Variants of the support aircraft, & other musings.

[green.nova343]

Quick question as to whether anyone's, for example, come up with the original aircraft that the EC-33 Tiger's Eye was modified into?

The reason I'm even suggesting it exists is that, in the real world, straight civilian-to-military conversions for a particularly military mission only use 1 designation letter (2 for VTOL/rotary-wing). For example:
-- Boeing 707 purchased as C-135 Stratoliner, E-3 Sentry, E-6 Mercury, and E-8 Joint STARS
-- Boeing 737-700C purchased as C-40 Clipper and P-8 Poseidon
-- McDonnell-Douglas DC9-30 purchased as C-9A Nightingale/C-9B Skytrain II
-- Boeing 747 purchased as E-4B Advanced Airborne Command Post

Fixed-wing aircraft only get 2 letters for their designation if converted from an original role, or if they have a designated dual-role from the start:
-- C-135s converted to tankers & other uses became KC-135, EC-135, RC-135, WC-135, etc.
-- Boeing 707s purchased for VIP transport as VC-137 (later downgraded to C-137 when they were no longer used for VIP transport)
-- C-130s modified for other uses include AC-130, MC-130, HC-130, EC-130, etc.
-- McDonnell-Douglas DC10 purchased for dual tanker/transport role as KC-10
-- Hornet dual fighter/attack craft, so designated F/A-18
-- A-6 Intruders and F-111 Aardvarks converted for EW work redesignated EA-6A/B and EF-111

In this case, we have the EC-33 Tiger's Eye...an AEW platform that appears to have been converted from a transport role. If I had to guess, I'd suggest that the "original" be a slightly advanced version of the McDonnell-Douglas MD-90-30ER (derived from their MD-80 series, itself a modernization of the DC9 which the C-9A/B are based on). The reasons for this, as opposed to being based on another aircraft:
-- most other airplanes aren't that close in size. Of those, the Airbus A320 hadn't even flown in 1982 (when Macross was first aired), & the Boeing 737 has never been developed into a version "stretched" enough to come close in length.
-- Almost no other airliner manufacturer besides McDonnell-Douglas built mid-range to long-range airliners with twin tail-mounted engines. Most either use wing-loaded engines, or if they have tail-mounts they're "tri-engine" designs. The only exception is the Boeing 717... which itself was actually McDonnell-Douglas's MD-95 design rebranded once it was bought by Boeing.

The only issue, of course, is range. The MD-90 has less than half the EC-33's listed range. However, I did notice that the speed/range stats for the EC-33 are identical to the real-world E-10 MC2A project (link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-10_MC2A). The cancelled project would have used a common airframe (Boeing 767-400ER) to replace the E-3 (AWACS role) and RC-135 (SIGINT/signal intelligence) and supplement the E-8 Joint STARS (air/ground surveillance). However, that airframe is much bigger (33% longer, 44% greater wingspan), with a corresponding increase in engine thrust & fuel capacity for additional range. But still, given that the MD-90-30ER could reach a 2,750 mile/4,424km range with the auxiliary tanks installed, the EC-33's longer wingspan (& larger wing tanks) should add another 5-10% on top of that, with aerial refueling allowing for longer time on station. The transport version could easily carry 132 troops (a significant increase over the C-9 series), providing a much-needed intermediate source between the Tunny & Mom's Kitchen.

Which brings me to some other points. Given the Mom's Kitchen's VTOL capabilities, & its similarity in mission to the MV-22/CV-22 Osprey, I think it's safe to say that we should be calling it the CV-33 Mom's Kitchen, indicating its Cargo VTOL usage; "VC" implies that it's primary function is VIP transport, when it's clearly more of a light tactical/COD (Carrier On Deck) cargo transport along the lines of the G.222/C-27 Spartan, DHC-5 Caribou, or C-23 Sherpa.

The Tunny has me somewhat stumped, though. On the one hand, I think "VC" needs to go; it's equivalent to the An-124 Condor/C-5 Galaxy, & therefore a cargo transport whose passenger capabilities are far from "VIP". OTOH.... although some of the source artwork indicates it's supposed to have vectored nozzles & potentially have a VTOL capability, I'm not sure that "CV" is going to be appropriate either. In order to have VTOL capability, the "pounds-thrust" rating for all engines combined has to be greater than the aircraft's weight. Even assuming an estimated 10% fuel load (which won't give you very much range without aerial refueling) & a very small load of about 35 tons, and assuming there are a total of 8 equal-sized engines (4 on the wings, 4 ventral lift-only), you're basically on the edge for the engines in use at the time (54,000 lb-f CF6-50s, which were used on Boeing's YC-14 prototype, & actually resemble the Tunny's wing engines). And that dorsal air intake looks barely big enough for 1 or 2 engines, let alone 4 additional ones. Having only 6 engines means either drastically dropping the fuel/cargo load, or requiring 70,000 lb-f class engines; 5 engines means 85,000 lb-f class engines. Now, we do have those types of engines available... but they didn't reach service until much, much later. And to be honest, even if you could justify it getting the GE90 engines (quite possibly some of the most powerful at 115,000 lb-f each), you're looking at either cutting half your fuel or half your cargo for VTOL operation. To me, it's simpler to say that the C-27 Tunny was designed to complement the C-17 Globemaster III, utilizing the YC-14's Coandra effect (i.e. extra lift from the engine exhaust blowing directly over the wings) combined with vectored thrust for C-17-like STOL performance while carrying C-5-capacity cargo to a C-5's range... which means, again, it would be the C-27 Tunny.

Lastly... the ES-11 Cat's Eye should, quite simply, be just the E-11 Cat's Eye. And, unlike the E-2/E-3/EC-33, it doesn't really have any room for additional crew besides the EW officer & the pilot. Not to mention it apparently has 4 engines (2 pod-mounted in the wings, 2 fuselage-mounted similar to an F-4 Phantom II): the fuselage air intakes behind the pilot's seat are quite distinctive.

Thoughts/comments?

[Seto Kaiba]

Quick question as to whether anyone's, for example, come up with the original aircraft that the EC-33 Tiger's Eye was modified into?

Per the OSM, the EC-33B "Disk Sensor" was manufactured by McNell Douglar*... so the most likely candidate is that it's a modified version of a McNell Douglar transport jet. The creators of Macross were big military aviation buffs, and the organizational model the UN Forces are built around in Macross is largely inherited from the US armed forces, with a couple distinctly Japanese touches here and there. The EC-33 designation indicates a basic mission code for a transport aircraft (C), and a modified mission code for an electronic warfare craft (E). The original model it was derived from didn't appear in the series or animation model sheets, but was likely a transport aircraft designated C-33.

If I had to guess, I'd suggest that the "original" be a slightly advanced version of the McDonnell-Douglas MD-90-30ER [...]

More likely, it's based off a successor to that model (McNell Douglar is a non-infringing "bland name" substitution for the McDonnell Douglas corporation) that was developed to apply OTM/Robotechnology.

Which brings me to some other points. Given the Mom's Kitchen's VTOL capabilities, & its similarity in mission to the MV-22/CV-22 Osprey, I think it's safe to say that we should be calling it the CV-33 Mom's Kitchen, indicating its Cargo VTOL usage; [...]

The correct designation is VC-33, not CV. The VC-33's modified mission code is V, "staff transport", indicating that it was modified into a staff transport. Its basic mission code was C, for "cargo transport", which is what it was originally. There are no special notations made for VTOL craft among the Macross designs, because there's nothing special about the capability anymore.

The Tunny has me somewhat stumped, though. On the one hand, I think "VC" needs to go; it's equivalent to the An-124 Condor/C-5 Galaxy, & therefore a cargo transport whose passenger capabilities are far from "VIP".

You're assuming that's the case... rather without evidence, I might add. Its designation indicates that it's a cargo plane that was adapted for service as a staff transport. It wouldn't be all that far out of precedent, Generals Eisenhower and Arnold used converted B-25 Mitchell bombers as their staff transports. There are several similar real-world cargo planes converted to (and designated as) staff transport modifications... like the VC-9C (a converted C-9). Air Force one has a formal aircraft designation of VC-25A.

OTOH.... although some of the source artwork indicates it's supposed to have vectored nozzles & potentially have a VTOL capability, [...]

Considering they wrote "VTOL" in the animation model sheet's title in perfectly legible English, and included it in a label with an arrow pointing to one of the VC-27's engine nozzles... there's nothing "potential" about it having VTOL capability.

EDIT: It's actually in the sheet's title TWICE, as 大型VTOL輸送機. (Lit. "Large VTOL transport")

I'm not sure that "CV" is going to be appropriate either. In order to have VTOL capability, the "pounds-thrust" rating for all engines combined has to be greater than the aircraft's weight. Even assuming [...]

You're assuming these planes are made of modern materials and are using modern engine technology with modern jet fuels. Let's go ahead and discard that notion, because OSMly it ain't even in the ballpark. The actual fuel that plane would have OSMly used only weighs about 0.085 kilograms per liter, and even a VF-1 engine can generate more than 54,000lb force... there's nothing wrong with the design or designation, the only problem is your faulty assumptions.

EDIT: Just to give you an exact number, the hydrogen fuel used in the original work weighs 0.085kg/L, or a hair under 0.71 pounds per gallon. The maximum rated output from the engines used on the early block (1-5) VF-1 is 25,000kg-f x 2, which is roughly 55,116lb-f x 2... and those are extremely small engines.

Lastly... the ES-11 Cat's Eye should, quite simply, be just the E-11 Cat's Eye.

Wrong. The ES-11D Cat's Eye is a spaceplane... and it's designated as such. The E is its basic mission code, that marks it out as a special electronic installation (electronic warfare) unit, and the S is its vehicle type, which indicates the craft is a spaceplane, able to operate as an ordinary plane in atmosphere and a spacecraft in space.



In summation, there is nothing wrong here. Not even slightly.

[ShadowLogan]

@ green.nova343
You are assuming that the UEDF/UEEF follows US Military designation system. They may not, and that system has been revised at least once (circa 60s).

Re: Cat's Eye
ES-11, your saying it couldn't be a modified version of a S-11 like the S-12/ES-12 which isn't noted?

Crew size, yes. Not sure how PB got the crew size, dialogue only points to a two person crew (so do visuals). Could be a stretched cockpit version (A-6 to EA-6) in some models I suppose.

[glitterboy2098]

pretty sure the "V" on the VC-33 is supposed to mean "vtol", the same as the AV-8 harrier and the CV-22 Osprey.
there have been a number of real world exceptions to the normal tri-service designators, so not too unbelievable that the letters are turned around from how they are supposed to be. though CV-33 would be more correct, your right. a VIP modified one might be VCV-33..
also, anyone else feel it that "mom's kitchen" sounds more like an informal nickname, not an official designation? since the manufacutrer providesthe name for the military to vet, it should have a less informal name. i'd vote for "skyspirit" or something similar, in keeping with the naming methods of the companies being expied in the macross version.


and many of the macross aircraft resemble concepts looked at by the us military in the 70's. the 'moms kitchen' resembles concepts for marine vtol 'jump jet' troop transports, the Dragon II looks like one of the early FX program concepts, the karyovin looks almost identical to the Boeing 'microfighter' concept, etc.

and btw, there were other company's using the twin tail engine layout.. like Fokker

the EC-33 though looks more like a modernized Vickers VC-10
or perhaps the Ilyushin Il-62, which is closer to the right size.

(for some reason, when i tried to add links to the wikipedia page for Fokker and those last two planes, i'd get a 403 error when i hit submit. weird..)

[Seto Kaiba]

@ green.nova343
You are assuming that the UEDF/UEEF follows US Military designation system. They may not, [...]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but green.nova343 is absolutely correct in that assumption.

You see, the aircraft designation system used by the UEDF/UEEF in the official Robotech universe is a direct lift of the designation system used by the UN Forces in the Macross universe(s). After the Macross Saga, they just ran with its established pattern rather than changing things up (in the official material). Macross's creators used the US military's organizational practices as the foundation for the UN Forces, including the 1962 US Tri-Service aircraft designation system.

ES-11, your saying it couldn't be a modified version of a S-11 like the S-12/ES-12 which isn't noted?

What about that design even remotely suggests it was designed for anti-submarine warfare? That's what the S stands for when used as a basic mission code. In this case, we know from the original creators that E is the basic mission code, and that the S is a vehicle type code for "Spaceplane", denoting its dual flight functionality.

pretty sure the "V" on the VC-33 is supposed to mean "vtol", the same as the AV-8 harrier and the CV-22 Osprey.

As I indicated in my previous post, this is not the case. The leading V really does indicate that this is a staff transporter conversion, and the C indicates it was converted from a cargo transport aircraft. It is explicitly described as a transport aircraft for staff officers and the like, so the VC code is entirely appropriate. The creators of Macross didn't opt to apply a vehicle type designation of V to any of the planes, because virtually every aircraft is VTOL and/or STOL capable, from the F203 Dragon II (sometimes called F/A-20) right on up the scale to the VC-27 Tunny.

also, anyone else feel it that "mom's kitchen" sounds more like an informal nickname, not an official designation?

Officially, it's its official designation... the UN Forces circa Space War 1 had a few odd names here and there, like a space work pod called the "Spider Bug", a space shuttle called the "Star Goose", etc. That's not even getting into the off-color ones like "Funny Chinese".

and many of the macross aircraft resemble concepts looked at by the us military in the 70's. the 'moms kitchen' resembles concepts for marine vtol 'jump jet' troop transports, the Dragon II looks like one of the early FX program concepts, the karyovin looks almost identical to the Boeing 'microfighter' concept, etc.

What do you expect from a series developed by a man whose passion is military aviation, and especially experimental and canceled programs? I don't believe the exact inspirations for the background support craft have been given, but most of the more prominent craft have had theirs identified.

[drewkitty ~..~]

When the RT 2nd ed: TSC book 1st came out, I did a Write Up on SAP packs for the Conbat fighter plane. One of them was a scout oriented pack.
(If you want the list then PM me about it.)

[ShadowLogan]

What about that design even remotely suggests it was designed for anti-submarine warfare? That's what the S stands for when used as a basic mission code. In this case, we know from the original creators that E is the basic mission code, and that the S is a vehicle type code for "Spaceplane", denoting its dual flight functionality.

From the ES-11 configuration it would need to be altered, most notably the loss of the radome. From there it isn't hard to see it as a fixed-wing aircraft tasked with the mission. Hardpoints can be added to allow weapons carriage. Adjust the sensors carried for more ASW and you would be good to go.

There are examples of aberrations even in the tri-service scheme (F/A-#, SR-71, TR-1), so even if one is modeling after that it is possible to have exceptions that don't follow the rules.

[Seto Kaiba]

From the ES-11 configuration it would need to be altered, most notably the loss of the radome. From there it isn't hard to see it as a fixed-wing aircraft tasked with the mission.

'cept that, as surface-attack craft go, you couldn't go much farther wrong than something designed like the ES-11. For an operational role like that, stability is all-important, so an intentionally-unstable forward-swept wing design would be a rather bad idea. There's also very little wing area to hang ordinance on, and a narrow body that is less than optimally configured for internal ordinance capacity. It's an ELINT/AWACS plane through and through...

There are examples of aberrations even in the tri-service scheme (F/A-#, SR-71, TR-1), so even if one is modeling after that it is possible to have exceptions that don't follow the rules.

Yes, I'm well aware... of course, due to my particular areas of research WRT the source material, I'm much better qualified to speak to what the designer's intent and inspiration were, and whether or not the designations they have are accurate.

[Jefffar]

TR-1 was British I believe. They had a different system.

[Seto Kaiba]

TR-1 was British I believe. They had a different system.

Nope, TR-1 was an aberrant designation that was briefly attached to a variant of the Lockheed U-2R spy plane, which was modified for standoff tactical reconnaissance. It followed the designation system, except for the use of a non-standard T modified mission letter ("Tactical" instead of the conventional "Trainer"). It wasn't British, but it was attached to a US Air Force unit stationed in Britain when it was deployed (the 17th Reconnaissance Wing). The TR-1A/B units were given new, completely in-system designations after the Cold War ended... U-2S and TU-2S respectively, wherein the T actually does carry the standard "Trainer" meaning.

[ShadowLogan]

cept that, as surface-attack craft go, you couldn't go much farther wrong than something designed like the ES-11. For an operational role like that, stability is all-important, so an intentionally-unstable forward-swept wing design would be a rather bad idea. There's also very little wing area to hang ordinance on, and a narrow body that is less than optimally configured for internal ordinance capacity. It's an ELINT/AWACS plane through and through...

They could give the S-11 a new wing. Ex, the S-3 viking was considered for an AWACs role with a completely new wing (would also double as the awac disk), but the core was still going to be an S-3, testing didn't proceed past scale models (early '90s). The X-29 is a relative of the F-5 family (includes the F-20 and T-38). There is also the F-16XL in the F-16 family (which IIRC also has a FSW design study that was passed over for the F-5 version). So new wing versions are not out of the question. The F/A-18E/F/G essentially has a new wing over the F/A-18A/B/C/D.

Additional alterations are also possible. Su-27 family has side-by-side cockpit and single aisle versions for example.

[Jefffar]

Oh, silly me. Was thinking of the TSR-2

[Seto Kaiba]

They could give the S-11 a new wing.

Its proper designation would be E-11, the S isn't its original mission letter... it's a vehicle type.

Ex, the S-3 viking [...] The X-29 [...] the F-20 [...] the F-16XL [...]

Plan to cite any examples that were actually put into production at any point?

The F/A-18E/F/G essentially has a new wing over the F/A-18A/B/C/D.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has the same wing as the F/A-18, just scaled up and with enlarged leading edge extensions.

Su-27 family has side-by-side cockpit and single aisle versions for example.

Which are not designed to fill a radically different role from the original craft... apples and oranges.

the F-16 family (which IIRC also has a FSW design study that was passed over for the F-5 version).

F-16 SFW test unit, from the same DARPA contract as the X-29 in the 70s.

[ShadowLogan]

Plan to cite any examples that were actually put into production at any point?

S-3 was a proposal for a new platform that did not take off. My impression is that it was planned for production, it just did not reach that stage (it isn't the only S-3 AWAC I've seen).

The X-29 was an X-plane, off hand I don't know if was intended to result in an actual production platform (X-32/35, X-33) or pure research (X-1, X-15).

The F-16XL was entered in competition with what would result in the F-15E, so it was intended to be put into production.

The main point wasn't production status in any of those cases, but the nature of the new wing in some versions of the planes can and does get radical. Platforms also have other changes that get made to them structurally, so the idea the S-11 would need to look identical to the ES-11 isn't valid.

Its proper designation would be E-11, the S isn't its original mission letter... it's a vehicle type.

The ES-11 dates to the Global War in the RPG "debuted near the end of the Global War...", so S in this case can't refer to "space" given it was to replace E-2s on carriers and nothing about their stats suggest SSTO or a Booster unit to get them into "Space" (unless Space is used loosely here at altitudes where one can earn Astronaut Wings). Either ES here is an example of an aberration like the SR-71 and TR-1/U-2 (or F-111, which is more of an A than F mission) or it started out as anti-submarine and modified into an AWAC mission. Either way S really isn't a vehicle type in this case, it is a mission.

[Jefffar]

Or there is a different designation system being used in the fictional universe.

[Seto Kaiba]

Or there is a different designation system being used in the fictional universe.

Nope... officially, Robotech is using/inheriting the Macross universe's designation system pretty much unaltered, and that was an almost entirely unaltered lift of the 1962 United States tri-service aircraft designation system. Their one significant aberration is having a two-letter basic mission code for Variable craft, depending on their basic mission role.

[...] The main point wasn't production status in any of those cases, [...]

That's a "No" then?

[...] but the nature of the new wing in some versions of the planes can and does get radical. [...]

... while tactfully failing to note that such radical redesigns are pretty much entirely confined to experimental aircraft and never see production.

Its proper designation would be E-11, the S isn't its original mission letter... it's a vehicle type.

The ES-11 dates to the Global War in the RPG "debuted near the end of the Global War...", so S in this case can't refer to "space" given it was to replace E-2s on carriers and nothing about their stats suggest SSTO or a Booster unit to get them into "Space" (unless Space is used loosely here at altitudes where one can earn Astronaut Wings). [...]

Again, an interesting little omission on your part... you note WHEN the ES-11 is said to have been introduced in the RPG's fluff, but you fail to note that it's said to have been developed and introduced as an ELINT/AWACS plane. No mention is given to it being designed for any other role, which means (no surprises) that I'm absolutely correct and its basic mission letter is E, which means the S can only be a vehicle type. When the RPG talks about its space use, they mention that it received new engines for space flight, but no other modification is mentioned. That strongly suggests the ES-11 had, as part of its basic design, either super-high-altitude of limited space capability. The other possibility is that the S was just added later, to reflect the space conversion of a standard E-11.

[Jefffar]

Or there is a different designation system being used in the fictional universe.

Nope... officially, Robotech is using/inheriting the Macross universe's designation system pretty much unaltered, and that was an almost entirely unaltered lift of the 1962 United States tri-service aircraft designation system. Their one significant aberration is having a two-letter basic mission code for Variable craft, depending on their basic mission role.

'Pretty much unaltered' and 'almost entirely unaltered' still counts as different. It has to be completely unaltered to be the same.

[Seto Kaiba]

'Pretty much unaltered' and 'almost entirely unaltered' still counts as different. It has to be completely unaltered to be the same.

Let me amend that, then...

Both the official Robotech material and the Palladium role-playing game inherited Macross's UN Forces designation system in a fundamentally unaltered form. That system is just a very slightly modified version of the real-world 1962 United States tri-service aircraft designation system, the only noted deviation from which being the use of a two-letter V_ code in variable craft designations. Otherwise, the system is unaltered from its modern equivalent... meaning that, for the purposes of this discussion, it is the same.

[Jefffar]

As they use the V designation differently in the VC series of VTOL cargo aircraft (they should be CV instead) so there are definitely differences in practical application if not intent. The VAF and VBF are also aberrant designations compared to the current US system. They would likely place the A and B behind the F (assuming they kept them at all, the Alpha would be a better candidate for a straight F designation and the Beta an F/A).

So, assuming the ES-11 accurately follows the modern US designation system is fundamentally flawed as there are a number of in-universe examples that don't accurately follow that system.

At best it can be said the universe follows a system similar to modern American designations. A 'bland name' version if you will.

It's also not like there aren't designation aberrations in the modern system as well. For example the F-5 with an extra engine became the F-20 but the 25% larger new development of the F/A-18 is still designated F/A-18. Dedicated attack versions of the F-15 and F-16 were designated F-15E and F-16XL respectively. A further development, reduced radar cross section, multi-role version of the F-15E is currently being marketed as the F-15SE incidentally. The AV-8B shares little more than basic configuration in common with the AV-8A. Perhaps the greatest aberration in recent memory is designating a light stealth bomber a fighter (F-117).

Now why these aberrations exist within The real world is somewhat complicated and usually best described in terms of politics and market pressures. Sometimes the politicos won't fund a design if they think that it's a totally new kind of aircraft. Other times they won't fund it if they think its just an upgrade of an older design. Sometimes the political will says "No new bombers" or "All aircraft must be Multi-role". It's not unknown for designers or military purchasing boards to play games with the designation system to get around these obstacles.

So, it is entirely conceivable that the ES-11, if its designation is supposed to mirror current US practice, was the victim of such a political game. But given that much of the in universe system doesn't follow existing US protocol, there is every reason to believe the ES-11 does not either.

[Seto Kaiba]

Incidentally, You are now wrong. As they use the V designation incorrectly in the VC series of VTOL cargo aircraft (they should be CV instead) [...]

Okay, well... we know you didn't read any of the previous posts before chiming in, because I've explained this one at least twice. Those planes are staff transports as designated... VTOL/STOL capability does not, in fact, require the V vehicle type... and with virtually every UN forces plane possessing one, if not both of those capabilities, the V is left out.

The VAF and VBF are also aberrant designations compared to the current us system.

No such designation is used in RT, try again...

They would likely place the A and B behind the F (assuming they kept them at all,

So... exactly the way it is, then?

(I have a sneaking suspicion you might need to review a few things... the Alpha and Beta are VF/A-6 and VF/B-9 respectively in both official sources and the RPG.)

So, assuming the ES-11 accurately follows the modern US designation system is fundamentally flawed as there are a number of in-universe examples that don't accurately follow that system.

It's an ELINT/AWACS spaceplane as depicted in the series... so the designation fits just fine within the US system.

[Jefffar]

Not all aircraft in the Robotech universe have V/STOL capabilities. The F-203, MiM-31 and S-12/ES-12 have no defined V/STOL capabilities. Neither do the ES-11 or EC-33. The VC-27 and VC-33 do explicitly have V/STOL capabilities however. Incidentally, I am wondering if you'll explain how the MiM-31 fits within the modern US Designation system.

And I admit not having the current designations of the Alpha/Beta at hand when I wrote the previous post, I accept the correction, though the Beta should really be an attack rather than a bomber.

In regards to the ES-11, you should check the reference materials again. The ES-11 is a conventional atmospheric aircraft. The ES-11S is the variant modified for use in space.

S is used to designate some space craft in the system though

SF-3A
SHC-08 (not sure why there is an H there, Search and Rescue perhaps?)
SF/A-5
SC-37
AS-14 (not sure about the A)
SC-32

But not space capable craft receive that designation. For example

QF-3000
FA-112
EC-32

Edit to add following aircraft with no defined V/STOL capability and no V designation

F-109
F-110

[ShadowLogan]

.. while tactfully failing to note that such radical redesigns are pretty much entirely confined to experimental aircraft and never see production.

While they are all confined to experimental status at some point, some of them are intended for production. In the case of the F-16XL we know this was the case because it had to compete with a modified F-15 (and lost). So there is intent to see direct mass production with some of the designs.

you note WHEN the ES-11 is said to have been introduced in the RPG's fluff, but you fail to note that it's said to have been developed and introduced as an ELINT/AWACS plane. No mention is given to it being designed for any other role, which means (no surprises) that I'm absolutely correct and its basic mission letter is E, which means the S can only be a vehicle type.

I am aware of the AWACs role, but that could be when the ES-11 standard was introduced with an earlier S-11 going unsaid.

No you are not correct that S can only be a vehicle type. The S could be an aberration assignment or pointing toward an earlier unsaid mission role (it may have been passed over and retasked).

When the RPG talks about its space use, they mention that it received new engines for space flight, but no other modification is mentioned. That strongly suggests the ES-11 had, as part of its basic design, either super-high-altitude of limited space capability. The other possibility is that the S was just added later, to reflect the space conversion of a standard E-11.

The model you refer to is called the ES-11S, it was a single squadron on the SDF-1 in 2009-10 that was modified post-Pluto Fold and designated ES-11S (pg99-100). That is a good 10 years AFTER the end of the Global War near when the ES-11 debuted in. That the unit became the ES-11S due to an engine swap would allow for other changes to have been included that are not mentioned.

It is doubtful that a high-altitude design during the GW would qualify for a space moniker given that other high altitude military planes don't qualify for that designator either (U-2/TR-1, SR-71 family) in the tri-service system.

[Jefffar]

While not a part of the Tri-Service designation system, another great example of a radical redesign without a significant designation change is the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M.

This was a politically motivated designation change as the Soviets at the time were trying to portray their new bomber as really just being another model of the older bomber and thus not subject to certain treaty restrictions.

The difference between the two models is rather striking:

Tu-22
Tu-22M

[Seto Kaiba]

Not all aircraft in the Robotech universe have V/STOL capabilities. The F-203, MiM-31 and S-12/ES-12 have no defined V/STOL capabilities. Neither do the ES-11 or EC-33. The VC-27 and VC-33 do explicitly have V/STOL capabilities however.

Okay, there are numerous issues with this statement... let's go down the list together, shall we?

1. Palladium's Robotech role-playing game is not, and never will be, a viable guide for what's what in Robotech. In practice, even Harmony Gold puts it as one of the least reliable sources... for the obvious reasons. It would be a rather poor choice to attempt to use it to determine what does or does not have VTOL/STOL/STOVL capability.
2. Robotech blindly inherited the Macross designation system for its official materials, and in that system there isn't any special designator given to VTOL/STOL/STOVL capable craft because the capability is very common.
3. There is existing precedent in the tri-service designation system (we're lookin' at you, F-35 Lightning II) for VTOL/STOL/STOVL-capable jet aircraft not having the V vehicle type in their designations.
4. No VTOL/STOL/STOVL-capable craft in Robotech has a V vehicle type in its designation, same as Macross.
5. In actual fact, many of the designs you listed are VTOL/STOL/STOVL capable as originally designed... and therefore in the official Robotech material likely still possess that capability because Harmony Gold puts the OSM above virtually all other sources. The fault lies with Palladium's writers, whose failures of research are many and far-reaching throughout both editions of the Robotech game, as many folks here could tell you at great and nauseating length.

Truthfully, the F-203 (sometimes F/A-20) design is, in fact, explicitly described as possessing VTOL/STOL capability in the original designer's notes. The F-203's line art clearly indicates the presence of the VTOL/STOL hardware, with the thrust vectoring nozzles and the ventral fan exhausts for same described in the official material being clearly visible. The MiM-31 evidences all the same features. The Avenger II possesses only STOL capability, but you might've noticed it's misidentified in the RPG anyway... it's an Attack plane, a thinly disguised future version of the Su-25. The ES-11 and EC-33 are the only atmosphere craft that are not obviously VTOL/STOL/STOVL capable, though the ES-11 does have some design choices that indicate that it may have STOL capability (the orientation of its wing exhaust nozzles, for one).

Incidentally, I am wondering if you'll explain how the MiM-31 fits within the modern US Designation system.

*blinks* Are you seriously asking me that? Both in Macross and Robotech, the MiM-31 isn't a UN/UEG plane... it's part of the anti-unification forces arsenal, manufactured by Mikolev, a bland name version of Mikoyan. Its designation doesn't fit the tri-services designation system because it's an enemy plane.

And I admit not having the current designations of the Alpha/Beta at hand when I wrote the previous post, I accept the correction, though the Beta should really be an attack rather than a bomber.

One could make an argument for the Beta's classification either way... based on the original design's 30mm rotary cannons and not-inconsiderable napalm bomb load. Harmony Gold has, as always, favored the OSM when working with designation and classification, they went with "Bomber" because that's what the original creators classified the design as. (Its actual designation in MOSPEADA was an "Armo-Bomber".)

In regards to the ES-11, you should check the reference materials again. The ES-11 is a conventional atmospheric aircraft. The ES-11S is the variant modified for use in space.

The ES-11 is the original design without space-capable engines... the ES-11S is the exact same plane, with the engines designed for space use. That does not disprove that it was designed with spaceplane capability.

S is used to designate some space craft in the system though

Spacecraft, not being covered as part of the tri-service designation system, tend to have designations that are similar to VFs, in that there's a two-letter basic mission code indicating their special status version of the basic role. SF for a space fighter, for instance. I'm not sure why they went with the desigantion they did for the Star Goose, the correct designation from the OSM was SC-27 (Spacecraft, Cargo).

.. while tactfully failing to note that such radical redesigns are pretty much entirely confined to experimental aircraft and never see production.

While they are all confined to experimental status at some point, some of them are intended for production. [...]

Before being canceled/aborted/suspended/terminated as unviable, unnecessary, or otherwise useless... planning to do a thing is not the same as actually doing a thing.

The model you refer to is called the ES-11S, it was a single squadron on the SDF-1 in 2009-10 that was modified post-Pluto Fold and designated ES-11S (pg99-100). [...]

Please see the above statement about this I directed to Jefffar.

[Jefffar]

1) The Infopedia didn't have anything about the craft involved, so I had to go to the next source of HG approved material, the RPG. HG may have indicated that the OSM material should be followed, but has, to my knowledge, never said that it should take precedence over their own approved material, so the RPG is as good if not better resource than the OSM in this case.

2) There are two conventional aircraft explicitly described as V/STOL in the official HG sanctioned material, the VC-27 and the VC-33. Additionally all the Veritechs are a form of V/STOL as well. Nothing else in terms of fixed wing aircraft is described as V/STOL in the HG approved material, coincidentally nothing else has a V in the designation.

3) The ES-11 is not a space plane, It explicitly had to receive new engines capable of functioning in space to become the ES-11S. All spaceplanes with the S designation for spaceplane have the S as their first designator, not the second.

4) As mentioned, there are aberrations in the current system, the Joint Strike Fighter is full of them. It stated as a technology demonstrator (X-35) and skipped right into fighter type (F-35) without an intermediate prototype stage (YF-35). It's a Strike aircraft without an A or B classification. The F-35A, F-35B and F-35C are all radically different enough in engine configuration to be worthy of individual model numbers and type classification but were bundled under one type (the non-V/STOL F-35A got the lead designation) for political and budget reasons. Finally, the next F series craft should have been numbered 24, not 35. Holding the Joint Strike Fighter up as an example of the way things are done gives you all the exceptions that prove the rule.

5) As for the MiM-31 it is explicitly used by the UEDF Air Force and Marine Corps, rather than being an exclusive province of anti-UEG forces.

6) Oh, and for the V for VIP transport argument on the VC-27 and VC-33 . .. why don't we have the VH-68? It was being used as a VIP transport in the episode that the SDF-1 got ordered off Earth IIRC.

7) Radical redesigns without significant changes to designation do make it to production. AV-8B, F/A-18F/G and Tu-22M were all significant redesigns of the AV-8A, F/A-18C/D and Tu-22, but all retained the designations of their predecessors.Technically the same could be said of the F-35B and C, but I don't really consider them truly in production yet.

[ShadowLogan]

Before being canceled/aborted/suspended/terminated as unviable, unnecessary, or otherwise useless... planning to do a thing is not the same as actually doing a thing.

Just because they where canceled does not mean it was unnecessary, unviable, or otherwise useless.

The ES-11 is the original design without space-capable engines... the ES-11S is the exact same plane, with the engines designed for space use. That does not disprove that it was designed with spaceplane capability.

That still does not make the original space-capable.

In fact as presented, the ES-11 has no ability to get into space or has no propulsion system that can work in space. The ES-11S modifications probably extend beyond a simple engine update to make the ship space-capable. The Valk's engines run off SLMH, the original turbo-fan engines use conventional jet fuel so you have to redo the fuel support system. Unless you want the main engines to do all the manuevering, you are going to need to add some form of RCS to the frame as the control surfaces are all useless in the vacuum of space. You may also need to give any heat management system an overhaul if air is involved. If they intend for re-entry, they are going to have to add a protective re-entry system. And probably a few I'm just not thinking of at the moment. Never mind the AVionics software is going to need to be updated to handle all the changes.

That ES-11 dates back to the Global War really highlights that this is likely an aberration OR a new version of an existing platform and not a spaceplane based on a carrier.

[Seto Kaiba]

1) The Infopedia didn't have anything about the craft involved, so I had to go to the next source of HG approved material, the RPG. [...]

That may have been a very poor decision, as Harmony Gold has maintained for a very long time that the RPG is the LEAST accurate and authoritative publication for Robotech. In a very real sense, you basically jumped straight to fanfics in the absence of an entry in the Infopedia... bypassing Harmony Gold's explicitly identified next-in-line high-reliability source.

HG may have indicated that the OSM material should be followed, but has, to my knowledge, never said that it should take precedence over their own approved material, [...]

Per Harmony Gold's oft-expressed position on the matter, the RPG is not considered a part of Robotech's official canon material. Their policy WRT the validity of sources places the OSM right up there with the series itself and the official canon Robotech publications... officially, on the same level of reliability as "word of god" from the creative director.

2) There are two conventional aircraft explicitly described as V/STOL in the official HG sanctioned material, the VC-27 and the VC-33. Additionally all the Veritechs are a form of V/STOL as well. Nothing else in terms of fixed wing aircraft is described as V/STOL in the HG approved material, coincidentally nothing else has a V in the designation.

There are two conventional staff transport aircraft with VTOL capability, and many other craft with VTOL capability... so, should we care about an accurate answer, there are many VTOL capable craft... NONE of which have a V vehicle type.

3) The ES-11 is not a space plane, It explicitly had to receive new engines capable of functioning in space to become the ES-11S. All spaceplanes with the S designation for spaceplane have the S as their first designator, not the second.

I know this is becoming something of a refrain lately, but you really do need to check your sources. S(paceplane) isn't a mission, basic or modified, under the existing system. It's a Vehicle type, meaning it belongs on the far right of a designation code, exactly where it is on the ES-11. We're told flat out that the ES-11 is NOT designed as something else and modified into an AWACS/ELINT plane, but that it was designed as an ELINT/AWACS plane. That means E has to be its basic mission letter, just as it is in the OSM the RPG was copy-pasting.

Please take care to note that the ONLY modification mentioned to make the ES-11 fully spaceworthy was changing out its engines. It would still retain the S vehicle type even if its spaceplane equipment was not installed, provided that operating as such was part of its design.

Holding the Joint Strike Fighter up as an example of the way things are done gives you all the exceptions that prove the rule.

You were in such a hurry to object that you completely missed the context of what was said. I must say, I'm disappointed.

The ONLY thing the F-35 was used as an example of is a VTOL/STOL/STOVL capable craft that is not designated with V in its vehicle type... proof positive that you can, yes, have a craft with that capability that does not have that capability on its designation explicitly, which is an absolute fact for the material in question anyway.

5) As for the MiM-31 it is explicitly used by the UEDF Air Force and Marine Corps, rather than being an exclusive province of anti-UEG forces.

An odd choice, to be sure, since that craft is never once depicted as being in service with the UEDF... but on occasions in which captured enemy craft have been flown by US forces, assigning them new designations was done purely for security purposes... which would not have been necessary then. It's possible that Palladium couldn't be arsed to come up with an all-new designation for their use among the UEDF forces, or weren't aware of standard practice for that situation... they aren't exactly good when it comes to research and fact-checking.

6) Oh, and for the V for VIP transport argument on the VC-27 and VC-33 . .. why don't we have the VH-68? It was being used as a VIP transport in the episode that the SDF-1 got ordered off Earth IIRC.

Just gonna throw the obvious answer out there and see if it sticks... "Because the helicopter in question wasn't an actual staff transport conversion, and was just some executive mook grabbing the first available aircraft". Though I suppose it's possible he wanted the option of shooting his way out if his message was received poorly.

[Seto Kaiba]

That still does not make the original space-capable. [...]

If the only thing needed to make the ES-11 fully space-capable was to change its engines out, that sure as hell does mean the original was space-capable. Your suppositions to the contrary are unsupported, even by the RPG.

[ShadowLogan]

That still does not make the original space-capable. [...]

If the only thing needed to make the ES-11 fully space-capable was to change its engines out, that sure as hell does mean the original was space-capable. Your suppositions to the contrary are unsupported, even by the RPG.

No it doesn't make it space capable. The propulsion change is the main thing that is needed to make it work in space, but that isn't the only thing.

Why would a purely atmospheric craft have an RCS system? Why would all of its systems be vacuum rated?

No a space rating from the beginning only brings up more questions than it answers, the simplest explanation is what I've suggested: aberration or newly modified S-11 design to the ES-11 standard.

[Jefffar]

Here is the 2005 version of the official regulations for Designating and Naming Defense Military Aerospace Vehicles

Here is the definition for Spaceplane

Aircraft designed to travel above the earth's atmosphere and return to earth in support of space operations.

As the ES-11 had to be modified to actually travel into space (note that high altitude capable craft, even those with Reaction Control Systems do not receive the Spaceplane designation, indeed the only craft to receive the S designation for Spaceplane never got past the conceptual stage) it does not actually meet the definition of a Spaceplane.

Therefore, the ES-11 either had an ASW progenitor, it represents a designation anomaly, or the 'bland name' designation system doesn't slavishly follow the modern US system.

I believe it is the later as there are a variety of designation anomalies in the system as presented.

I already gave an example about the use of S on spacecraft (used incorrectly on several of them, missing from others) and we have the general exception of the Veritech series of craft. A few more specific examples.

SF/A-5, VF/A-6 and VF/B-9. I knew there was a problem with the Alpha and the Beta, but I'd gotten it wrong. The use of F/A or F/B in a designation does not actually fit the standard use of the designation. The F/A-18 is an anomaly created because there was originally a development program to produce an F-18 and an A-18. The F/A-18 was used as a form of shorthand to refer to both projects simultaneously. When the decision was made to make the two as a single type, the F/A-18 stuck more as a force of habit instead of following the normal system. So, these three are all anomalies on that grounds, in addition general Veritech anomaly for the Alpha and the Beta.

We also have the anomaly of VTOL craft. The exact nature of the anomaly is up for dispute depending on how one feels about the use of secondary canon of the OSM overruling secondary canon of Robotech (animation notes are secondary canon, primary canon is what is actually on the screen) but nonetheless there is one there. Either virtually every conventional aircraft in Robotech should have a V in its designation defining it as V/STOL or the only two conventional aircraft in Robotech explicitly indicated as V/STOL are misusing the designator by placing it at the front of the designation sequence.

Given the rather pervasive number of anomalies present, the best that can be said for the designation system in the Robotech universe is that it resembles the modern American system, but is not identical. Which in turn means we are stuck with nothing other than an educated guess for the reasoning behind the ES-11's designation.

[Seto Kaiba]

No it doesn't make it space capable. The propulsion change is the main thing that is needed to make it work in space, but that isn't the only thing.

You're asserting that's the case... the source you're citing does not, however, bear your supposition out.

Why would a purely atmospheric craft have an RCS system? Why would all of its systems be vacuum rated?

If it were designed to be operated in the upper limits of the atmosphere, near the edge of space, it would make sense.

As the ES-11 had to be modified to actually travel into space (note that high altitude capable craft, even those with Reaction Control Systems do not receive the Spaceplane designation, indeed the only craft to receive the S designation for Spaceplane never got past the conceptual stage) it does not actually meet the definition of a Spaceplane.

As I've had to repeatedly remind ShadowLogan, the only stated modification that was required to enable operation outside of atmospheric service was changing the engines out. The ONLY one. Meaning it was designed to be capable of operating as a spaceplane.

I already gave an example about the use of S on spacecraft (used incorrectly on several of them, missing from others) and we have the general exception of the Veritech series of craft. A few more specific examples.

Dedicated spacecraft are not covered on the tri-service designation system, and the convention adopted for that in both Robotech and Macross follows the same general principles as the VF system, which is just a two-letter special basic mission designation.

I knew there was a problem with the Alpha and the Beta, but I'd gotten it wrong. The use of F/A or F/B in a designation does not actually fit the standard use of the designation.

These are still designs entered under the US aircraft designation system, aberrant though they may be. There are similar instances in Macross.

We also have the anomaly of VTOL craft. The exact nature of the anomaly is up for dispute depending on how one feels about the use of secondary canon of the OSM overruling secondary canon of Robotech (animation notes are secondary canon, primary canon is what is actually on the screen) but nonetheless there is one there.

If we were to follow Harmony Gold's approved practice for situations like this, we would be placing the OSM over the RPG, meaning the correct analysis of the "anomaly" is that the vehicle type of "V" is not used (there is official precedent which supports this in the US designation system) and that the majority of these planes are VTOL/STOL/STOVL capable but are not carrying the VTOL vehicle type. By the same token, the leading V on the two craft in question denotes a converted staff transport model.

[Jefffar]

Why would a purely atmospheric craft have an RCS system? Why would all of its systems be vacuum rated?

If it were designed to be operated in the upper limits of the atmosphere, near the edge of space, it would make sense.

Yes, but as I quoted the official descriptor for a space plane as including true space flight, not just upper atmosphere flight, having an RCS for use in the upper atmosphere does not make it a Spaceplane.

As the ES-11 had to be modified to actually travel into space (note that high altitude capable craft, even those with Reaction Control Systems do not receive the Spaceplane designation, indeed the only craft to receive the S designation for Spaceplane never got past the conceptual stage) it does not actually meet the definition of a Spaceplane.

As I've had to repeatedly remind ShadowLogan, the only stated modification that was required to enable operation outside of atmospheric service was changing the engines out. The ONLY one. Meaning it was designed to be capable of operating as a spaceplane.

But it was not a Spaceplane by the official definition quoted above. It could be modified into one with a bit of equipment change, but that doesn't make it a true spaceplane.

I already gave an example about the use of S on spacecraft (used incorrectly on several of them, missing from others) and we have the general exception of the Veritech series of craft. A few more specific examples.

Dedicated spacecraft are not covered on the tri-service designation system, and the convention adopted for that in both Robotech and Macross follows the same general principles as the VF system, which is just a two-letter special basic mission designation.

But Spaceplanes are. The SF/A-5, QF-3000 and FA-112 all meet the criteria for spaceplanes yet all are designated in anomaly with the Tri-Service Designation System.

I knew there was a problem with the Alpha and the Beta, but I'd gotten it wrong. The use of F/A or F/B in a designation does not actually fit the standard use of the designation.

These are still designs entered under the US aircraft designation system, aberrant though they may be. There are similar instances in Macross.

The point is that there are a lot of aberrations in very few models. The list of ones that actually follow the designation system is very short (and depending on your stance about the canonicity of the Macross animator's notes, the only fixed wing aircraft that make the grade is the F-110 and maybe the FA-109).

We also have the anomaly of VTOL craft. The exact nature of the anomaly is up for dispute depending on how one feels about the use of secondary canon of the OSM overruling secondary canon of Robotech (animation notes are secondary canon, primary canon is what is actually on the screen) but nonetheless there is one there.

If we were to follow Harmony Gold's approved practice for situations like this, we would be placing the OSM over the RPG, meaning the correct analysis of the "anomaly" is that the vehicle type of "V" is not used (there is official precedent which supports this in the US designation system) and that the majority of these planes are VTOL/STOL/STOVL capable but are not carrying the VTOL vehicle type. By the same token, the leading V on the two craft in question denotes a converted staff transport model.

There is precedent for no V for V/STOL in the American system sure, but 2 points on that matter.

1) That precedent is an aberration

2) That precedent arrived about 30 years after the original material for Macross was written and so was not available as precedent at the time.

So, given the number of aberrations in the system (which is apparently even greater if you follow the Macross animation notes than Harmony Gold sanctioned material) I have to conclude that using the modern Tri-Service Designation system as any definitive reference as to what the actual designations in Robotech mean is flawed. The number of fixed wing craft that don't exactly follow the rules of the system seems to out number those that do.

[Seto Kaiba]

If it were designed to be operated in the upper limits of the atmosphere, near the edge of space, it would make sense.

Context fail, chief. Try again.

But it was not a Spaceplane by the official definition quoted above. It could be modified into one with a bit of equipment change, but that doesn't make it a true spaceplane.

Because you're taking one remark of mine out of the context of my post, which only superficially makes it look like your objection is valid. The ES-11 was designed to operate in space, even though it was not fully equipped to do so. That's what the evidence indicates.

But Spaceplanes are.

Yet they are not classified as spaceplanes officially, for a variety of reasons... among them, unsurprisingly... because many craft are space-capable.

1) That precedent is an aberration

It's still used in the tri-service designation system, that's the whole damn point.

2) That precedent arrived about 30 years after the original material for Macross was written and so was not available as precedent at the time.

That matters how?

So, given the number of aberrations in the system (which is apparently even greater if you follow the Macross animation notes than Harmony Gold sanctioned material) I have to conclude that using the modern Tri-Service Designation system as any definitive reference as to what the actual designations in Robotech mean is flawed.

A conclusion based purely on a refusal to accept evidence is not, by any stretch of the imagination, valid.

[Jefffar]

A conclusion based purely on a refusal to accept evidence is not, by any stretch of the imagination, valid.

I have to agree.

Incidentally, when are you going to accept my evidence on the way the system actually works instead of clinging to abberations that entered into the system after the designations for the craft in Macross were created as a retroactive precedent? Also, you seem to have neglected to accept the official designation for spaceplane that I posted.

Abberations do not show the way a system works, but instead are examples of when the rules get broken. So far, using your own evidence, the majority of craft in Macross/Robotech do not follow the Tri-Service rules in one or more ways. Given that level of non-compliance, one of two scenarios must hold. Either A the creators of the OSM made many mistakes in following the Tri-Service system or B the creators of the OSM were following it in lip service only to get realistic sounding names.

In either case, the use of the Tri-Service System in Macross/Robotech is so fraught with noncompliant craft that to try to use it to gain information about the crafts type and capabilities is a best guess affair.

[ShadowLogan]

You're asserting that's the case... the source you're citing does not, however, bear your supposition out.

And it's possible that the RPG did not cover every point of change done to the platform.

If it were designed to be operated in the upper limits of the atmosphere, near the edge of space, it would make sense.

Sorry, but no. 100km is the recognized edge of the atmosphere-space barrier. The BEST the U-2 can fly with a similar engine (turbo-fan) to the ES-11 is ~21km (SR-71 gets slightly higher with Turbo-jets). The U-2 pilot needs special consideration due to biological needs, and the equipment designed to operate at ~21km, but that is only ~1/4th the way into space proper so is unlikely to be designed to handle the more extreme altitudes it could never reach when it was designed. So even assuming the ES-11 can fly to the altitudes of the U-2, that does not make it space capable as it isn't even close to the edge of space.

The simplest explanation is that the ES-11 is a converted anti-submarine warfare platform or an aberration given that it dates to the 1990s.

[Seto Kaiba]

Incidentally, when are you going to accept my evidence on the way the system actually works instead of clinging to abberations that entered into the system after the designations for the craft in Macross were created as a retroactive precedent?

My best guess? I'd say the 32nd of Never, on account of the whole bloody point I'm tilting at being that Macross, and therefore Robotech, inherited the system so thoroughly that they've even copied the aberrations faithfully. They had to improvise for classes of craft that don't exist in the system, like dedicated spacecraft and variable fighters, but that's it for exceptions.

You're asserting that's the case... the source you're citing does not, however, bear your supposition out.

And it's possible that the RPG did not cover every point of change done to the platform.

Until you can present some actual evidence to support your claim that such was not the case, we must assume that it is based on the available evidence and the fact that it jives perfectly with the source material both Robotech's official stats and the Palladium RPG were based upon.

Sorry, but no. 100km is the recognized edge of the atmosphere-space barrier.

By the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. The US does not adhere to that definition when defining what constitutes space flight... they use an altitude of 50 miles (~80km) instead of the 100km dictated by the FAI.

[Jefffar]

Incidentally, when are you going to accept my evidence on the way the system actually works instead of clinging to aberrations that entered into the system after the designations for the craft in Macross were created as a retroactive precedent?

My best guess? I'd say the 32nd of Never, on account of the whole bloody point I'm tilting at being that Macross, and therefore Robotech, inherited the system so thoroughly that they've even copied the aberrations faithfully. They had to improvise for classes of craft that don't exist in the system, like dedicated spacecraft and variable fighters, but that's it for exceptions.

If there were only a few aberrations, I might agree with you. But let's review the list.

Macoss Saga Sourcebook, with materials from Macross Mecha Manual referring to the original 36 episodes dating 1982-1983. It was chosen as somewhat representative of a dedicated Macross site made with access to Macross specific materials.

VF-1A: Aberration. In addition to the creation of the V for Veritech, the placement of the V confuses the type with certain transport craft. Additionally there should be a second V after the F denoting the type's V/STOL capability. It is possible that the new V type, like the H type denotes certain capabilities (Transformation, V/STOL and Space Operability even if it can't get there on its own), but then V V should replace F. Additionally the A, D, J, S and R subtypes are designated out of the appropriate sequence. Numerical designation gets a pass because of the possibility that it may be considered a brand new type.

VEF-1: Aberration, see the above for most of it, but the E should be the first letter as it is the modified mission.

F-203: Aberration. Well only an aberration if you follow the Macross stats and give it a V/STOL capability, again a missing V and a numerical designation out of sequence.

MiM-31 Karyovin: Aberration. Adopted by UEDF post Zentraedi Assault (not contradicted in the Macross material as far as I am aware). Foreign built aircraft in US service receive US designations (ie F-21 for the Israeli Kfir and F-113 for US operated MiG-23s). In Macross, there is a thrust vectoring that may gives some V/STOL capability

S-12/ES-12A: Aberration. Both sources classify this as an Attack aircraft, but in Robotech it has evolved into an anti-submarine warfare and then later electronic warfare platform. If using Robotech descriptions, then the designation is correct. If following Macross then the type should have an A (or perhaps even B) type. Finally the type is out of numerical sequence with everything else in the category except possibly the ES-11. No mention of V/STOL capability.

AH-68: Potential Aberration. As an Attack Helicopter, the designation works, but there is an issue because we also see the type being used as a VIP transport. If the type does have a passenger capability, a C, U or H should also be applied. In the case of its use as a VIP transport should also be applied. Of course it could also be that the VIP rode in the cockpit of a standard AH version. I don't think the Animation is entirely clear on this. So at this point it gets a pass . . . barely. The AH-68N navalized version is designated out of sequence however, so it is itself an aberration. This is close enough to the real world numerical sequence to get a pass.

SH-62/HH-62: Aberration. The AH-64 first flew in 1975, thus placing this craft out of designation sequence. On the other hand it is close enough to the AH-68 to at least seem consistent.

LH-2000: Aberration. This is the civilian designation. According to the RPG, military version is the ARH-34 which is actually appropriate, but the number is well out of the designation sequence.

ES-11: Aberration. We have a numerical sequence issue (though it seems to be at least consistent with the closest designated type, the S-12/ES-12). There is some debate about the meaning of the S designation. As indicated in a previous post, the ES-11 does not match the actual definition of Spaceplane as the type does not seem to be able to reach space on its own. So, either the type is a modified ASW craft or it is misdesignated as a Spaceplane. No mention of V/STOL capability.

EC-33B: Aberration. While C-33 has already been used for a proposed heavy lift version of the 747-400, however, as that was not applied until 1994/1995, the C-33 designator was fair game when Macross was created. The big problem is that type shares the designation C-33 with the VC-33 but bears no apparent relationship, this conflict breaks the rules fo the system. No mention of V/STOL capability.

VC-27: Aberration. According to the official document I linked to above, V means "V - Staff Aircraft modified to provide support for the President or Vice President of the United States." I know a VIP was on board the craft as witnessed on screen, but designating all craft of this type Presidential Transports seems to be overkill. As it is explicitly defined as a V/STOL craft, it is possible there is some confusion there, but that should be CV-27, rather than VC-27. The presidential version would be VCV-27 in that case.

VC-33: Aberration. Pretty much the exact same issues as the VC-27, but the added complications of not seeming to be related to the EC-33 despite both being C-33s.

SF-3A: Aberration: The designation system the US Military uses does apply to spacecraft, but the letters change their meaning somewhat. The problem is, this designation doesn't fit either system. The closest designation that does fit, FS, would represent a trans-atmospheric fighter. The letter F has no meaning in the system for Spacecaft, though S can designate space launched systems. Using the Space system, this would be SIN or SIS as near as I can figure.

QF-3000: Aberration: Numbers are way out of sequence for one, secondly, being transatmospheric, the type is technically a space plane, so it should be designated QFS

SHC-08: Aberration: Technically a spaceplane, the S does apply but it should be at the end making it an HCS with the H designating it as a Search and Rescue type. The 0 number is also an abberation as 0s are not used as the first number of a deisgnation.

EVRP-1: Aberration. Its designation should be SSS as near as I can figure, maybe SSN.


So, out of 16 Aerospace Vehicles subject to UEDF military designation systems in the Macross sourcebook we found 15 definite Aberrations from the US Tri-Service Systems. I didn't go into the Spaceships themselves as they seem to use an individual designation for each, ranging from modified naval designations to acronyms.

While it can be argued that exceptions prove the rule (and there are plenty of exceptions in the real life system) the fact that every aerospace vehicle has a designation system issue when compaed to the modern US Tri-Service system can only realistically mean one of the following options.

1) There exists an significantly different designation system in Robotech/Macross.

2) The designators had an imperfect understanding of the designation system and made multiple errors.

3) The designators were not attempting to be systematic in their approach and instead created designations that sounded realistic.

Now, according to some, the designers of Macross were indeed following the Tri-Service system as closely as they possibly could. If that is the case, then option number 2 applies and they screwed up.

Personally, I give the designers of Macross a little more credit than that and think they were trying to be creative (as seen by the many "Bland Names" in the literature) and the result is probably a mix of numbers 1 and 3.

In any of the above cases, no matter how much intent may be there, the craft in the Macross Generation of Robotech definitely do not follow the rules laid out for the Tri-Service Designation System.

[Seto Kaiba]

If there were only a few aberrations, I might agree with you. But let's review the list.

Macoss Saga Sourcebook, with materials from Macross Mecha Manual referring to the original 36 episodes dating 1982-1983. [...]

When one finds oneself in a hole, the first thing one should do is stop digging. Whyfore art thou attempting to dig all the way to China?

VF-1A: Aberration.

"VF" is a special class of craft, and specifically noted as not being under the umbrella of the modern designation system in light of the fact that we don't have transforming planes today. Vehicle type V is not used in any Macross design, as the capability is almost universal (and indeed, IS universal shortly after Space War 1). Your objection does not hold water, sir.

Additionally the A, D, J, S and R subtypes are designated out of the appropriate sequence. Numerical designation gets a pass because of the possibility that it may be considered a brand new type.

Numerical designation DOES get an explicit pass, for the above-stated reason that it is an entirely new class of aircraft not covered under the regular designation system. Skipping letters is not exactly an uncommon practice either, either because variants are canceled, redesignated, or export-only versions. In this case, it's a mixture of in-sequence and export pattern letters.

VEF-1: Aberration, see the above for most of it, but the E should be the first letter as it is the modified mission.

The RPG may describe it as such, in which case it is a failure on the RPG's part for a craft that does not actually exist in Robotech proper. Now, the VEFR-1, THERE you might have a bit of a case... but it's the same kind of aberration in designations as the F/A-18. It also semi-officially goes by the less offensive designation VF-1G, though this has not yet been noted in the M3 coverage.

F-203: Aberration. Well only an aberration if you follow the Macross stats and give it a V/STOL capability, again a missing V and a numerical designation out of sequence.

V is not used for the above-stated and oft-repeated reason. Out-of-sequence numerical designation is not at all out of common practice for the tri-service system. My point still stands. This craft is also known to carry the F/A-20.

MiM-31 Karyovin: Aberration.

Introduced by an incorrect statement on the part of the RPG writers, and therefore neither applicable to Robotech in actuality nor Macross in any sense. The MiM-31 is purely an anti-government forces craft, and has never once been depicted as a UN Forces craft.

Adopted by UEDF post Zentraedi Assault (not contradicted in the Macross material as far as I am aware).

Consider yourself aware that that is not the case on a going-forward basis, please. The MiM-31 was not adopted by the Unified Forces.

S-12/ES-12A: Aberration. Both sources classify this as an Attack aircraft, but in Robotech it has evolved into an anti-submarine warfare and then later electronic warfare platform.

Incorrect designation brought about by the RPG writers failure of research. See my previous posts for more, because I'm thoroughly sick of repeating myself at this juncture.

AH-68: Potential Aberration. As an Attack Helicopter, the designation works, but there is an issue because we also see the type being used as a VIP transport.

As before, you are ignoring the likely explanation that it was an ad-hoc transport assignment for a non-transport designed craft. This, and the other helicopter designations, are purely the invention of the RPG and therefore have no bearing upon actual Robotech or Macross.

EC-33B: Aberration. While C-33 has already been used for a proposed heavy lift version of the 747-400, however, as that was not applied until 1994/1995, the C-33 designator was fair game when Macross was created. The big problem is that type shares the designation C-33 with the VC-33 but bears no apparent relationship, this conflict breaks the rules fo the system. No mention of V/STOL capability.

Conflicts in numbering/designation have occurred between unrelated aircraft before, so this is a known type of aberration present in the tri-service system. All available evidence for Robotech indicates that the universe went "off the rails" from the modern world prior to 1995 based on existing material in "From the Stars" etc., so the conflict with the 747-400 would/should not be an issue.

VC-27: Aberration. According to the official document I linked to above, V means "V - Staff Aircraft modified to provide support for the President or Vice President of the United States." I know a VIP was on board the craft as witnessed on screen, but designating all craft of this type Presidential Transports seems to be overkill.

V is also applied to the dedicated transport aircraft procured for military brass, not just the president... as evidenced on many, MANY such craft since at least World War II. This is simply a case of the RPG writers screwing up, using just the designation for the version seen onscreen (the staff transport model). As always, the leading V is not denoting its VTOL capability, because most craft have that.

SF-3A: Aberration: The designation system the US Military uses does apply to spacecraft, but the letters change their meaning somewhat.

It applies only to spaceplanes, and only as a vehicle type. The system does not extend to dedicated spacecraft such as the SF-3A Lancer II space fighter.

QF-3000: Aberration: Numbers are way out of sequence for one, secondly, being transatmospheric, the type is technically a space plane, so it should be designated QFS

The number is out, but that's within the accepted bounds of the system, QF is a supported designation that has been used many times. The QF-3000/AIF-3 Ghost is not capable of reaching space on its own.

SHC-08: Aberration: Technically a spaceplane, the S does apply but it should be at the end making it an HCS with the H designating it as a Search and Rescue type. The 0 number is also an abberation as 0s are not used as the first number of a deisgnation.

The designation is a contrivance of the RPG, and is not official in any sense. Its actual designation, in the separate space craft system, is SC-27, a transport shuttle. As it is principally a spacecraft, it falls outside the constraints of the standard tri-service system.

EVRP-1: Aberration. Its designation should be SSS as near as I can figure, maybe SSN.

That's the Spider Bug? 's a Palladium-made designation and not in any way official.

While it can be argued that exceptions prove the rule (and there are plenty of exceptions in the real life system) the fact that every aerospace vehicle has a designation system issue [...]

It only appears that way because you're trying to apply the system in a manner inconsistent with its real-world usage, and therefore generating complaints where no cause for such exists. The only failure here is yours, a failure of comprehension.

[Jefffar]

I comprehend the system just fine and I am following the official documentation on how it is to be applied. Just because real world designations which do not follow the rules have occurred, that doesn't mean the rules don't exist.

As shown above, if those providing the designations in Macross and Robotech were attempting to scrupulously follow the official rules for doing so, they failed. There is too high an error rate in the designations we have available.

If they were creating a new designation system modeled on the real world system, then things make more sense. In particular the creation of different designations for Spacecraft than are currently used and the introduction of V for Veritechs would cover a lot of those issues.

[Seto Kaiba]

so in the robotech/macross universe, the correct designation for the "VF-1X" from Strike Force would be YVF-2, and VF-1X would be reserved for the 24th series production of the VF-1? [...]

By VF-1X, you mean that sort of Alpha-lookin' thing in 1st Edition, correct? That would, yes, call for a completely different design number because it has the square root of feth-all to do with the VF-1 platform. I don't recall the specifics of it, but depending on its production status and classification, it could fall under XVF, YVF, YF, or VF-X-#, and should receive a new number under the system. It naturally does not exist in Macross proper, being a faux-MOSPEADA design.

Now, on the other hand, the VF-1X for Macross is not necessarily the 24th production variant of the craft, because it had several separate letter sequences running simultaneously thanks to its multinational production and deployment, and it also had several special out-of-sequence designations for special-purpose variants. Now, there IS a craft designed VF-1X within the original Japanese Macross universe. It was a post-war modernization of the VF-1 Valkyrie, made with new materials, engines, avionics, etc., though its visual dissimilarity with the original was fairly minor. After Earth's nations got wiped out, the UN Forces went to a single letter progression for most of their VFs thereafter, with the only recurring deviation being the -S for tuned command units.

and the UF-14 from the RDF manual (which seems to unique to first edition) would be just plain wrong, and should be F-whatever (24?) or A-whatever. I'm also curious to see if anyone wrote stats for the F-16 and F-18, because I think it would be fun to throw one of those old fighters at the players

Yeah, I don't remember that one at all... but UF wouldn't necessarily be a breach of the system, it would just have to be a fighter that'd been modified for utility service. There have been some similar designations, like the UC-1 Otter, though that unit was later redesignated U-1B. If it's not modified into a general purpose craft for transporting people or freight, then it should be carrying the U.

[Seto Kaiba]

The UF-14 most definitely was mis-designated, as in the RPG is was designated as an interceptor, altough it mounted a A-10 style autocannon, confusing the issue, but it was in no way a utility aircraft. [...]

Okay, I did a little looking into that and got here just as you posted... literally just as you posted. (The post appeared in here between the time I clicked the section link and when the forum loaded.)

The thing that the 1st Edition of the Robotech calls the "UF-14" is this craft, isn't it?

Yeah, that is definitely an incorrectly designated aircraft... but that's 1st Edition for you. In truth, that is not even a UEG Forces aircraft in Robotech. That's a MiM-31 Karyovin, and it belongs to the Anti-Unification League (an organization roughly equivalent to the Macross universe's Anti-UN Alliance, to which it belongs in the original work). It isn't a UEG (or UN) Forces craft, and therefore is not covered under the designation system. It's also not an interceptor, it's really an Air-Superiority fighter designed to tangle with the F203 Dragon II. I think we actually touched on this one earlier on in the thread, because 2E erroneously claims they were captured and used by the UEG forces but doesn't cite a UEG designation.

also, would the introdution of the UEDF/RDF turn the tri-service designation system into a quad-service system or would the RDF/UEEF system be differently designated in of itself?

At the very least, I suppose it wouldn't be called the Tri-Service Designation System anymore... in Macross it might have been called the Septi-System Designation System, since the UN Forces consisted of seven branches of service, the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Spacy, Spacy Air Force, and Space Marine Corps.

As far as Robotech goes, it's hard to say... since the only material that really gets more specific than just "UEDF" or "UEEF" is the 2nd Edition RPG, which does not go into much detail. I suppose it might actually lose one and become a Bi-Service Designation System, since the UEDF and UEEF are the only actual branches that get mentioned in the show. No more specific level is ever mentioned. Prior to the destruction of Earth's surface, it might've been treated as having five branches... the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Spacy. After things go to hell, they simply carry on using the existing designation system, same as they did in Macross.