imai files - SDCSC & mospeada sketches

[Seto Kaiba]

I understand the OSM provides the VF-1 with only 4 wing hardpoints (2 per wing) but that claim may not be supported by what's seen in the tv series animation.

Let me be uncharacteristically blunt for a moment...

We're faced with a choice between two explanations for this:
1. The Official Explanation
As explained by the show's creators, and shown in going-on three decades of animation and production art, the VF-1 Valkyrie has only four wing pylons. Carrying six reaction warheads becomes possible with an oft-demonstrated side-by-side pylon mounting not at all dissimilar from the version used to carry three AMM-1 missile on a single pylon.

2. The rtsurfer Explanation
The VF-1 magically, and completely without explanation, sprouts an extra pair of wing pylon stations that are never visible and immediately vanish at the end of the episode. The actual creators of the show bury all mention or reference to this for three decades, and release an enormous body of animation and printed material showing otherwise to cover it up.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the official explanation makes a hell of a lot more sense...

They don't always match up, for example I believe the dimensions of the VF-4 Lightning III in the source material were wrong for nearly twenty years.

Seriously? You do realize that the reason the original dimensions were corrected was because they don't match the physical proportions of the completed plane, right?

(As a side note, what they do match fairly well is the VF-X-4's proportions)

Sure, sloppy animation and level of detail sometimes make it difficult to determine whether something was animator error or intentional and just not reflected correctly in the OSM.

Okay, correction time... let me get my professor hat on.

"Intentional and not reflected in the OSM" is quite impossible in this case, because the final line art design and written spec is the basis for the animation... not vice versa. If it's not matching the production line art, then it's off-model animation (an error).

I still disagree, just because I don't take the OSM as an absolute doesn't mean my reasoning is flawed.

Actually, it does... because the OSM is absolute in Macross, and Robotech's creative staff are content to let it be thus for Robotech as well.

I thought the HBT cells are in the intake/shoulder pods and these tube/cables appear to go behind the cockpit.

Nah, the four compartments where the HBT cells go are actually located two a side on the fuselage on either side of the compartment right behind the cockpit where the ride armor's kept. (That puts them slightly in front of the doors for the shoulder missile launchers).

While the tube/cable is twisting it still looks to stay lined up w/the cockpit/nose section.

Based on the line art for the scene in question, the two cables in the background that are coming down from the ceiling are plugged into the port-side HBT sockets. There's a third cable closer to the "camera" that is plugged into a socket on the side of the cockpit, that puts it just above the leading edge of the wing. If they take the usual approach and the propellant is stored inside wing tanks, that may be your propellant fill.

EDIT: Whatever that socket on the side of the nose is, whatever the pipe is carrying is a fairly dangerous thing, as there are warning markings all around that panel.

While the Alpha's short legs can be removed w/o the Beta, all the benifits the Beta brings are still retained. The extra tankage on the Beta still remains to give bigger legs. The Beta also brings more firepower in a combo than either Alpha size alone. I don't think the g-Alpha would remain compatible with the Beta.

But you're also arguing that the much larger "g-Alpha" could carry heavier ordinance, which would be the Beta's bag... that and having the "longer legs" in space.

With a military force making questionable decsions like this you expect a rational explantion to work in the g-alpha and Beta issue?

Okay, there's a word for situations like this... that word is "Touche".

It's a questionable decision at best to treat the Beta like a disposable set of Super Parts, as it's much more complex and fuel-intensive... it's even more bizarre to jumbo-ize a plane you already have to fill a niche that's already full.

I don't believe there are nose lasers in the OSM, but they are in Robotech. Another example is the 3 laser VF head, not in OSM but in Robotech. So Robotech sometimes follows the animation rather than the OSM.

Only if there is a reason to do so... there is a solid rationale for Robotech making the nose lasers canon. As I've mentioned before, the Alpha is shown with weapons in more or less exactly that position, so it enforces the illusion of inter-saga consistency. With the OSM providing an entirely cogent explanation for six missiles on four hardpoints, why would Robotech's creative staff need or want to change things?

The two pylons per wing with 3 missiles each seems to be the primary configuration used by the VF-1s. That doesn't preclude the VF-1 from having a third hardpoint which is used with a 3 single missile per wing configuration as seen in FOA.

Just to humor you, I did an inventory of my Macross library and did successfully turn up ONE instance of a VF-1 with three pylons per wing. Mind you, that comes with a VERY large "but". In this case, it's "But that design is from a book that explicitly labels itself non-canon, and the design is for a late service version of the VF-1 that, based on its back story, would not exist until almost thirty after the events in question."

In addition to the VEFR-1, there's also a VF-1 with tail missiles and an Orguss VF/Destroid, both of which also appear in other episodes.

But, of course, the brief "tail missiles" goof is considered nothing but an animation error in the original Macross and in Robotech, and the "Orguss VF" is also considered an "error" because it's not really a thing... it's a homage to another series Studio Nue was working on, (Super Dimension Century Orguss) same as the Zentradi ship in the same episode that has a skull and crossbones on the bow (a ref. to their having recently done the redesign of Captain Harlock's battleship in a similar form).

Generally speaking, there are official explanations for all of this... there's no mystery, and there's pretty much no ambiguity either.

Just because they allowed the three head guns (which was stretch at best and should not have been allowed

Oh, the reason it was allowed is the best one any business can have... it let them pad out the MPC VF-1 series with a final installment that required only minimal retooling, and at the same time padding out another product (Battlecry) based on the most popular part of Robotech (Macross).

"Because money" is always solid when you're looking at the business case first the way the decision-makers at Harmony Gold do, at least according to their creative staff.

(On consideration, a factor that may have helped "grease the pan" for the three-laser VF-1 may have been that Macross DID have at least one three-laser configuration by that point... which would have helped sell it to Tommy as consistent with the spirit of the Macross setting. If we include non-canon Master File originals, there are three of 'em... the VF-19P from Macross Dynamite 7, the VF-3000 from Macross M3, and the VF-25E from the VF-25 Master File.)


EDIT: Spelling, plus a further addition in my reply to ShadowLogan

[rtsurfer]

In addition to the VEFR-1, there's also a VF-1 with tail missiles and an Orguss VF/Destroid, both of which also appear in other episodes.

And don't forget Twin-Box!
Also, what other episodes does "tail-missile" appear in?

When Lisa's recon is ambushed in Blind Game. IIRC the tail missiles are first visible as Max's fighter passes by the camera, although its missing color. There's a very close pass and a longer shot of a VF-1 with tail missiles, a winged missile on top of the fighter's wing near the body, two single missiles inside (near the body) and outside (near the wing's tip), and two oddly shaped missiles in between [per wing].
There's also a shot during the battle sequence where a VF-1 appears to be firing a nose laser.

[ShadowLogan]

@Esalter:
re: Alpha and Vindicator components commonality
The common parts would be on the inside where we don't see them.

We also know that components can be transfered from one aircraft to another, even if the aircraft are different sizes. So not every system needs to be enlarged or redone from scratch.

re: Condor
To get the Condor to transform like an Alpha would require some components to be jettisoned prior to transformation. If you remove the "snout" and "back cover", "slippers", "shoulder joint guards" you are left with a very Alpha like frame. The Alpha in question would also an earlier model so some differences would exist (and we see the 5 Alpha models in the show have distinct changes, so their is precedant for earlier models have distinct changes to). "Miss Macross" shows that add-ons can mask the underlying platform.

@Seto

But you're also arguing that the much larger "g-Alpha" could carry heavier ordinance, which would be the Beta's bag... that and having the "longer legs" in space.

Yes I would argue the g-Alpha could carry heavier ordinance and have longer legs compared to the r-Alpha. What I would also argue is that the r-Alpha/Beta combo would overall exceede the g-Alpha capabilities.

We really don't have current official stats for the g-Alpha and are left with our own speculation on its overall capabilities. Unless you want to use the 1E RPG, in which case the g-Alpha is shown to be less capable than the A/B combo (if we put them on equal footing with regard to Shadow Device).

It's a questionable decision at best to treat the Beta like a disposable set of Super Parts, as it's much more complex and fuel-intensive... it's even more bizarre to jumbo-ize a plane you already have to fill a niche that's already full.

I'm not sure I would end the list of questionable things the REF does with just the Beta. I'd add the Cyclone storage to the list for sure, since the volume it takes up in the body can be used better.

While it creates redundancy the overlap need not be complete. And short of some official stats (or agreement on what to consider them at), we really would not know how much overlap there is. And having some overlap is not without precedent in the real world (examples: F/A-18 vs F-14, F-16 vs F-15, F-35 vs F-22).

[Seto Kaiba]

The common parts would be on the inside where we don't see them.

Eh... as more than one contributor has pointed out already, "jumbo-izing" anything doesn't lend itself well to parts commonalities with the original. It's profoundly unlikely that there'd be ANY components in common between the "g-Alpha" and Alpha because of the difference in scale that would necessitate significant internal and structural changes.


EDIT: As an amusing side note, there is a case of "jumbo-izing" in the OSM... the VF-3000 in Macross was basically an attempt to jumbo-ize the VF-1 in order to improve on the plane's capabilities, and in a bout of surprising realism it went very poorly and suffered from mechanical issues that caused the program's cancellation. (There's also a "Frankenmecha" case that's almost physical comedy...)

We also know that components can be transfered from one aircraft to another, even if the aircraft are different sizes. So not every system needs to be enlarged or redone from scratch.

Just all the important ones... at the much-increased size, you wouldn't be able to use the same engines, the same joint actuators, the same power generation systems, etc. You'd need all of that stuff scaled up accordingly, not to mention structural changes so a jumbo plane wouldn't collapse under its own weight.

To get the Condor to transform like an Alpha would require some components to be jettisoned prior to transformation. If you remove the "snout" and "back cover", "slippers", "shoulder joint guards" you are left with a very Alpha like frame.

I'm sure the pilot would probably object to having to ditch a lot of those structural pieces. Insofar as the commonality with the Legioss/Alpha body structure goes, there's a reason that's like that... in the OSM, the Condor was sort of a "proof of concept" for the whole armo-soldier giant robot idea, and thus a (spiritual) precursor to the Legioss even though that Condor unit wasn't transformable.

Yes I would argue the g-Alpha could carry heavier ordinance and have longer legs compared to the r-Alpha. What I would also argue is that the r-Alpha/Beta combo would overall exceede the g-Alpha capabilities.

Then we must ask the question, "Since the Beta was apparently always a part of the Alpha design plan, whence cometh the g-Alpha?"

Granted, the UEEF does a lot of crazy stuff and their engineers and senior staff definitely aren't the sharpest bunch out there... esp. that Hunter guy, he's about as sharp as soft tofu... but attempts to justify the "g-Alpha" have wandered right back into the deep and dark thickets of redundancy. There's already a solution to the problem of the Alpha's very limited range in space, and abundant alternate units to fill its other roles in a pinch.

We really don't have current official stats for the g-Alpha and are left with our own speculation on its overall capabilities.

And we never will, because if there was anything like a cogent case for its existence, it'd be a thing already and we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about it.

While it creates redundancy the overlap need not be complete. And short of some official stats (or agreement on what to consider them at), we really would not know how much overlap there is. And having some overlap is not without precedent in the real world (examples: F/A-18 vs F-14, F-16 vs F-15, F-35 vs F-22).

Yes and no... you've cited, respectively, cases of gradual phase-in replacement of a plane that's destined for decommissioning and two cases of planes separated by both cost and a different set of operating conditions. That's not really the same thing as what you've been positing here with the g-Alpha... namely, some kind of stopgap that does the same job as the Alpha and Beta, and generally not as well as both.

[ShadowLogan]

@Seto
re: Parts commonality.
Check out the link below on the FB-22 version of the F-22. The quote I will pull is "The FB-22 medium bomber is based on existing and planned capabilities of the Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter, a heritage that would limit development costs should the idea go into production. " This statement shows that the g-Alpha can capitilize on the r-Alpha developments.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /fb-22.htm

So the REF does not need to re-invent every piece of hardware for a scaled up platform. Nor are they limited to borrowing stictly from the Alpha (the above article mentions borrowing from the smaller F-35).

re: Beta, g-Alpha.
While the Beta was apparently originally to be part of the Alpha design from the begining. The Beta was canceled leaving a large gap in the REF VF fleet capabilities. The Conbat, Condor, and IMHO the g-Alpha would be attempts to plug different aspects of the gap.

The g-Alpha wouldn't be as good overall as the r-Alpha/Beta combo, but it would still be better than a r-Alpha.

The REF could have procured r-Alphas prior to Beta introduction and could have continued using them instead of placing them in storage or ditching them. The g-Alpha is developed creating a high/low mix capabilities of Veritech fighters. The Beta fighter being resurrected to add additional diversity to the fleet with the production emphasis going toward the r-Alpha size resulting in a high/med/low mix.

That the g-Alpha's continued evolvolotion into a Shadow version could indicate issues with the Beta remain. Weather those issues where field use related, manufacturing, political, or psycological (or simply in the decession makers' heads) I'm not sure.

This next bit may only apply to the RPG (either Ed). The two alpha sizes could be used to "misdirect" an optical sensor dependant foe (like the Invid) and could create the illusion that some units are closer/farther than they really are.

re: Condor
Yeah I know the OSM had the Condor as the predessor to the Alpha/Beta (as a proof of concept doesn't work for RT because of things like the VF-1). Which doesn't work for RT in the current timeline w/o major changes to the Alpha's history in canon and views because of various incarnations of Sentinels (which agreed the Alpha and Beta was in service). I suggested earlier HG should have used the Condor for Sentinels to avoid the whole Alpha/Beta continuity mess that comes from Sentinels.

I doubt pilots would mind ditching those features if they where intended to be ditched if the Condor had been turned into an Alpha-ABS in the continuity instead of making it a VT that was revamped into a non-transformable battloid.

Yes and no... you've cited, respectively, cases of gradual phase-in replacement of a plane that's destined for decommissioning and two cases of planes separated by both cost and a different set of operating conditions. That's not really the same thing as what you've been positing here with the g-Alpha... namely, some kind of stopgap that does the same job as the Alpha and Beta, and generally not as well as both.

Yes there is more to it, but they still have an overlap in capability and missions. The Overlap is not 100%, but it is there. A similliar relationship like these examples could exist with regard to the units in question.

[ESalter]

Also, what other episodes does "tail-missile" appear in?

When Lisa's recon is ambushed in Blind Game.

Yeah, I knew about that; I missed the "Force of Arms" one.

IIRC the tail missiles are first visible as Max's fighter passes by the camera, although its missing color. There's a very close pass and a longer shot of a VF-1 with tail missiles, a winged missile on top of the fighter's wing near the body, two single missiles inside (near the body) and outside (near the wing's tip), and two oddly shaped missiles in between [per wing].

I'm seeing ten (once eleven) Stiletto-ish missiles on each side of each tail, two/three different missiles on each(?) fin, a third missile type on the end of each wing, and two hardpoint-mounted (guided) "Buster Bombs" under each wing.

@Esalter:
re: Alpha and Vindicator components commonality
The common parts would be on the inside where we don't see them.

We also know that components can be transfered from one aircraft to another, even if the aircraft are different sizes. So not every system needs to be enlarged or redone from scratch.

But the problem is the "Vindicator's" appearance: why would completely different systems have exactly the same shape? Why does a completely different head look the same? Why does a completely different gun look the same? Why does a completely different foot look the same? Why does a completely different arm look the same?

re: Condor
To get the Condor to transform like an Alpha would require some components to be jettisoned prior to transformation. If you remove the "snout" and "back cover", "slippers", "shoulder joint guards" you are left with a very Alpha like frame. The Alpha in question would also an earlier model so some differences would exist (and we see the 5 Alpha models in the show have distinct changes, so their is precedant for earlier models have distinct changes to). "Miss Macross" shows that add-ons can mask the underlying platform.

I'd argue the opposite: Rick's "prototype" is easily identifiable as a VF-1J. The Condor's detailing is almost completely different from every known Alpha's; "Condor-armor" would be more like a shell than the discrete units I'm familiar with. As for a hypothetical Alpha with Condor detailing, well, I can't say.

So the REF does not need to re-invent every piece of hardware for a scaled up platform.

But it does, by definition, have to reinvent every visible piece of hardware for a scaled up platform.

This next bit may only apply to the RPG (either Ed). The two alpha sizes could be used to "misdirect" an optical sensor dependant foe (like the Invid) and could create the illusion that some units are closer/farther than they really are.

"Giant duck decoys."

re: Condor
(as a proof of concept doesn't work for RT because of things like the VF-1).

Maybe PoC for transatmospheric assault?

[glitterboy2098]

@Esalter:
re: Alpha and Vindicator components commonality
The common parts would be on the inside where we don't see them.

We also know that components can be transfered from one aircraft to another, even if the aircraft are different sizes. So not every system needs to be enlarged or redone from scratch.

But the problem is the "Vindicator's" appearance: why would completely different systems have exactly the same shape? Why does a completely different head look the same? Why does a completely different gun look the same? Why does a completely different foot look the same? Why does a completely different arm look the same?

because the Alpha's transformation and articulation design is proven to work. when they created the super-hornet from the hornet, or the F-106 from the F-102, they didn't need to drastically redesign the aerodynamics or the control surfaces.. they only had to redesign the internal support structure to accomidate the different and additional frame components

the 'giant alpha' would be similar. the design of a veritech isn't like normal fighter, as a VF is made of multiple seperate modules, which are connected together, allowing the transformation. this modular construction would allow them to enlarge each of the airframe modules, while keeping the same transformation system. the Alpha in particular is very blocky, which makes scaling up the modules simpler, as there is less need to accomidate complex aerodynamic shaping when redesigning the frame.

the main module which would need a major exterior redesign would be the nose module, since the cockpit wouldn't automatically need scaling up. (though the upscaling would allow the easier installation of a two seat cockpit, in theory)

[Seto Kaiba]

Check out the link below on the FB-22 version of the F-22. [...] This statement shows that the g-Alpha can capitilize on the r-Alpha developments.

No, it actually doesn't.

Like the many other real-world "examples" you've cited already, the above is fundamentally faulty and doesn't support your argument. It doesn't work for your argument for the same reason the others don't: it isn't simply an existing design scaled-up in all dimensions. The proposed FB-22 would be able to share most of its major components with a normal F-22A because it's design is only enlarged in one dimension... its length. In principle, it's not all that different from making a stretch limo. The plane's front and back ends are mostly the same as a regular F-22's, it's just the middle that got stretched to accommodate a larger bomb bay and a redesigned wing to cope with the longer body.

So the REF does not need to re-invent every piece of hardware for a scaled up platform. Nor are they limited to borrowing stictly from the Alpha (the above article mentions borrowing from the smaller F-35).

Again, because the parallel you're drawing is patently false, this assertion doesn't work. As described (and shown), the "giant Alpha" is proportionally larger IN ALL DIMENSIONS, which means that hardware designed for the much smaller "regular Alpha" isn't going to fit or work properly with it. They would need to design all-new versions of virtually every part in order to carry it off.

Incidentally...

While the Beta was apparently originally to be part of the Alpha design from the begining. The Beta was canceled leaving a large gap in the REF VF fleet capabilities. The Conbat, Condor, and IMHO the g-Alpha would be attempts to plug different aspects of the gap.

It's not that large of a gap... especially since, as we've both noted, there's a number of preexisting canon mecha that can fill that gap. The Conbat can cover for the Beta as a fighter-bomber w/ heavy ordinance, the Condor could easily cover its "heavy battloid" role, and extending the Alpha's endurance in space could easily be accomplished by using either wing-mounted drop tanks (ala RL fighters) or conformal fuel tanks (ala the "Super Shadow" fighter, Super Valkyrie, etc.).

The g-Alpha wouldn't be as good overall as the r-Alpha/Beta combo, but it would still be better than a r-Alpha.

Which brings us back to the most damning argument against the "g-Alpha"... "if the jumbo Alpha is better than a regular Alpha, why would the UEEF even bother with the smaller and less-capable one?" You've yet to offer a satisfactory answer to this. It's also one reason, out of many, that the "giant Alpha" will never be canon. There's no way to justify it being around without contradicting large parts of the established setting and common sense.

That the g-Alpha's continued evolution into a Shadow version could indicate issues with the Beta remain.

See? Didn't have to look far for a contradiction...

This next bit may only apply to the RPG (either Ed). The two alpha sizes could be used to "misdirect" an optical sensor dependant foe (like the Invid) and could create the illusion that some units are closer/farther than they really are.

Okay, that's just beyond silly.

Yeah I know the OSM had the Condor as the predessor to the Alpha/Beta (as a proof of concept doesn't work for RT because of things like the VF-1).

How d'you reckon that? I can point to two examples of non-transformable test craft just in the Macross Saga. Also, it wouldn't be unheard of (within the bounds of the original shows) for a particularly effective proof-of-concept craft to be put into mass production as-is, and used extensively. The most notable example of this principle would be the VF-XX "Zentradi Valkyrie" from Macross II: Lovers Again, a proof-of-concept test model that ended up being SO effective that it was adopted as the new main variable fighter and served in that capacity for over a decade.

We've already got a ready-made excuse for treating the Condor in its OSM capacity as the proof-of-concept unit for the Legioss/Alpha's armo-soldier mode. It's a design made on an appreciably smaller scale from the previous units. If the UEEF engineers operate under any semblance of good mechanical engineering practice, one or more test units would've been made to ensure the viability of the smaller scale before work began in earnest on the more complex version.

because the Alpha's transformation and articulation design is proven to work. when they created the super-hornet from the hornet, or the F-106 from the F-102, they didn't need to drastically redesign the aerodynamics or the control surfaces.

What may work well at one scale will not necessarily work well at another... which is why both of the planes you cited in your example went through extensive testing to make sure that the larger size wasn't going to impair function. It's also worth reminding ourselves of the fact that a transforming giant robot is several orders of magnitude more complex than ordinary jet fighters, so the consequences of scaling it up will be proportionally greater in severity.

the 'giant alpha' would be similar. the design of a veritech isn't like normal fighter, as a VF is made of multiple seperate modules,

As complex and interconnected as the systems of a transforming mecha necessarily are, any benefits derived from modularity would be lost again due to the greater complexity.

the Alpha in particular is very blocky, which makes scaling up the modules simpler, as there is less need to accomidate complex aerodynamic shaping when redesigning the frame.

That's... almost exactly the opposite of the actual consequences involved in scaling up an aircraft. The Alpha's blocky airframe and poor aerodynamic profile are only going to end up negatively impacting performance to a greater extent at a larger size, particularly if there's little or no effort made to correct for the increased impact of the poor aerodynamics.

[jaymz]

I gotta say, yeah, the Alpha and Beta are the two most UN-aerodynamic flying mecha IN Robotech.....proof again that if you have big enough engines you can make it fly....

[Seto Kaiba]

I gotta say, yeah, the Alpha and Beta are the two most UN-aerodynamic flying mecha IN Robotech.....proof again that if you have big enough engines you can make it fly....

Oh, no kidding... but, in the end, even a brick can fly if you put enough force behind it. It's not going to fly well - or gracefully - but it will fly. The Beta's a brick, the Alpha's a bit less so, but it's almost a miracle that either one can fly at all. Neither one has all that much in the way of wing surface, and the rest of their structure seems calculated to generate the maximum possible amount of drag. By rights, the Beta probably shouldn't be able to fly, and the Alpha should handle like a cow in a supermarket trolley.

[jaymz]

Oh and for the record, about the only thing that would port directly from the r-Alpha to the g-Alpha would be the sensor modules (which are typically in the nosecone/head unit and size is fairly irrelevant) and the cockpit itself. Every other component (servo, armour plate, structural member, lubricant line etc) would have to be expanded, extended, enlarged or possibly all three at once. To say a g-Alpha would borrow heavily from the r-Alpha in any way shape or form for anything other than it's general appearance seems a serious over stepping of logic in many ways.

Now would that stop the REF from making it? Probably not

[Colonel Wolfe]

Oh and for the record, about the only thing that would port directly from the r-Alpha to the g-Alpha would be the sensor modules (which are typically in the nosecone/head unit and size is fairly irrelevant) and the cockpit itself. Every other component (servo, armour plate, structural member, lubricant line etc) would have to be expanded, extended, enlarged or possibly all three at once. To say a g-Alpha would borrow heavily from the r-Alpha in any way shape or form for anything other than it's general appearance seems a serious over stepping of logic in many ways.

Now would that stop the REF from making it? Probably not

The "G"-Alpha isnt canon... thus the REf has no need to make them. The Alpha its self is a very hardy machine, that can Fly from Earths orbit to the moon (and back) under its own power. Scott's (or Lunk's) Alpha survived from the 2nd episode until Corg got the best of it... and Never once did anyone beat it with a Pipe and total it...
Honestly, the "short-legs" in space the Infopedia refers to must be the fact it can't go inter-planetary (earth to Mars of Jupiter) or Fold on its own.

[jaymz]

Oh and for the record, about the only thing that would port directly from the r-Alpha to the g-Alpha would be the sensor modules (which are typically in the nosecone/head unit and size is fairly irrelevant) and the cockpit itself. Every other component (servo, armour plate, structural member, lubricant line etc) would have to be expanded, extended, enlarged or possibly all three at once. To say a g-Alpha would borrow heavily from the r-Alpha in any way shape or form for anything other than it's general appearance seems a serious over stepping of logic in many ways.

Now would that stop the REF from making it? Probably not

The "G"-Alpha isnt canon... thus the REf has no need to make them. The Alpha its self is a very hardy machine, that can Fly from Earths orbit to the moon (and back) under its own power. Scott's (or Lunk's) Alpha survived from the 2nd episode until Corg got the best of it... and Never once did anyone beat it with a Pipe and total it...
Honestly, the "short-legs" in space the Infopedia refers to must be the fact it can't go inter-planetary (earth to Mars of Jupiter) or Fold on its own.

I wasn't saying it SHOULD be canon just that the REF would be stupid enough to do it.

[Colonel Wolfe]

Oh and for the record, about the only thing that would port directly from the r-Alpha to the g-Alpha would be the sensor modules (which are typically in the nosecone/head unit and size is fairly irrelevant) and the cockpit itself. Every other component (servo, armour plate, structural member, lubricant line etc) would have to be expanded, extended, enlarged or possibly all three at once. To say a g-Alpha would borrow heavily from the r-Alpha in any way shape or form for anything other than it's general appearance seems a serious over stepping of logic in many ways.

Now would that stop the REF from making it? Probably not

The "G"-Alpha isnt canon... thus the REf has no need to make them. The Alpha its self is a very hardy machine, that can Fly from Earths orbit to the moon (and back) under its own power. Scott's (or Lunk's) Alpha survived from the 2nd episode until Corg got the best of it... and Never once did anyone beat it with a Pipe and total it...
Honestly, the "short-legs" in space the Infopedia refers to must be the fact it can't go inter-planetary (earth to Mars of Jupiter) or Fold on its own.

I wasn't saying it SHOULD be canon just that the REF would be stupid enough to do it.

only wiht the Current "creative" staff....

[jaymz]

Oh and for the record, about the only thing that would port directly from the r-Alpha to the g-Alpha would be the sensor modules (which are typically in the nosecone/head unit and size is fairly irrelevant) and the cockpit itself. Every other component (servo, armour plate, structural member, lubricant line etc) would have to be expanded, extended, enlarged or possibly all three at once. To say a g-Alpha would borrow heavily from the r-Alpha in any way shape or form for anything other than it's general appearance seems a serious over stepping of logic in many ways.

Now would that stop the REF from making it? Probably not

The "G"-Alpha isnt canon... thus the REf has no need to make them. The Alpha its self is a very hardy machine, that can Fly from Earths orbit to the moon (and back) under its own power. Scott's (or Lunk's) Alpha survived from the 2nd episode until Corg got the best of it... and Never once did anyone beat it with a Pipe and total it...
Honestly, the "short-legs" in space the Infopedia refers to must be the fact it can't go inter-planetary (earth to Mars of Jupiter) or Fold on its own.

I wasn't saying it SHOULD be canon just that the REF would be stupid enough to do it.

only wiht the Current "creative" staff....

Maybe, but logic is not exactly showcased in Robotech.

[Seto Kaiba]

Oh and for the record, about the only thing that would port directly from the r-Alpha to the g-Alpha would be the sensor modules (which are typically in the nosecone/head unit and size is fairly irrelevant) and the cockpit itself.

Maybe, maybe not... I'd hope that if they were going to scale the whole damn plane up for no reason, they'd at least take advantage of the extra space and install more sophisticated and powerful radar and camera systems. They'd need the extra power if the weapons that the giant Alpha carries are longer-ranged than the "close enough to trade off-color remarks with the enemy" distances they're normally limited to.

Every other component (servo, armour plate, structural member, lubricant line etc) would have to be expanded, extended, enlarged or possibly all three at once. To say a g-Alpha would borrow heavily from the r-Alpha in any way shape or form for anything other than it's general appearance seems a serious over stepping of logic in many ways.

Not to mention you'd need to design all new power generation and transfer systems for the larger frame, new engines, and the cooling system would need a ground-up redesign so it'd have a chance of coping with the increased load imposed on it by the larger generator and engines. It's no exaggeration to say that if a giant Alpha were made, mechanically, it'd be completely different from the regular one except in its outward appearance... which would be an inconvenient contrivance at best.

Maybe, but logic is not exactly showcased in Robotech.

Why would it be? Robotech is a series assembled on the fly as a means of getting the original Macross series on syndicated television, primarily to use it as an elaborate toy commercial on Revell's behalf. All of the attempts to force coherency onto the show came years (or decades) later, mostly as an attempt to turn it into a respectable SF/mecha title that could be continued.

[jaymz]

Oh and for the record, about the only thing that would port directly from the r-Alpha to the g-Alpha would be the sensor modules (which are typically in the nosecone/head unit and size is fairly irrelevant) and the cockpit itself.

Maybe, maybe not... I'd hope that if they were going to scale the whole damn plane up for no reason, they'd at least take advantage of the extra space and install more sophisticated and powerful radar and camera systems. They'd need the extra power if the weapons that the giant Alpha carries are longer-ranged than the "close enough to trade off-color remarks with the enemy" distances they're normally limited to.

You are applying logic. Stop that immediately.

Every other component (servo, armour plate, structural member, lubricant line etc) would have to be expanded, extended, enlarged or possibly all three at once. To say a g-Alpha would borrow heavily from the r-Alpha in any way shape or form for anything other than it's general appearance seems a serious over stepping of logic in many ways.

Not to mention you'd need to design all new power generation and transfer systems for the larger frame, new engines, and the cooling system would need a ground-up redesign so it'd have a chance of coping with the increased load imposed on it by the larger generator and engines. It's no exaggeration to say that if a giant Alpha were made, mechanically, it'd be completely different from the regular one except in its outward appearance... which would be an inconvenient contrivance at best.

That was what I meant by etc after my first few examples of things that needed to be changed

Maybe, but logic is not exactly showcased in Robotech.

Why would it be? Robotech is a series assembled on the fly as a means of getting the original Macross series on syndicated television, primarily to use it as an elaborate toy commercial on Revell's behalf. All of the attempts to force coherency onto the show came years (or decades) later, mostly as an attempt to turn it into a respectable SF/mecha title that could be continued.

No argument here....

[Of The Funk]

'lo, long-time lurker, first-time poster. Seeing this discussion reminded me of something I remember seeing on the uRRG about why they didn't have a Vindicator page. So I decided to try it myself.

Here's a screencap commonly cited as evidence of the Vindicator's existence.

In cycle mode a VR-052 is 2.05 meters long. In this picture, that's 85 pixels, so that's about 2.4 centimeters per pixel. Drawing a straight line from the Shadow Fighter's left foot to the top of its head (it's leaning slightly to one side so just going from ground to head wouldn't have worked) gives a line 382 pixels long. So the "giant Alpha" is around 9.2 meters tall. Compare to a standard Alpha's 8.75 meter height and then remember that the Cyclone is slightly in the foreground (making it appear larger relative to the Shadow Fighter), and it doesn't seem like there's any difference at all.

So, basically, I don't think there ever was a giant Alpha. It's just perspective playing tricks on people.

[jaymz]

'lo, long-time lurker, first-time poster. Seeing this discussion reminded me of something I remember seeing on the uRRG about why they didn't have a Vindicator page. So I decided to try it myself.

[url]Here's a screencap commonly cited as evidence of the Vindicator's existence[/url].

In cycle mode a VR-052 is 2.05 meters long. In this picture, that's 85 pixels, so that's about 2.4 centimeters per pixel. Drawing a straight line from the Shadow Fighter's left foot to the top of its head (it's leaning slightly to one side so just going from ground to head wouldn't have worked) gives a line 382 pixels long. So the "giant Alpha" is around 9.2 meters tall. Compare to a standard Alpha's 8.75 meter height and then remember that the Cyclone is slightly in the foreground (making it appear larger relative to the Shadow Fighter), and it doesn't seem like there's any difference at all.

So, basically, I don't think there ever was a giant Alpha. It's just perspective playing tricks on people.

Logic...oh how you mock certain topics of conversation.....

[taalismn]

[Logic...oh how you mock certain topics of conversation.....

That distant thumping sound you hear is Reason beating some sense into Fantasy.
That distant dopplering wailing noise you hear is Fantasy throwing Reason to the Moon.

[Seto Kaiba]

You are applying logic. Stop that immediately.

NEVER! YOU'LL NEVER STOP ME! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

That was what I meant by etc after my first few examples of things that needed to be changed

As a side note, I got in touch with a friend of mine who works for the military and posed a question about the idea of enlarging a fighter aircraft the way ShadowLogan wants that "giant Alpha" to be. Sufficed to say, he found the idea patently ridiculous, and made quite an effort to point out that it'd be all but impossible for the "giant Alpha" to have any significant parts in common with the regular one. (e.g. the F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet may look alike, but they have well under a 17% parts commonality, which is predominantly cockpit hardware.)

[ShadowLogan]

@Esalter

Maybe PoC for transatmospheric assault?

Again wouldn't the VF-1 be PoC in RT? Even the Zentreadi hardware could be used as PoC. The only real PoC in the Alpha/Beta would be the linkage, which a non-transformable demonstrator(s) would be better than the VF-X-5 to mature the technology.

Anyway these lines on the Condor are really moot points since we are currently stuck with the VF-X-5 turned into a nt-Battloid route.

But it does, by definition, have to reinvent every visible piece of hardware for a scaled up platform.

That is still a far cry from reinventing everything that is going into the platform. I have no doubt that new items will need to be designed for the new scale, but there are also items that can capitilize on things that came before it reducing development cost, time, and risk.

@Seto

The proposed FB-22 would be able to share most of its major components with a normal F-22A because it's design is only enlarged in one dimension... its length

True (atleast to the extent I'm familiar with FB-22).

Still there is plenty of precendent for the g-Alpha borrowing from the r-Alpha (and other units) when it can. The designers are not going to need to sit down and redesign the ejection seat, control interface, every single piece of electronics/avionics, write a completely new set of software, or the RCS jets (could simply place more, though aspects of the overall system will need adjustment). They may even be able to get away with modifications to r-Alpha systems instead of going completely new.

It's not that large of a gap...

In the overall REF inventory no it isn't that much of a gap because of non-transformable designs. Where the gap is most noted would appear in looking at just the Veritech Inventory, since the Beta was to be part of that group. And the Veritech aspect does appear to be comfortable with a mix of drastically different sized units as far back as 2020s.

See? Didn't have to look far for a contradiction...

How would unstated issues with the Beta be a contradiction?

The combiner is still relatively new concept in RT so the REF may want a simplier secondary unit they can use if issues develop forcing restictions on the use of the combiner. History can provide examples to support this line of thinking. Having some capability redundancy in the Veritech fleet would be a good thing to limit the potential impact of a problem missed in development.

Okay, that's just beyond silly.

How so? Deception is a part of warfare. While the approach used is different here, the basic concept of visual trickery is not without precedent as there have been programs to play visual trics on the enemy eyes (examples are mention in the June 7, 1993 Aviation Week & Space Technology article pg 136-7) in the past.

We've already got a ready-made excuse for treating the Condor in its OSM capacity as the proof-of-concept unit for the Legioss/Alpha's armo-soldier mode. It's a design made on an appreciably smaller scale from the previous units. If the UEEF engineers operate under any semblance of good mechanical engineering practice, one or more test units would've been made to ensure the viability of the smaller scale before work began in earnest on the more complex
version.

The Condor was not used as a PoC unit in RT as it was in the OSM, it is supposed to be a design competitor to the Beta (VF-X-5 vs VF-X-7, 2E RPG pg 127 Manga TSC RPG). So HG is not pulling from the OSM here in that regard. And as a technology PoC the VHT program (started in 2011) could provide some of that (entered service in 2013, both dates from 2E RPG Masters Saga SB pg 92) when it comes to a scaled down VT systems since the Alpha doesn't start testing until 2020 (design work finalized in 2017, dates TSC RPG).

Edit: Added Emphasis in part after reviewing all posts I've made in this thread concerning the g-Alpha using r-Alpha hardware as it appears there may be some misunderstanding on my view as a result of the examples I've used from the real world.

[rtsurfer]

The over-sized Shadow Alpha-Fighter seen in the animation appears roughly 1.5 meters taller in battloid than a standard Shadow Alpha-Fighter, what looks to be an elongated torso and upper legs could be a primary contributor to that increased height. Its actually possible much of the craft might have been constructed using standard Shadow Alpha-Fighter parts either unaltered or slightly modified to compensate for any increased system requirements. Components that needed completely replacing could probably either come from or be used as future standard SA-F upgrades. Overall, the biggest difference would likely be an extended frame in the torso and upper legs plus more armor to cover them, and whatever was added to require the additional height/length.

[Colonel Wolfe]

An Animation error that has it off scale but about a meter is more plausible. being the cyclone is in the foreground, and thus skews the image.
now a VF-1 Sized Alpha like the old Vindicator was would have to be much much larger.... http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6gzc51&s=5

[rtsurfer]

How does the cyclone being in the foreground skew the image? If anything that would allow the Alpha to be even larger or a bigger AE. Or were you suggesting the cyclone was supposed to be behind the Alpha and they moved it without adjusting the scale? If it is an AE, they made the same mistake when they placed it with both the cyclone and Invid as the measurements in relation to both come out about the same.

[Colonel Wolfe]

How does the cyclone being in the foreground skew the image? If anything that would allow the Alpha to be even larger or a bigger AE. Or were you suggesting the cyclone was supposed to be behind the Alpha and they moved it without adjusting the scale? If it is an AE, they made the same mistake when they placed it with both the cyclone and Invid as the measurements in relation to both come out about the same.

if the cyclone is closer to the Screen, it will appear Larger when compared to the Alpha.... much like when you hold a pennt inches form your eye... and its bigger than your SUV...

[dataweaver]

In at least one case, the problem is that the (obviously foreground, because it drive in front of the battloid) cyclone is too small, and by a significant margin: in terms of its length, it's roughly half as large as it ought to be - and that's before taking into account that it's smaller than it looks due to being closer to the viewer than the Alpha.

[glitterboy2098]

In at least one case, the problem is that the (obviously foreground, because it drive in front of the battloid) cyclone is too small, and by a significant margin: in terms of its length, it's roughly half as large as it ought to be - and that's before taking into account that it's smaller than it looks due to being closer to the viewer than the Alpha.

um.. last i checked, objects closer to the viewer look bigger. basic perspective.
and does it matter whether it was the alpha drawn large or the riders drawn small? the end result is the same. images of a giant alpha type unit in use at reflex point. the in universe implications are the same, since the riders are the known sized object.


and it's the scene with the invid shocktrooper that really illustrates the size. it had to be drawn at that scale difference, there is no way it's an animation cell misplaced or anything since the two directly interact.

[ShadowLogan]

This will probably cause additional headaches I think, but per the RT.com Infopedia AND Art of the Shadow Chronicles the VR-052 Motorcycle mode is listed at a length of 2.4m NOT the 2.05m found in the RPG and OSM. And the Shock Trooper's width is also 3.6meters w/guns in all those sources (not the 4.6 value used by Robotech Research).

[Of The Funk]

This will probably cause additional headaches I think, but per the RT.com Infopedia AND Art of the Shadow Chronicles the VR-052 Motorcycle mode is listed at a length of 2.4m NOT the 2.05m found in the RPG and OSM. And the Shock Trooper's width is also 3.6meters w/guns in all those sources (not the 4.6 value used by Robotech Research).

I checked, and I can't believe you're right. That is unbelievably dumb, considering model sheets would have been drawn with the OSM dimensions (so. Oh well. This means that, going by the Cyclone scene, the Alpha seen is around 10 meters tall...IF we assume that the Cyclone and Alpha were drawn on-model, IF we assume that the Cyclone was directly next to the Alpha instead of an unknown distance in the foreground. This is still between 2 and 4 meters shorter than the Vindicator is believed to be (the Valkyrie is 12.7 meters tall and a quick Google survey suggests that the Vindicator is believed to be about 14 meters tall). Considering all the assumptions that were made...

Since somebody mentioned the scene with the Gurab:

The Gurab is pretty much seen dead-on from the top, so it's around 183.2 pixels wide. Given the 3.6m width (huh??? Harmony Gold), that's 1.9 cm/pixel. From the top of the Shadow Alpha's head to the ground is 355 pixels, or 6.7 meters. This is around half the Vindicator's believed height.

Does the Alpha look like it's bent double in that picture? Because its hands would have to be nearly touching the ground and its torso would have to be nearly horizontal to get to half its height.

[Seto Kaiba]

The only real PoC in the Alpha/Beta would be the linkage, which a non-transformable demonstrator(s) would be better than the VF-X-5 to mature the technology.

Again, you're overlooking the substantial difference in scale and capability... it's not like we built ONE UND PRECISELY ONE proof of concept plane for jet fighters and just rolled with the punches thereafter. There would logically have been one, or more likely several, test units in the line up to ensure that everything was viable with the smaller platform.

That is still a far cry from reinventing everything that is going into the platform. I have no doubt that new items will need to be designed for the new scale, but there are also items that can capitilize on things that came before it reducing development cost, time, and risk.

Elements of the design where cost, time, and risk will be reduced are going to be few and far between, because you're basically designing the plane all over again from scratch when you scale it up like that. Any saved time is going to be lost on the back end trying to make the bloody thing look like an Alpha again.

Still there is plenty of precendent for the g-Alpha borrowing from the r-Alpha (and other units) when it can. The designers are not going to need to sit down and redesign the ejection seat, control interface, every single piece of electronics/avionics, write a completely new set of software, or the RCS jets (could simply place more, though aspects of the overall system will need adjustment).

Actually, in pretty much all cases they are going to have to start from zero. Sizing up an airframe like that means the cockpit arrangement is going to change, the controls would need to be redesigned to accommodate the larger airframe and necessary changes to the onboard computers and flight avionics, new system software will need to be written for the larger airframe's different handling as a result of its jumbo-ized aerodynamics, and all of the moving parts and their support systems are going to have to be redesigned to work at the larger scale. (The square-cubed law is not your friend)

There's a reason that well under 17% of the parts from a Hornet are compatible with the Super Hornet... it's because they're basically two completely different planes "under the hood".

How would unstated issues with the Beta be a contradiction?

No issues of any kind are ever mentioned with the Beta implementation once the design was completed as VF/B-9. Making it faulty again would entail changing large parts of the Beta's established backstory.

The combiner is still relatively new concept in RT

The concept is 22 years old as of RTSC. That's not "relatively new".

How so? Deception is a part of warfare. While the approach used is different here, the basic concept of visual trickery is not without precedent as there have been programs to play visual trics on the enemy eyes (examples are mention in the June 7, 1993 Aviation Week & Space Technology article pg 136-7) in the past.

We're not talking about dazzle camo here, we're talking about a MASSIVE expenditure of money and resources to build a larger version of a plane that's already in service... with the idea of confusing an enemy that doesn't rely on optical tracking anyway.

The Condor was not used as a PoC unit in RT as it was in the OSM, it is supposed to be a design competitor to the Beta (VF-X-5 vs VF-X-7, 2E RPG pg 127 Manga TSC RPG).

Yeah, that's the RPG... there's no canon stats for the Condor out and about, so you can't actually say that that's the case. Whatever its faults/virtues, the RPG has never been a canon resource.

[dataweaver]

In at least one case, the problem is that the (obviously foreground, because it drive in front of the battloid) cyclone is too small, and by a significant margin: in terms of its length, it's roughly half as large as it ought to be - and that's before taking into account that it's smaller than it looks due to being closer to the viewer than the Alpha.

um.. last i checked, objects closer to the viewer look bigger. basic perspective.

Yes. looks bigger than it is, and thus is smaller than it looks. We're saying the same thing.

and does it matter whether it was the alpha drawn large or the riders drawn small? the end result is the same. images of a giant alpha type unit in use at reflex point. the in universe implications are the same, since the riders are the known sized object.

and it's the scene with the invid shocktrooper that really illustrates the size. it had to be drawn at that scale difference, there is no way it's an animation cell misplaced or anything since the two directly interact.

I'm not arguing that point. But "Animation Error" can take more forms than just misplaced animation cells; it can also take the form of the animator just plain getting it wrong, and not being corrected until it's too late. This can happen when, for instance, the animation for an episode (or even just parts of an episode) is farmed out to another studio, as was the case for the infamous micronized Destroids in Macross; I suspect that something similar may have happened here.

[rtsurfer]

This will probably cause additional headaches I think, but per the RT.com Infopedia AND Art of the Shadow Chronicles the VR-052 Motorcycle mode is listed at a length of 2.4m NOT the 2.05m found in the RPG and OSM. And the Shock Trooper's width is also 3.6meters w/guns in all those sources (not the 4.6 value used by Robotech Research).

2.41m is the length uRRG used for the VR-055, apparently rt.com adopted a similar length (2.4m) for the VR-052. Wonder why they changed it from 2.05m, especially when it appears the devastator attachments would make the 55 longer than the 52?
Back in 2002, Kenneth Olson/olsonk acknowledged on both rt.com and rdf-hq that he had made an error using 4.6 as the width for the Shock Trooper. If you use the OSM its height is 5.1 with a width of 3.8, using rt.com its 4.8 with a width of 3.6m, PW Walker said the change from the OSM was to do with assumptions about the default angle of the cannons in illustrations. When doing my calculations I used 5.1/3.8 as I personally didn't agree with pwwalker's reasoning for changing the Shock Trooper from the OSM.

[ESalter]

Maybe PoC for transatmospheric assault?

Again wouldn't the VF-1 be PoC in RT?

The VF-1 can travel from orbit, but it can't perform a mission.

Even the Zentreadi hardware could be used as PoC.

That's true.

The only real PoC in the Alpha/Beta would be the linkage, which a non-transformable demonstrator(s) would be better than the VF-X-5 to mature the technology.

I don't know: transformation was part of Max and Karen's flight test.

I have no doubt that new items will need to be designed for the new scale....

Yes, but why would a completely new system look exactly the same? Take the head: why is it bigger? Because it has more sensors? Every Alpha has a different head; why would a head with different sensors look the same? And the Tarantula launchers: why are they bigger? They can't carry more missiles: they'd have to rescale by exactly 100%. So the missiles themselves are larger. Why? Are they for the same thing? Is it coincidence they scale the same way as the rest of the head? Is it coincidence the head scales the same way as the rest of the body?

⁂

BTW, I notice some of the Shadow Fighters (including sometimes the "Vindicators") have old-style circular intakes.

[Seto Kaiba]

I'm not arguing that point. But "Animation Error" can take more forms than just misplaced animation cells; it can also take the form of the animator just plain getting it wrong, and not being corrected until it's too late.

Typically, when someone says "animation error" they mean that a character or object in the animation was drawn incorrectly. It's a term that covers a multitude of sins, from being off model in appearance to not being up to the usual standard of quality.

This can happen when, for instance, the animation for an episode (or even just parts of an episode) is farmed out to another studio, as was the case for the infamous micronized Destroids in Macross; I suspect that something similar may have happened here.

True enough... the spotty, off-model animation in the original Macross series was the result of Tatsunoko farming out parts of the animation to AnimeFriend and StarPro. They're the ones responsible for the epically bad knife fight scene and a host of other slips like that VF-1A with three lasers, or the tail missiles, or having lasers fire from the FLIR sensors that are mounted on the sides of the VF-1's nose.

It is, however, also true that animation errors can be introduced simply by having a rushed production schedule or a budget crunch from overspending on the previous episode (like in Macross Frontier Ep8), or simply by the show's design staff not doing their bloody job and establishing no details for the animators to go by (e.g. the entire Southern Cross series).

The VF-1 can travel from orbit, but it can't perform a mission.

Source?

I don't know: transformation was part of Max and Karen's flight test.

According to Tommy and co., Sentinels has pretty much been disowned entirely, and they have no intention of ever revisiting it.

[ShadowLogan]

@Seto

Again, you're overlooking the substantial difference in scale and capability... it's

I don't doubt there could be other demonstrators out there, but are they going to occupy a VF-X-# slot? We only have the -2/3 slots left open for the 85 episode run. Which doesn't leave a lot of room for a series of demonstrators using VF-X-# slots.

Nor does the Condor really do anything to address the linkage PoC since there is nothing for it to "link" to AFAIK.

Sizing up an airframe like that means the cockpit arrangement is going to change, the controls would need to be redesigned to accommodate the larger airframe and necessary changes to the onboard computers and flight avionics, new system software will need to be written for the larger airframe's different handling as a result of its jumbo-ized aerodynamics, and all of the moving parts and their support systems are going to have to be redesigned to work at the larger scale. (The square-cubed law is not your friend)

While the basic outer "shell" of the Alpha is growing they could still design the interior to use hardware from the previous size when there is a benift to reusing. The software I'm not so sure they would have to write everything from scratch. They could modify the existing software to account for the new variables.

As for the ~17% of the Super Hornet/Hornet commonality, that is still a far cry from "virtually every piece" that you maintain. I've seen Avionics and Software at 90% common, and less than 40% overall between the E/F and the previous C/D (atleast at one point in time).

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/usw ... r/f18.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Sup ... cts-06392/

No issues of any kind are ever mentioned with the Beta implementation once the design was completed as VF/B-9. Making it faulty again would entail changing large parts of the Beta's established backstory.

IINM there is very little said about the backstory in AoTSC and the Infopedia leaving room for added details later. Even the RPG entry omits mention of the VF-X-5 as a competitor (which is mentioned in the Condor backstory), so is the Condor backstory wrong? Or did they just consider it not important to the Beta's backstory?

The concept is 22 years old as of RTSC. That's not "relatively new".

While the concept is 22 years, it is new compared to the non-combiner. Most of that 22year span takes place under controlled conditions. The non-combiner concept has a lot more experience having been used in the VF-1, Logan, AJAC, VHT, Alpha (operated alone for years). We can make it even more lopsided with non-transformables.

We're not talking about dazzle camo here, we're talking about a MASSIVE expenditure of money and resources to build a larger version of a plane that's already in service... with the idea of confusing an enemy that doesn't rely on optical tracking anyway.

The Invid are very much an optical based foe. And it was for the RPG setting where it is clear the Invid are heavily into optical sensors.

While I agree it is a more expensive expenditure, what you are getting overall goes beyond just visual trickry. There likely is no "silver bullet" to justify the g-Alpha, and we are left with a "box of bullets". So individually an explanation may not work alone, but taken within a group they can.

@rtsurfer
I don't know. But if HG is saying the measurements are different than those being used, their numbers actually strengthen the result from the Cyclone and weaken the Shock Trooper. I do have to wonder why Oslnok hasn't updated the Vindicator article to accommodate the error.

@ESalter
While the VF-1 can travel from orbit and not make an assault (well it's internal lasers are still available), it can still "prove" aspects of the concept. Weapons delivery could be "simulated".

While Max & Karen's flight envolved transformation, that seemed pretty late in the development. Testing programs usually move from the simple and build up complexity so I don't see how the VF-X-5 mitigates issues at the more complex stage involving the linkup.

The (shadow) Giant Alpha may have been an attempt to get away from model unique heads. The internals may use more powerful version or offer additonal options (g-alpha with head lasers?). The Shadow Alpha doesn't have the Tarantula launcher in the RPG or AoTSC so it is a non-issue on the Shadow Model. Non-shadow do have the option of using different missile or...

The g-Alpha may not be a 100% copy we think we are seeing. Most of the time the Regult Battle pod's main guns appear to be a single barrel, but on certain closeup shots is revelaed to be a covered quad-design. We have to consider an effect like that could be in play with a g-Alpha do we not?

[Seto Kaiba]

I don't doubt there could be other demonstrators out there, but are they going to occupy a VF-X-# slot?

Remember, it's pretty much standard practice for the development of a plane in the official setting to progress from VF-X-# to YF-# to VF-#, all while retaining the same number. As such, we only really have the one case where the number changed between early tests of the airframe design and the finished model. (The Beta is the only one where this occurred canonically, leaving -2, -3, and -5 open, where we've had the above progression at least three times and almost certainly more.)

While the basic outer "shell" of the Alpha is growing they could still design the interior to use hardware from the previous size when there is a benefit to reusing.

Now, as I've said, from a mechanical engineering perspective, there isn't going to be much (or more realistically, any) opportunity for parts reuse between the two versions, because we're talking about a plane that is stretched in EVERY DIMENSION. That means designing pretty much everything over again from scratch to work with the larger airframe body and structural scale.

The software I'm not so sure they would have to write everything from scratch. They could modify the existing software to account for the new variables.

As someone with a fair amount of professional experience with embedded control systems and robotics, I'd have to say that its infinitely more likely that the increase in scale and a resulting redesign of the internal systems is inevitably going to mean having to design the software over again from scratch or close to it.

While I agree it is a more expensive expenditure, what you are getting overall goes beyond just visual trickry. There likely is no "silver bullet" to justify the g-Alpha, and we are left with a "box of bullets". So individually an explanation may not work alone, but taken within a group they can.

Except when you consider that a box of bullets without the "gun of official support" means that you're up a creek without a paddle regardless. Mind you, based on what's been said about the supposed visual evidence, it may be an illusory box of bullets you're attempting to work with.

[Nightmask]

The software I'm not so sure they would have to write everything from scratch. They could modify the existing software to account for the new variables.

As someone with a fair amount of professional experience with embedded control systems and robotics, I'd have to say that its infinitely more likely that the increase in scale and a resulting redesign of the internal systems is inevitably going to mean having to design the software over again from scratch or close to it.

Trying to reuse software like that even in things close to what it was originally built for can end up being a bad idea let alone in a much larger scale. One of many RL examples there was a radiation treatment machine that was a newer model of an older one and used the same software, unfortunately the new hardware lacked things the software expected including hardware safeties. As a result hundreds of people got lethal doses of radiation (insult to injury when you're already a cancer patient) or close to it because the software was looking for things that weren't there and it wasn't capable of dealing with. I'd hate to be in a powerful machine like a Veritech where the software was repurposed from something that really wasn't meant for it.

[Jefffar]

There were similar issues with the fly by wire systems of the F-22. This was the result.

[ESalter]

@ESalter
While the VF-1 can travel from orbit and not make an assault (well it's internal lasers are still available), it can still "prove" aspects of the concept. Weapons delivery could be "simulated".

If it can't actually deliver weapons, doesn't that make it a failure as a PoC?

While Max & Karen's flight envolved transformation, that seemed pretty late in the development. Testing programs usually move from the simple and build up complexity so I don't see how the VF-X-5 mitigates issues at the more complex stage involving the linkup.

I...don't know either; I wasn't actually following the exchange, I just wanted to note that fact about the test flight.

The (shadow) Giant Alpha may have been an attempt to get away from model unique heads.

If so, it's a first for Robotech.

The internals may use more powerful version or offer additonal options (g-alpha with head lasers?).

But we don't see them. Equipment in the head always "shows" in Robotech designs, so why would a head with added lasers look just like a smaller head without?

The Shadow Alpha doesn't have the Tarantula launcher in the RPG or AoTSC so it is a non-issue on the Shadow Model.

Noted, but the rest of my argument stands: why would a "head" with different equipment look the same?

The g-Alpha may not be a 100% copy we think we are seeing. Most of the time the Regult Battle pod's main guns appear to be a single barrel, but on certain closeup shots is revelaed to be a covered quad-design. We have to consider an effect like that could be in play with a g-Alpha do we not?

It's possible, certainly; but what I can see is all I have to go on.

[Drakenred®™©]

my take on a lot of things to this point

1 the VF 1 had 2 wing and one "centerline" hardpoint,(centerline hp being the gunpod)

there is one total peice of "offical" art for a mecha thats within the timeline of the Robotec show that shows a VF1 with three heavy missle mount hardpoints and that was refered to as a "unique" variant of the S with boosters. and even THAT art was produced in 1996 or 1997.

There is also more or less offical art of "post show" versions of the VF-1, including at least one "stealth frame" VF with concealed weapon bays.. one has 2X2 (wing) 2X1 (engine) 1 centerline and 4 (conformal on the boddy) however thoes are non cannon and almost all were produced after the show ended. (some were based on artists impresions of the never developed "super bombcat" and ASF-14/Advanced Strike Fighter-14 )

again none of which can be considered cannon

beyond that you have a number of things that were either art errors, deliberately included art from seond/third party animators, and fan service. thoes probably should not be considered cannon either.

[dataweaver]

The bottom line is that we've got two fundamentally opposed sets of assumptions going here. One group looks at the scenes that depict oversized Alphas and says "it showed up in the episode, so it's part of Robotech"; and with that as a given, the next step is to explain how that could be. The other group looks at those same scenes and says "those are animation errors; so it's up to HG, and they say no"; and with that, there's no need to rationalize an oversized Alpha. Until this fundamental divide is settled, the debate will not be resolved.

[Tiree]

The bottom line is that we've got two fundamentally opposed sets of assumptions going here. One group looks at the scenes that depict oversized Alphas and says "it showed up in the episode, so it's part of Robotech"; and with that as a given, the next step is to explain how that could be. The other group looks at those same scenes and says "those are animation errors; so it's up to HG, and they say no"; and with that, there's no need to rationalize an oversized Alpha. Until this fundamental divide is settled, the debate will not be resolved.

That is a pretty good summary of most things on this board.

[Seto Kaiba]

If it can't actually deliver weapons, doesn't that make it a failure as a PoC?

I've asked this a few times already, but nobody has been able to give me a satisfactory answer... where is it established that the VF-1 cannot effect a reentry with fixed armaments? I have to ask, because I'm genuinely in the dark here. It's baseless as far as the OSM is concerned.

The (shadow) Giant Alpha may have been an attempt to get away from model unique heads.

If so, it's a first for Robotech.

If so, it'd be inconsistent with the regular Alpha and the Shadow subfamily... both of which have variant heads (the -H, -I, and -Z for the regular model, the -X and -ZX for the Shadow version).

1 the VF 1 had 2 wing and one "centerline" hardpoint,(centerline hp being the gunpod)

Technically, the center station isn't a "hardpoint" because of its specialized nature, though it's listed as one on the VF-1's armament selector. (Station 3)

there is one total peice of "offical" art for a mecha thats within the timeline of the Robotec show that shows a VF1 with three heavy missle mount hardpoints and that was refered to as a "unique" variant of the S with boosters. and even THAT art was produced in 1996 or 1997.

To say nothing of the fact that it doesn't make any sense, and falls apart under even the most superficial examination.

There is also more or less offical art of "post show" versions of the VF-1, including at least one "stealth frame" VF with concealed weapon bays..

I think you may be either confused or misinformed... the VF-1 has never been shown in a "stealth" version or fitted with internal ordinance bays. You're thinking of the SW-XA1 Schneeblume, which is something completely different, and isn't technically even a Macross design.

one has 2X2 (wing) 2X1 (engine) 1 centerline and 4 (conformal on the boddy) however thoes are non cannon and almost all were produced after the show ended.

That's news to me... must be fan-made, because we've got fairly comprehensive coverage of the VF-1 across the various official Macross publications, and to the best of my knowledge it has never EVER been shown with body hardpoints.

[Drakenred®™©]

I may be misremembering another projects or fan mecha. Its in my printouts(someplace, I did several binders of them, I will try to backtrack it later.

[Jefffar]

There is nothing officially established in Robotech about any craft's ability to take externally stored ordinance through re-entry.

To my knowledge, the only two images that we have of a veritech fighter during atmospheric , one didn't have any ordinance to eject (Scott) and the other ejected everything it was carrying including non-external ordinance (Rick). Both Veritechs were damaged at the time.

However it is common sense that if even minor structural damage (a few lose tiles caused by a piece of insulation foam) can have catastrophic effects during re-entry (destruction of a shuttle and the loss of several crew) that an aircraft performing re-entry would want to be in a totally clean configuration, not carrying several large drag-inducing external objects that are only secured to the air-frame by explosive bolts. Indeed, the majority of combat craft designed with atmospheric entry as a part of their mission profile (Alpha, Beta, Zentraedi Fighter Pod) keep the vast majority of their ordinance stored internally indicating the preference for shielding the ordinance against the effects of re-entry.

If anyone found an image in Robotech's official material (ie not OSM) demonstrating an atmospheric entry I would definitely change my tune about external ordinance. But until then, on-screen evidence and common sense both point to no external ordinance during re-entry.

[rtsurfer]

What moron loaded software without customizing its install for the new equipment, especially when people's lives were involved?

All of this arguing that's been going on supposes the over-sized Alpha was expanded in size overall which isn't necessarily supported by the animation. If you actually compare the over-sized Alphas to line art of the Shadow Alpha most of it appears about the same with the exception of a stretched torso and upper legs, the hip joints also appear to be set in a different place than in the standard model.

[ShadowLogan]

@Seto

Remember, it's pretty much standard practice for the development of a plane in the official setting to progress from VF-X-# to YF-# to VF-#, all while retaining the same number. As such, we only really have the one case where the number changed between early tests of the airframe design and the finished model. (The Beta is the only one where this occurred canonically, leaving -2, -3, and -5 open, where we've had the above progression at least three times and almost certainly more.)

Technically the -5 is used for the Condor (in the RPG continuity), and has been mentioned as such in the past in the infopedia entry with regard to the Beta. Lacking a non-RPG writeup for the Condor the RPG is the closest we have to an official take on the unit at this time.

What about those demonstrators that are intended merly to advance/mature technology for a later development vehicle that may or may not lead to production and have little/nothing in common externally with later platforms that utilize their technology (things like an X-5, X-29, X-31, X-36, Boeing's Bird of Prey, and Nasa's Oblique Wing aircraft, etc).

As someone with a fair amount of professional experience with embedded control systems and robotics, I'd have to say that its infinitely more likely that the increase in scale and a resulting redesign of the internal systems is inevitably going to mean having to design the software over again from scratch or close to it.

Perhaps with the robotics systems, but some of the regular avionics can certainly reuse the software as is or with some modification if avionics are being shared between the two platforms.

That means designing pretty much everything over again from scratch to work with the larger airframe body and structural scale.

But not everything. That means even in the scaled up Alpha it will have to make accommodations for (what is likely) a standard ejector seat. If they can do that, then they can make accomodations for parts to be reused from the smaller platform where a new design is not warrented and a waste.

Except when you consider that a box of bullets without the "gun of official support" means that you're up a creek without a paddle regardless. Mind you, based on what's been said about the supposed visual evidence, it may be an illusory box of bullets you're attempting to work with.

HG has said "Where conflicts arise, consistency with events of the television episodes takes priority", so the Vindicator is canon since it would be consistant with the TV episodes (it isn't the first platform built at the scale).

@ESalter
No it would not be a failure as a PoC. It would still be able to prove the concept in part, reducing risk when they move up to the next generation system. Aspects not covered could be proven in the Ghost Fighter or Zentreadi Fighter Pod.

Basically the Condor really doesn't work as a PoC vehicle in Robotech the same way it does in the Mospedea. And what backstory we have makes for the Condor makes it's use as a PoC vehicle for technology going into the Alpha and Beta as they are concurrent projects.

I thought the VHT-1 used standard heads, but merly different color highlights/markings. The AGACs, and Beta might qualify to depending on the heads of the alternate models (which aren't seen, AGACs come in A/B versions and the Beta's A/S version, in both cases only 1 model assumes Battloid in the series). Destroids IIRC don't have head variations, but the Battloids do. And as I said,it may be an attempt to get away from the unique head designs.

I think the mecha was made to resemble a smaller unit in part for the visual deception mentioned previously. And what we can see is from a decent distance so details may be lacking that could require or provide an answer (depending on the new details). The RPG/Infopedia do list some of the Bioroids of the Masters as having head cannons, but IINM they are never used in the show, so the g-Alpha could have head lasers and not fire them.

[jaymz]

VHT-1 Spartas does have different heads. AGACS only has essentially one model thus one (A/B are effectively hte same) adn the Beta doesn't actually have a head. Destroids again don't actually have heads to make variations of.

[rtsurfer]

Scott's Beta does have a head, although it seems to have a very limited range of motion, which it doesn't always seem to deploy and sometimes isn't very visible even when out in the animation. Don't know about the other Betas & Shadow Betas as none are ever seen onscreen in battloid mode. Doesn't the Tomahawk/Excalibur have a head?