]

What exactly is passive and active stealth design and how does it relate to how a fighter looks?

I don't think it was ever stated, but I think it's fairly clear that "passive" stealth is achieved though shape, like an F-117, YF-23, or VF-17.

"Active" stealth is much more likely some sort of overtech "field" or ECM emission or something, and means the valk can be shaped however the designers want, without compromising its stealthiness. In short, it needn't "look" stealthy to be stealthy.

[Valkyrie Driver]

What's ironic is that as Kawamori moves into the future with Macross, his valk designs are becoming more retro, based off of older fighters. Granted, there were a lot of pretty fighters from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and I still like seeing them creatively redesigned into transformable mecha. Aesthetically, it's a practical choice, since nearly everything today has stealth attributes built in, giving many planes and UAVs a similar look. It's a look I like, personally, but I can see its limitations artistically.

Delta 02 looks amazing, and the art on its upper fuselage is very reminiscent of older warplanes. When I worked at Hurlburt Field, I used to see the guys airbrushing the Spectre noseart on the old Spooky AC-130 gunships, and later on the AC-130Us. Delta 02's helmed skull is a cool anachronism that has sadly become a scarcity in the modern USAF. I can't speak for our sister services.

Yeah I really can see that. Though I'm not sure I see much that's retro in the VF-31. It seems pretty cutting edge to me, along with it's seeming similarities in transformation to the VF-25. The Chest section looks as though it's a straight up grab from the VF-25.

You're absolutely right about the artwork. The Navy still does it, with squadron markings, usually on the Vertical Stabs, and usually only big on the Squadron Commander's and the CAG's bird. The Artwork is usually smaller on the Sqdn's other aircraft, still mostly on the vertical stabs. Occasionally you'll still see nose art on Air Force Aircraft, but it has to be approved and inoffensive. Stuff like my dad had painted on his air planes would never fly today (a cartoon called the last great act of defiance). Still though when I was at Barksdale I still saw B-52's and A-10's with noseart. Kawamori-san has always done a great job with stuff like that, it's pretty consistent with the way the US Navy marks their aircraft, and the art style of those markings is typical Navy.

[Valkyrie Driver]

What exactly is passive and active stealth design and how does it relate to how a fighter looks?

Passive stealth is as David said, achieved through construction. Passive stealth either absorbs radar waves, or directs them away from the receiver or both. The F-117, F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, ATD-X, J-20, and J-31 all use passive stealth, as that's the only way we have of making a stealth aircraft. Active stealth would probably generate some sort of field that bends radar waves around the aircraft, essentially fooling the radar into thinking there is nothing present. Active steal this electronic signal masking.

The result would be the similar, the radar transceiver gets less returning radar waves, making the dot appear smaller (and thus less threatening). The difference is entirely how the effect is achieved. Active stealth is not to be confused with a jammer, which simply floods the radar with returns and generates "noise" that attenuates the radar, making the radar think that the dot is faster, or closer, or more numerous than it really is.

I hope that answered your question.

In-universe, the logical reason for the move away from passive stealth design is the use of active stealth on the fighters, making passive stealth unnecessary. Also, the VF-31 (and the VF-19) appear to be inspired by Grumman's Advanced Tactical Fighter Concept 9 proposal, which was supposed to be a "future" fighter that would be in service by today (instead the program resulted into the F-22):

Passive stealth wouldn't be unnecessary, just less of a design consideration, instead focused on low observable techniques to minimize the signature. Besides, we know from the story, that active stealth isn't perfect, so low observable techniques are still used in design and construction to further minimize the radar cross section.

You'd also need active stealth, because the VF-19 and VF-31 both have canards, which is like hanging a neon "shoot me" sign on it. Though they can have the benefit of providing extreme maneuverability (especially in the VF-19A/B/C/D which were very similar to the YF-19 prototype, and it's axis of lift being fairly far forward of it's center of thrust, a stability consideration).

The VF-31 looks very stable, and I have to say, from a toy collector's perspective, that while the VF-25/29 style torso is not innovative, it is far more stable and playable than the YF-30's (at least from the reviews I've seen). I really kinda want one, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the new show has to offer.

[kajnrig]

I dunno if this has already been shared here, but it just now popped up in my Youtube feed. Some nice close-up video of the toy at... I dunno what event, either. Anyway.

[Sildani]

The book Flight of the Minotaur by Stephen Coonts had a good example of active stealth. Radar signals are waveforms, so this system detected the signal, analyzed its frequency, wavelength, amplitude, and so on, and generated a perfectly opposite waveform which would cancel out the radar's. It could do so within milliseconds. Since radars detect the "bounced" signal, if there's no bounce to read, there's no detection. Pretty elegant, I thought.

The Russians say they can generate a plasma field around an aircraft, thereby absorbing, deflecting, or letting the radar signal bypass the aircraft somehow. Dunno if that's real or just propaganda.

[David Hingtgen]

The Russians say that? A whole bunch of people on the Key forums etc say the Russians can, but I don't recall they themselves claiming stuff like that.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

However, the MiG- does have a problem with its inverted flight tanks. It won't do a negative G push-over.

[anime52k8]

However, the MiG- does have a problem with its inverted flight tanks. It won't do a negative G push-over.

The data on the MiG is inaccurate. I, excuse me, *we* happened to see a MiG do a 4g negative dive.

Edited March 28, 2016 by anime52k8

[Kanedas Bike]

However, the MiG- does have a problem with its inverted flight tanks. It won't do a negative G push-over.

Charlie?

The data on the MiG is inaccurate. I, excuse me, *we* happened to see a MiG do a 4g negative dive.

Goose?

-b.

[Nekko Basara]

Are we just assuming that sensors in Macross are based on active projection and return of electromagnetic radiation, or is that canon?

[kajnrig]

Also: A negative-G pushover = ???

[wmkjr]