Which mecha is the true successor to the VF-1: Alpha or Beta

[ShadowLogan]

While the VFA-6 Alpha Veritech Fighter IS presented as the SPIRITUAL successor to the VF-1 I have wondered which mecha stacks up better as the TECHNICAL successor.

For this I am going to look at both designs versus the VF-1 in several areas: Dimensions, Performance (both Game Mechanic & Non-Game Mechanic by 2E RPG), Hand-Held Weapons, External Hardpoints, Internal Weapons (by type), Add-Ons (which are not being considered in other areas), Networking (C&C), Standard Equipment (2E RPG), Protectiveness (2E RPG). I considered material in Art of the Shadow Chronicles, 85ep animation/TSC, 2E RPG (and one tidbit in 1E RPG). What I found was two fold (and this is mostly ignoring the influence of the Shadow systems or networking):
1. From a Technology Standpoint the UEEF/UEDF appears to be capable of producing a mecha that is equal/superior to the VF-1. For what ever reason though they went with two separate platforms, one of which ends up being highly compromised.
2. With Regard to the areas looked at I scored them as 3pts for best, 2pts for medium, 1pt for worst performer. Ties go to where they both place (best or worst), zero points are awarded for 3way ties (since it is a wash) or highly subjective values. Final overall scores are Beta took 29pts, the VF-1 scored 24pts, the Alpha scored 23pts.

Dimensions: I am not declaring a winner here since size can influence raw capabilities IMHO. No Points
The Alpha is smaller, and the VF-1 and Beta are similarly sized overall IMHO with the Beta being a bit bigger in some respects. Since it is subjective which is better (smaller/bigger) I am not declaring a ranking on this metric alone since they can also factor into other capabilities.

Dry Mass: I am not declaring a winner here since mass can influence raw capabilities IMHO. No Points
Beta is the heaviest, then the Alpha, and then the VF-1. See Dimensions for why this metric is awarded no points.

Performance in Fighter Mode (Non-Game Mechanics as presented in 2E RPG): Beta in terms of raw overall speed (given that speed/altitude is not univerally comparable the raw/overall aspect seemed the most balanced).
VF-1, demonstrated limited surface-orbit capability. Compared to the other two is faster at lower altitudes.

Beta, demonstrated surface-orbit capability while transporting the Alpha. Is the slowest at lower altitudes, though has the highest listed airspeed in a ballistic climb and altitude.

Alpha, un-recognized surface-orbit capability (IMHO based on TSC at face value,though it may only be the Shadow Model). Intermediate in listed speeds for lower altitude work.

Performance in Guardian Mode (Non-Game Mechanics as presented in 2E RPG): Alpha in terms of raw speed
VF-1 and Beta are generally the same with the VF-1R being an exception by the 2E RPG (where it is supposed to be faster than previous VF-1 models, which I don't think was supported by the Infopedia), with the Alpha models faster than any of them.

Performance in Battloid Mode Flying (Non-Game Mechanics as presented in 2E RPG): Beta can fly faster

Performance in Battloid Mode Running(Non-Game Mechanics as presented in 2E RPG): VF-1

Performance in Space (Non-Game Mechanic, based on animation and no extras): Beta
VF-1. Based on its capabilities to get into orbit in animation, it has a Delta-V ~8kps on internal reaction mass alone at best.

Beta. Based on its lunar flight in the animation with an Alpha, it has a Delta-V of ~13kps MINIMUM with an Alpha (with some combat load). Solo will be higher (~1.6x). Trip time can not be determined based on animation, Delta-V figures assume an Apollo-level triptime, which seems unlikely so the figure can go up.

Alpha. Based on its flight demonstrated in TSC for the Shadow Model, it has a Delta-V of ~11kps MINIMUM (at face value). It is possible non-shadow versions have lower capacity. Trip time can not be determined based on animation, Delta-V figures assume an Apollo-level triptime, which seems unlikely so the figure can go up.

Performance (Game Mechanic as presented in 2E RPG, non-networked and non-shadow, only Elite Skill and generic raw bonus. This is probably more "fair" than a subjective mobility assessment based on the animation) OVERALL assessment: VF-1, Alpha-Z is very close, then regular Alpha, and then Beta
Attacks: at first level favour no-one, at maximum level the Beta is behind by 2
Initiative: VF-1, then Beta unless the Alpha is a Z model
Strike (melee): VF-1/Alpha-Z, Alpha, then Beta
Strike (range): VF-1/Alpha-Z, Alpha, then Beta. This does NOT consider any specific weapon system bonus, only those in Elite Skill or Special Bonus
Strike (range WS): Alpha/Beta, VF-1 This DOES consider specific individual weapon system bonus in a given entry. Note the HARM missile of the VF-1 is not considered
Parry: VF-1/Alpha-Z, Alpha/Beta
Roll: VF-1/Alpha-Z, Alpha, then Beta
Dodge: Alpha-Z, VF-1, Alpha, Beta. This is in flight.
Auto-Dodge: VF-1 only one that can do it.

Note for fairness I will mention that the VF-1 does get "special bonuses" from a fly-by-wire system that is considered in TMS and TRM books, but not TSC which helps the VF-1/8/10 in ways the VF-6/9 does not have access to by RAW. Without those Special Bonuses the VF-1 DOES NOT do as favorably.

A side note: the networked performance is considered later independently. Shadow Systems are not considered in this aspect (the Alpha's PSS-001 results in a slight advantage over the PSS-001 installed in the Beta), but would put those specific models in lead over the VF-1 in terms of Init, Parry, Dodge.

Hand-Held Weapons: Theoretically: Tie (since nothing prevents the others from picking up a different gunpod). Practical: VF-1 (if use RAW 2E RPG stats)
VF-1. GU-11, standard issue. Carries 1. By the 2E RPG is has very high stopping power, low payload, and involved reloading process.

Beta. It does not use one. I do not see a reason it can not carry/utitlize one. I am not considering the Syncro-Cannon package as that is an add-on.

Alpha. EU-13, stanard issue and can carry 2. Replaced later by the EU-15, carries 1 (different hardpoint). By the 2E RPG the weapons offer better payload, but not as much stopping power (by RAW) which balances out to no advantage in terms of payload. No spare magazine are known to be carried, though the magazine feature does present options and faster "reloads". It can also go into a single shot mode allowing it to maximize ammo.

External Hardpoints (beyond Gunpod, non-Add-on): Beta, though it has drawbacks but wins by shear number
VF-1 has 4 Wing Hardpoints and 1 for a Gunpod. The hardpoints are very versatile in descriptions.

Beta has 6 Wing Hardpoints. By the 2E RPG they are limited in what they can carry when compared to Art of the Shadow Chronicles (which is more generous). The one common drawback is that they must be emptied compared to the VF-1. There is some loss in capability in what the hardpoints are said to carry, but other features of the Beta work to counter it for the 2E RPG, by AotSC they come across as just as versatile as the VF-1.

Alpha has no known hardpoints other than the three gunpod ports acknowledged by HG, though it is reasonable the Alpha would have additional points and can carry other payloads on its gunpod hardpoints. However there are only 3 "officially acknowledged" and they are limited use officially, which is what I will use instead of speculative options.

Internal Weapons (Projectile/Energy): Beta
VF-1 has light lasers (1-4 based on model) in the head as standard (some models have additional light lasers installed elsewhere). This system late in service life was updated with a 20mm automatic cannon.

Beta has 5 sets of triple barrel energy weapons, none of which are considered "light". In Jet mode it can bring 3 cannons to bear on a single target, but only 1 in Guardian Mode, and a remaining 2 in Battloid mode. By the 2E RPG these weapons are over all superior to options found on the VF-1 internal weapons, however they lack the power/range of the GU-11 gunpod generally, but being internally powered they don't contend with the payload issue.

Alpha has a pair of light lasers in the nose. These aren't much better than the VF-1, but are only available in Fighter and Gaurdian Modes.

Internal Weapons (Missiles & Bombs): Beta due to potential versatility of the bomb-bay, Alpha if you just want to talk raw payload in a single configuration.
VF-1, late model feature installed a limited payload of mini-missiles in the head and is outclassed by newer mecha.

Beta, has four internal launchers for 56 short range missiles in total, plus a bomb-bay. The bomb-bay by the 2E RPG is more limited compared to the description in Art of the Shadow Chronicles which was more flexible. Theoretically specially designed missiles could be launched from the bomb bay (in RL rockets have been dropped out the back of cargo aircaft and launched). The bomb-bay is also capable of transporting additional passengers without requiring them to sit in the pilot's lap.

Alpha, has 14 internal launchers spread out over the body (2 in shoulders, 2 in head, 2 in each arm, 3 in each leg). 60 are short range missiles, and another 8 are mini-missile (by RPG, by AotSC they are SRM).

Add-Ons (Link-ups, Armor Packages, etc): Beta Fighter, followed by the VF-1 (due to versatility)
Really the Alpha Fighter needs the Beta Fighter to compete with the VF-1, and the VF-1 generally needs add-ons to compete with the Beta Fighter. I think that really shows that from an add-on perspective, the Beta is already ahead that the other two platforms require add-ons to truely compete with the Beta Fighter. The Beta nets more extra missiles from the Alpha linkup than the reverse, AotSC mentions an optional Medium Range Missile Pod (6shot) but not any details. Both the Alpha and Beta do get FAST Packs in TSC, and the Beta gets a Syncro-Cannon. So in terms of add-on enhancements the others two are starting from behind just to catch up to the raw capabilities of the Beta.

Network Capability (Command Model, non-Shadow System): Alpha, VF-1, Beta
The Beta really doesn't compete here as it has no identified networking capacity, the Alpha offers slightly better network bonuses than the VF-1.

Standard Equipment (as detailed in the 2E RPG): Practically a Tie, no points
While it is noted that there ARE some differences, the over welming majority in this situation is a tie. There are several instances where the standard equipment favours a given mecha, but over all they are pretty much the same. The Alpha has an easier time doing its radar based EW attack over the VF-1. The Beta can track more targets than either (Command Model or standard). The VF-1 does have better Chaff/flare (payload, and it has a listed % against smart weapons), and the "magic hands". Self Destruct is the only other area with a notable difference: damage favours the A/B but radius favours the VF-1 (assuming the mecha is not loaded up in all 3 cases, if the A/B are loaded up it goes to the A/B). These are exceptions though not the rule.

Protective Value (as determined by Raw MDC, WITHOUT ADD-ONs): Beta, Alpha, VF-1
The above order is the average between various models of the respective mecha (I include Shadow versions of the NG mecha). The VF-1R does pull even/ahead with the stock Alpha, the Shadow Version has more in the main body, though less overall than a stock Alpha. This holds true if we look at just Main Body OR Total MDC for all except the Shadow Alpha.

[Seto Kaiba]

While the VFA-6 Alpha Veritech Fighter IS presented as the SPIRITUAL successor to the VF-1 I have wondered which mecha stacks up better as the TECHNICAL successor.

Technically, the answer is "neither one". The Beta comes closer to matching the VF-1's all-purpose functionality... but it's not really suited to air-to-air combat. The Alpha isn't really suited for any roles beyond close air support and limited dogfighting. The Marine book leans towards the Beta, indicating the Marines favored it until the Beta became available, with special attention to its abilities WRT the "strike fighter" role.

One could say that the changing tactical needs of the UEEF ultimately meant that there wasn't a need for a technical successor to the VF-1... even though an OOC examination of the setting tends to indicate that a true successor to the VF-1 could've made life an awful lot easier for the UEEF.

VF-1. GU-11, standard issue. Carries 1. By the 2E RPG is has very high stopping power, low payload, and involved reloading process.

Beta. It does not use one. I do not see a reason it can not carry/utitlize one. I am not considering the Syncro-Cannon package as that is an add-on.

Alpha. EU-13, stanard issue and can carry 2. Replaced later by the EU-15, carries 1 (different hardpoint).

Just throwin' this out there, but the RPG doesn't actually support (RAW) the Alpha carrying two gun pods... but if one goes from the OSM supplemental sources, the VF-1 and Legioss/Alpha can each technically carry up to 3 depending on how they're equipped.

The VF-1 can hang up to two from the inner wing pylons in a pinch, or one from each forearm pack of the GBP-1S, in addition to the centerline-mounted one. The Legioss can hang one at each wing root, and with the centerline missile pack, can take one dorsally in the same manner as the Dark Legioss/Shadow Fighter synchrotron cannon/EU-15.

External Hardpoints (beyond Gunpod, non-Add-on): Beta, though it has drawbacks but wins by shear number
VF-1 has 4 Wing Hardpoints and 1 for a Gunpod. The hardpoints are very versatile in descriptions.

Beta has 6 Wing Hardpoints. By the 2E RPG they are limited in what they can carry when compared to Art of the Shadow Chronicles (which is more generous). The one common drawback is that they must be emptied compared to the VF-1. There is some loss in capability in what the hardpoints are said to carry, but other features of the Beta work to counter it for the 2E RPG, by AotSC they come across as just as versatile as the VF-1.

Just to point out another two technical discrepancies, the line art for the "Beta" only actually gives it four under-wing stations, not six... and unlike the VF-1, it officially/canonically needs to jettison that ordinance before it can transform. The VF-1 does not.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

The Sylphide....

[Tiree]

The Sylphide....

I have to agree with you on this...

[glitterboy2098]

non-veritechs don't count. otherwise we can just say the Conbat and be done with things.

[Tiree]

non-veritechs don't count. otherwise we can just say the Conbat and be done with things.

Don't forget the narrator in the series call it a Veritech. Just because we don't see it transform doesn't mean it doesn't. But then again, it's been hashed and rehashed on this forum a billion times.

Apparently the Robotech Technical Files agrees: http://ptn.home.xs4all.nl/Veritech/Sylphid.html And a few wiki sources have also expressed that it should be, due to the laser underneath similar to the VF-1.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

non-veritechs don't count. otherwise we can just say the Conbat and be done with things.

When was the Conbat called a Veritech? When was it shown to have the proper parts, including parts that are superfluous on a non-transforming design, to facilitate transformation?

[Kagashi]

non-veritechs don't count. otherwise we can just say the Conbat and be done with things.

Don't forget the narrator in the series call it a Veritech. Just because we don't see it transform doesn't mean it doesn't. But then again, it's been hashed and rehashed on this forum a billion times.

Apparently the Robotech Technical Files agrees: http://ptn.home.xs4all.nl/Veritech/Sylphid.html And a few wiki sources have also expressed that it should be, due to the laser underneath similar to the VF-1.

I dont know. Script does is not always correct. Even RTF claims they are speculating on their entry.

Animation shows Lancer using his Saber Cyclone and shooting down an Invid with chest missiles while Scotts voice says "Ive got em" (or something like that), and then Rand says, "nice shooting Scott." when it was clearly Lancer doing all the action if you actually use your eyes.

The Narrator also says the Regiss brought her entire race with her, when we know in canon that the Regent had half the Invid race with him.

Scott asks Lunk to repair Rook's "Beta" when it is clearly an Alpha.

In Dana's Story, the inital wave of Bioroids is met by Ajaxs, yet the Narrator claims it is a new mecha later in the series (it was in the original...Dana's Story was created by splicing the two series together).

The Narrator says all life was nearly wiped out save for the civilians on the SDF-1, yet by 2031 when the Invid arrive, there are entire traditional cities worth of people fleeing places like Denver and New York City. Likewise, South America seems to be doing really well with people populated with Spanish names by 2042-2044, making it very suspicious that all these people could be from the 70k from the SDF-1, and in 15 years suddenly become Latin.

Dana claims she had a brother she left behind, yet none have been shown to exist nor mentioned again. She could be talking about Bowie, but Bowie actually lives with Dana, therefore was not "left behind", and Zor would have known who Bowie was by then, so why leave it ambiguous? (in the remastered version, I still think they should have just changed the line to "sister" and explain Maya...you would think her parents would have let her know she had a sister eventually.)

Dana tells everybody to switch to Gladiator Mode, when it is Guardian mode every other reference.

There are script errors all throughout series. Some are due to the melding of the three animations into one and left over from the original scripts, others are quite simply errors or misspeaks. With the Masters book actually scrutinized by Yune (unlike Marines), I think it is safe to say that under the Yuneaverse we currently enjoy Robotech in, the Sylphid is not a Veritech, rather simply a fighter. Especially since it was never confirmed on Robotech.com prior to them becoming nothing more than an online sales room.

It is of my opinion that the reference of the Sylphid as a Veritech is simply a scripting error. Just like Alpha nose lasers is an animation error.

[Seto Kaiba]

non-veritechs don't count. otherwise we can just say the Conbat and be done with things.

Don't forget the narrator in the series call it a Veritech. Just because we don't see it transform doesn't mean it doesn't. But then again, it's been hashed and rehashed on this forum a billion times.

Yes, and every time it's been rehashed it winds up back at the same point... the "Sylphid veritech" is, in official canon, nothing more than one of Robotech's many dialog errors. Ironically, that we never see it transform and that there is no OSM evidence for its alleged transformation is a big part of why the official line on the Sylphid is that it's one of many non-variable fighters, just as it was back in the original Southern Cross.


One could argue, however, that the non-variable fighters like the Sylphid and Conbat are technically partial successors to the VF-1 in the same way the Alpha and Beta are. They cover a portion of the roles that were once the domain of the VF-1, but they can't cover many of the roles the VF-1 used to. I think, on balance, I favor the idea that there's a generational gap between the VF-1 and its true successor... that it would have been the VF-13 Gamma Fighter, which looks to have been a variable conbat.

(This is not necessarily an indictment of any of those craft... even in the original Macross setting, it took a fairly long time to produce a true successor to the VF-1's all-purposefulness because of the changing tactical requirements involved. They didn't get a "true successor" to the VF-1 until Project Nova and the YF-11-2 Thunderbolt III in 2030.)

[ShadowLogan]

Technically, the answer is "neither one". The Beta comes closer to matching the VF-1's all-purpose functionality... but it's not really suited to air-to-air combat.

Atmospheric air-air combat/design is arguably the one area where I concede that the Beta is highly compromised since it has to connect to the Alpha in the way it does. However, operating in the vacuum of space is another matter.

Just throwin' this out there, but the RPG doesn't actually support (RAW) the Alpha carrying two gun pods... but if one goes from the OSM supplemental sources, the VF-1 and Legioss/Alpha can each technically carry up to 3 depending on how they're equipped.

I am not relying specifically on the 2E RPG here. Various sources support it, including the 1E RPG which wasn't considered beyond one tidbit that I cutout IIRC.

I do not dispute that a VF-1 can't find ways to carry more than 1 using its other hardpoints I also don't dispute that the Alpha can't do the reverse, but as far as the listed sources I used it can't. I wanted to avoid as much speculation as possible about undocumented abilities from the sources used, like the possibility of wing/nacelle hardpoints on the Alpha. I know my Delta-V figures are in that realm of speculation, but they can be checked since the requirements don't change.

Just to point out another two technical discrepancies, the line art for the "Beta" only actually gives it four under-wing stations, not six... and unlike the VF-1, it officially/canonically needs to jettison that ordinance before it can transform. The VF-1 does not.

While lineart might go with 4 (I've seen it), officially in RT based on multiple sources I mentioned/can it has six, so it isn't a discrepancy per say as that is what TPTB have allowed multiple times. I did make note of the jettison requirement, but when I edited that section down to be more consice part of it got cut off and I didn't notice it.

that it would have been the VF-13 Gamma Fighter, which looks to have been a variable conbat.

I've said it before, but the SF-5 Conbat looks like it could be said to be based off the VF-X-4 as a non-VT spinoff/salvage effort (timeline dates in 2E RPG don't support that view though IIRC). That said the VF-13 could be a modernized update to the VF-X-4 program based off the mini/line-art for the two respective mecha IMHO. We know the UEEF is not afraid to update older designs (VF-X-7), though this is more extensive.

I dont know. Script does is not always correct. Even RTF claims they are speculating on their entry.

In this case though it is a running "error" since it (slyphid being identified as a Veritech) appears in multiple episodes. That the statement can be founded in multiple episodes I think really does establish that the writers in '85 DID see it as a Veritech. That it isn't shown to transform is not a deal stopper IMHO since it means that we have either a seperated hardware configuration like the Cyclone/CVR-3 (or non-canon Hargun in RT:TUS) or the situation really did not call for the mecha to transform and so it didn't.

The Narrator also says the Regiss brought her entire race with her, when we know in canon that the Regent had half the Invid race with him.

Not exactly. This is a post series development with the creation of the Regent to support Sentinels. So I see it less of the narrator got it wrong as TPTB got it wrong because they want to use the Invid in Sentinels arc (even after the house cleaning), along with other NG items.

[Colonel Wolfe]

In this case though it is a running "error" since it (slyphid being identified as a Veritech) appears in multiple episodes. That the statement can be founded in multiple episodes I think really does establish that the writers in '85 DID see it as a Veritech. That it isn't shown to transform is not a deal stopper IMHO since it means that we have either a seperated hardware configuration like the Cyclone/CVR-3 (or non-canon Hargun in RT:TUS) or the situation really did not call for the mecha to transform and so it didn't.

and it follow that things aren't veritechs and don't transform in ther source materials are made into them in the RPG canon, per the Hurricane/Silverback not having a robot mode until the haphazard one was detailed in the RPG.

The Narrator also says the Regiss brought her entire race with her, when we know in canon that the Regent had half the Invid race with him.

Not exactly. This is a post series development with the creation of the Regent to support Sentinels. So I see it less of the narrator got it wrong as TPTB got it wrong because they want to use the Invid in Sentinels arc (even after the house cleaning), along with other NG items.

even with the house cleaning, the period at which the REf/Pioneer mission encounters the inivd isn't firmly detailed... in the 12 year period between the end of the Masters and the established timeline in prelude, the Invid could have first went to earth (keeping the narrator appeased, then the regent went to the Master's empire and attacked once they had a supply of Protoculture to fight with.

n Dana's Story, the inital wave of Bioroids is met by Ajaxs, yet the Narrator claims it is a new mecha later in the series

This, is the same problem with Scott sayng the Cyclone is new and then you see Rook, Lancer, everyone else on the planet, has one, has CVR-3, ect. ect... Mayhaps the "new" Ajax the narrator talks about is a new prototype, new model, or new upgrade... we can see form the series that the ASC is constantly upgrading their Veritechs as Sean loses his officer models and is given a derelict model form storage.

[ShadowLogan]

and it follow that things aren't veritechs and don't transform in ther source materials are made into them in the RPG canon, per the Hurricane/Silverback not having a robot mode until the haphazard one was detailed in the RPG.

I disagree here. Transformation being detailed shouldn't matter, dialogue that indicates it is/is-not is more important and in the absence of said dialogue it could really go either way. If one works at it, one can get just about any vehicle to transform.

even with the house cleaning, the period at which the REf/Pioneer mission encounters the inivd isn't firmly detailed... in the 12 year period between the end of the Masters and the established timeline in prelude, the Invid could have first went to earth (keeping the narrator appeased, then the regent went to the Master's empire and attacked once they had a supply of Protoculture to fight with.

That though seems at odds with how the Regis/Regent relationship has been structured from the get go and has been maintained into the current continuity mess (Prelude's timeline in the graphic novel describes the Regent as "Fearsome ruler of the Invid remaining on Optera and estranged counterpart to the Regese, who abandoned the planet to conquer the Earth").

[Colonel Wolfe]

That though seems at odds with how the Regis/Regent relationship has been structured from the get go and has been maintained into the current continuity mess (Prelude's timeline in the graphic novel describes the Regent as "Fearsome ruler of the Invid remaining on Optera and estranged counterpart to the Regese, who abandoned the planet to conquer the Earth").

I'd rather an excuse to correct a continuity error alter a secondary source over the primary source of the 85-episodes.
Saying preludes descriptor of the Regent is wrong, per the myriad of other sources that support that idea, Rather than forcing the Canon established in the original production to be wrong.

[Seto Kaiba]

Technically, the answer is "neither one". The Beta comes closer to matching the VF-1's all-purpose functionality... but it's not really suited to air-to-air combat.

Atmospheric air-air combat/design is arguably the one area where I concede that the Beta is highly compromised since it has to connect to the Alpha in the way it does. However, operating in the vacuum of space is another matter.

The Beta may not be coping with its massive atmospheric drag problem in space, but we haven't really seen anything that supports the idea that it's agile enough in space to function in a dogfight on its own. It could probably be a passable interceptor, however... with the right mid-to-long range ordinance.

'course, the question really ought to be "Does the Robotech setting NEED a true successor to the VF-1?". IMO, it falls under a header of "it'd be nice, but isn't strictly necessary" since the focus of combat in Robotech changed from "stop 'em in space" to "support the ground troops".

I do not dispute that a VF-1 can't find ways to carry more than 1 using its other hardpoints I also don't dispute that the Alpha can't do the reverse, but as far as the listed sources I used it can't.

The Alpha doesn't actually have hardpoints... the gun pod is sort of wedged into a gap in the superstructure.

I've said it before, but the SF-5 Conbat looks like it could be said to be based off the VF-X-4 as a non-VT spinoff/salvage effort (timeline dates in 2E RPG don't support that view though IIRC). That said the VF-13 could be a modernized update to the VF-X-4 program based off the mini/line-art for the two respective mecha IMHO. We know the UEEF is not afraid to update older designs (VF-X-7), though this is more extensive.

Yep... we've agreed on this at great length in the past. So many wasted opportunities on the Infopedia's part there.

In this case though it is a running "error" since it (slyphid being identified as a Veritech) appears in multiple episodes. That the statement can be founded in multiple episodes I think really does establish that the writers in '85 DID see it as a Veritech.

To be fair, the Robotech production staff generally attributes the high levels of inconsistency between visuals and dialog and between episodes to the extremely rushed production schedule of the show. They didn't have TIME to decide whether a relatively minor background design was transformable or not. They likely just slapped the word "veritech" on any scene that showed jet fighters launching and called it a day.

Between that and Harmony Gold's stance that it's a dialog error, I can't say I see a reason to try to install intent after-the-fact for a fighter that never transforms and was never designed to by its creators.

[ShadowLogan]

Saying preludes descriptor of the Regent is wrong, per the myriad of other sources that support that idea, Rather than forcing the Canon established in the original production to be wrong.

The canon established in the original production would be the 85ep though, so Prlude and all those other sources are in conflict with the original 85ep.

course, the question really ought to be "Does the Robotech setting NEED a true successor to the VF-1?". IMO, it falls under a header of "it'd be nice, but isn't strictly necessary" since the focus of combat in Robotech changed from "stop 'em in space" to "support the ground troops".

I agree the focus of the veritech designs has shifted emphasis in various roles for their essentially "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" motto. Still people do like to compare the VF-1 to the Alpha, when the Alpha may not be the proper choice to compare it to in general (specific mission configurations is another matter). I mentioned it in the last such topic to you, I didn't want to side track it given how extensive the analysis would be.

The Beta may not be coping with its massive atmospheric drag problem in space, but we haven't really seen anything that supports the idea that it's agile enough in space to function in a dogfight on its own. It could probably be a passable interceptor, however... with the right mid-to-long range ordinance.

I think for the legois combination to be viable for use both in/out of atmosphere it has to retain a certain degree agility based on both thrust & aerodynamic surfaces. If the craft are ment to have the same "feel" in/out of atmosphere like a VF-1. Given statement from the old infopedia about " it allows for high thrust capabilities for an Alpha Battloid for high manoeuvrability in close combat," for the combo fighter. I think we can say that the Beta's ability to provide the Alpha (Battloid) with "high manoeuvrability" while in essentially fighter mode would give an idea of how just agile it can be with an Alpha, then any thrust based system should have an even easier time manoeuvring the Beta while going solo (at a minimum the Beta's T/W ratio from the main engines is 1.8 MINIMUM if when connected to an Alpha if we assume it maintains the Alpha's 1.15 T/W ratio*, since it is supposed to provide "greater raw thrust capabilities," per AotSC, to the Alpha it likely is higher). Though I suspect some of that "high manoeuvrability" may also come from the Alpha's own systems (those two foot thrusters provide a T/W ratio of 0.83 for combined stack, which is likely far and above any VF RCS thruster)

*the Alpha's T/W ratio has a possibility of being improved if it can use some trick/assumptions so it can use the 2 extra VTOL engines (which combined likely have to have nearly as much thrust available to lift the Alpha off as the 4 engines in the arms/legs) for forward flight. IF in an ideal situation like that could happen (by vectoring the thrust internally or externally from VTOL engines), the Beta's solo T/W ratio would jumps to ~3.6, and the Alpha comes in at 2.3. That of course is ideal and working with some assumptions.

The Alpha doesn't actually have hardpoints... the gun pod is sort of wedged into a gap in the superstructure.

That doesn't preclude the UEEF from developing mission pods (missiles, bombs, guns, electronics) that can exploit the same feature(s). We know the Alpha can fire its gunpod in fighter mode after all from any of those positions, so other mission packages are also possible. So form a practical standpoint they essentially are "hardpoints" or "rail stations".

Between that and Harmony Gold's stance that it's a dialog error, I can't say I see a reason to try to install intent after-the-fact for a fighter that never transforms and was never designed to by its creators.

I could buy that reasoning from HG if:
A. it wasn't repeated across multiple episodes/instances (x3 IINM). If we were talking about a one-off line or conflicting epsiode statement I could see going with one/other, but x3 times seems a bit excessive to be considered an error (that's 12.5% of TRM saga episodes)
B. the mecha in question is shown to have 3 different wing configurations, admittedly we don't see the wings shift, but they could go with that as being the reason it's a veritech altering the meaning slightly to be anything with variable geometry configuration
C. there wasn't a bias against the arc in general
D. as far as the original creators, it should not matter how they designed it. The only question that should matter is if it can be made to transform. If you can get shows like GoBots, Transformers, M.A.S.K., etc to feature transforming real world vehicles, then their original designs shouldn't matter.
E. fan design/approach in this matter may not be usable for legal matters, complicating specifics on how they can get it transform

[Seto Kaiba]

The canon established in the original production would be the 85ep though, so Prlude and all those other sources are in conflict with the original 85ep.

Harmony Gold ain't shy about the 85ep being fallible or treating it as subordinate to OSM or subsequently produced RT content when the need arises.

I agree the focus of the veritech designs has shifted emphasis in various roles for their essentially "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" motto.

People always forget to cite the whole of that particular aphorism... which, amusingly, turns the tone on its head and suits the topic of discussion here quite handily.

"Jack of all trades, master of none, but better than a master of one."

The VF-1 Valkyrie may be a "jack of all trades", but its composite all-purposefulness makes it a fighter with far greater value on an uncertain battlefield than the later designs in Robotech, which one could argue suffer from crippling overspecialization. Being able to switch between air superiority, interception, attacker, light bomber, and infantry roles on the fly makes the VF-1 a uniquely potent weapon.

Still people do like to compare the VF-1 to the Alpha, when the Alpha may not be the proper choice to compare it to in general (specific mission configurations is another matter). I mentioned it in the last such topic to you, I didn't want to side track it given how extensive the analysis would be.

On this we agree... though I go a little further with my argument that there really ISN'T an appropriate VF-1 analogue in the later Robotech Wars to compare against the VF-1. The later designs compare unfavorably to the VF-1 first and foremost because they weren't designed to do everything the VF-1 was. You can compare the driving performance of something like an EcoBoost-equipped Mustang and a Fiat 500e, but the comparison is fundamentally unfair because they're designed to two totally different, almost mutually exclusive, sets of goals.

Given statement from the old infopedia about " it allows for high thrust capabilities for an Alpha Battloid for high manoeuvrability in close combat," for the combo fighter. I think we can say that the Beta's ability to provide the Alpha (Battloid) with "high manoeuvrability" while in essentially fighter mode would give an idea of how just agile it can be with an Alpha, [...]

Isn't that kind of giving it more credit than it deserves? Yes, the Beta's thrust enhances the Alpha battloid's maneuvering ability in space when docked, but how much of that is due to the Alpha's ability to leverage at least four of its six engines as exceptionally high-thrust verniers?

That doesn't preclude the UEEF from developing mission pods (missiles, bombs, guns, electronics) that can exploit the same feature(s). We know the Alpha can fire its gunpod in fighter mode after all from any of those positions, so other mission packages are also possible. So form a practical standpoint they essentially are "hardpoints" or "rail stations".

Considering how it's wedged in there, it might actually preclude the UEEF from developing that kind of bolt-on addition... it's not an easily accessible space

I could buy that reasoning from HG if:
A. it wasn't repeated across multiple episodes/instances (x3 IINM). If we were talking about a one-off line or conflicting epsiode statement I could see going with one/other, but x3 times seems a bit excessive to be considered an error (that's 12.5% of TRM saga episodes)

We know that multiple episodes were being worked on separately by multiple writers, so Harmony Gold's reasoning seems sound to me... and since it's official, that does tend to cap the argument.

B. the mecha in question is shown to have 3 different wing configurations, admittedly we don't see the wings shift, but they could go with that as being the reason it's a veritech altering the meaning slightly to be anything with variable geometry configuration

That doesn't fit with the established definition of the "veritech" term.

C. there wasn't a bias against the arc in general

There still isn't... the rejection of the Sylphid as a VF is a firm, evidence-driven position.

D. as far as the original creators, it should not matter how they designed it. The only question that should matter is if it can be made to transform. If you can get shows like GoBots, Transformers, M.A.S.K., etc to feature transforming real world vehicles, then their original designs shouldn't matter.

But it does matter, because Robotech borrowed more than the designs... it borrowed their depictions too, via using the whole animated series.

[ilexgarodan]

My response? None of the above. The YF-4 Lightning would have been the true successor to the Valkyrie. Due to cost overruns from testing in 2015, however, the UEDF abandoned it in favour of project VF-X-6, which would later become the VF/A-6 Alpha Fighter.

[ShadowLogan]

Isn't that kind of giving it more credit than it deserves? Yes, the Beta's thrust enhances the Alpha battloid's maneuvering ability in space when docked, but how much of that is due to the Alpha's ability to leverage at least four of its six engines as exceptionally high-thrust verniers?

I am aware of that it can use the Alpha to leverage two of its engines, maybe a third. The Alpha Battloid arm thruster ports are never shown to be used IIRC, and one of the VTOL vents might be blocked (or good only for breaking). Those engines can only help cover certain arcs effectively, "high manoeuvrability" IMHO would imply 360deg coverage.

Considering how it's wedged in there, it might actually preclude the UEEF from developing that kind of bolt-on addition... it's not an easily accessible space

Not really. It depends on how they design the bolt-on. They could use the EU weapon as a basic frame in the "connection" area (think USB device).

We know that multiple episodes were being worked on separately by multiple writers, so Harmony Gold's reasoning seems sound to me... and since it's official, that does tend to cap the argument.

With multiple writers though across multiple episodes coming to the same "error"? That seems like a good reason to go with what is written. We know things have to be changed from the OSM by the dialogue (names, dates, locations, fuel, etc) so I don't see a reason to follow the OSM in this matter. While you can argue they borrowed the designs and depictions, it also has to be remembered that those depictions can also be viewed as "limited" depictions and aspects relating to those depictions has been changed or can be changed because of dialogue.

That doesn't fit with the established definition of the "veritech" term.

I agree it doesn't, that is why I suggested it would require altering the meaning slightly.

[Jefffar]

In regards to the OP, the direct successor to the Valkyrie is the Legios.

Or more accurately, no one single system was expected to replace the Valkyrie directly, but instead the Valkyrie's many roles were divided among several platforms.

[Seto Kaiba]

I am aware of that it can use the Alpha to leverage two of its engines, maybe a third. The Alpha Battloid arm thruster ports are never shown to be used IIRC, and one of the VTOL vents might be blocked (or good only for breaking). Those engines can only help cover certain arcs effectively, "high manoeuvrability" IMHO would imply 360deg coverage.

This is, by in large, one of the areas where the text writes a big check that the animation can't cash... though AotSC and the RPG's text one-up it in assigning the Alpha to operational roles it's HILARIOUSLY unsuited for.

All told, the Alpha has five engines exposed when docked to the Beta in battloid mode (the sixth is covered by the docking interface itself), and I can't find anything to indicate that it wouldn't be able to leverage all five in that configuration in the mechanical design or OSM notes.

With multiple writers though across multiple episodes coming to the same "error"? That seems like a good reason to go with what is written.

If they weren't just slapping the word "veritech" on every plane that crossed their path at that point... the show was, after all, trying to push a toy line first and foremost.

We know things have to be changed from the OSM by the dialogue (names, dates, locations, fuel, etc) so I don't see a reason to follow the OSM in this matter. While you can argue they borrowed the designs and depictions, it also has to be remembered that those depictions can also be viewed as "limited" depictions and aspects relating to those depictions has been changed or can be changed because of dialogue.

Harmony Gold's view differs, naturally... they don't regard the dialog as infallible, or even especially reliable, considering how it was the product of a rushed and imprecise adaptation. If the dialog doesn't fit the visuals, then generally it's the dialog at fault because this is a visual medium we're talking about.

My response? None of the above. The YF-4 Lightning would have been the true successor to the Valkyrie. Due to cost overruns from testing in 2015, however, the UEDF abandoned it in favour of project VF-X-6, which would later become the VF/A-6 Alpha Fighter.

Hard to say... the official spec for the YF-4 (which is unnamed in Robotech, AFAIK) is incomplete and laden with errors. It has dimensions that don't match the physical proportions of the art, and the only technical information given is its mass and its speed at altitude. Those are enough to suggest that its performance is probably significantly inferior to the OSM VF-X-4 and either version of the VF-4 (Siren or Lightning III), which augurs poorly for the idea of it as a "true" successor to the VF-1.

[glitterboy2098]

In regards to the OP, the direct successor to the Valkyrie is the Legios.

Or more accurately, no one single system was expected to replace the Valkyrie directly, but instead the Valkyrie's many roles were divided among several platforms.

which makes sense. much like how the F-4 Phantom wound up being replaced by the High/Low mix of F-15 and F-16.. though the F-15 and F-16 had a lot of mission and feature creep later on. (which to be honest.. so do all the robotech mecha)

[ShadowLogan]

All told, the Alpha has five engines exposed when docked to the Beta in battloid mode (the sixth is covered by the docking interface itself), and I can't find anything to indicate that it wouldn't be able to leverage all five in that configuration in the mechanical design or OSM notes.

The arm thrusters don't seem to be of any use to the Alpha in Battloid or Guardian though. Just because we see the ports doesn't mean they are useable in all modes, transformation can "disconnect"/"connect" them. For example, the Beta has 4 sets of cannons which are mode dependent to fire, the VHT has all 3 of its cannons exposed in transport mode (but cannoically can only use 1 of them), various VFs have control surfaces on the wings which are generally useless in battloid mode, the VFs all have atmospheric control surfaces that are useless in space, etc.

Though if we are using T/W ratio to guage engine power for manoeuvrability, the Alpha would be better off solo since each main engine has a T/W of ~0.29 IINM (x2 for the VTOL), connected to the Beta those same engines have a T/W ratio of ~0.10 (x2 for the VTOL). So in order for the Alpha to become more manoeuvrable the Beta has to provide manoeuvrings power with engines that in the stack are better than the Alpha operating solo.

If they weren't just slapping the word "veritech" on every plane that crossed their path at that point... the show was, after all, trying to push a toy line first and foremost.

But they where not slapping the word on every plane/vehicle. They consistently used in with regard to the same platform, the other 3 aircraft in use in the arc never received that treatment, and neither did things in NG. The use of the term by all appearances is quite deliberate.

And where is the "toy" that it is promoting? I don't recall a matchbox/revel product for the design in question.

Harmony Gold's view differs, naturally... they don't regard the dialog as infallible, or even especially reliable, considering how it was the product of a rushed and imprecise adaptation. If the dialog doesn't fit the visuals, then generally it's the dialog at fault because this is a visual medium we're talking about.

Are there gaffs, goofs, and such in the dialogue. Certainly, but what adds reliability is:
-if it is repeated w/n the story (check)
-ii there is no contradiction by dialogue (check)
-if there is a visual contradiction is there a reasonable explanation (check, transforming might not be viable solution to the battle sequences it is shown in)

Just to point out another two technical discrepancies, the line art for the "Beta" only actually gives it four under-wing stations, not six... and unlike the VF-1, it officially/canonically needs to jettison that ordinance before it can transform. The VF-1 does not.

I recently took a closer look at the one line-art piece I am aware of for the Beta's wing stations there does in fact appear to be 3 on the one wing though I can see how someone might miss the 3rd. Assuming we are looking at the same lineart piece (I'm using the ones at Robotech Research/uRRG) that showcases the hardpoints (a closeup/cropped image of a larger shot showing the Alpha Battloid connected to the Beta). The two obvious hardpoints show 2x4 and 2x3 V patterned cylinders (bombs or missiles) sprouting from the hardpoint. The THIRD station is between them, upon close examination one will see a single missile in between the two identifiable stations. Since we can agree about the leading edge shape of the wing, there is lineart showing a third station.

Or more accurately, no one single system was expected to replace the Valkyrie directly, but instead the Valkyrie's many roles were divided among several platforms.

I agree the UEDF (which the UEEF is apart of) went with several platforms that had a different mix of optimizations. Still some of them are closer to the Valks optimizations than others. HG tries to justify it with some non-sense about a technology backslide, but they don't seem to get that the different mix of optimizations would not be technology driven but requirements driven, plus when you start looking at individual technology elements it further reduces the idea of a backslide.

What do you mean when you say "legios"? Because it can refer to just the Alpha, or the combined Alpha/Beta depending on ones preference/context. The term after all is not used in RT, in the OSM it refers to the "Alpha" in RT, though some fans have "borrowed" the term as a reference to the combined alpha/beta stack.

[Tiree]

Just to point out another two technical discrepancies, the line art for the "Beta" only actually gives it four under-wing stations, not six... and unlike the VF-1, it officially/canonically needs to jettison that ordinance before it can transform. The VF-1 does not.

I recently took a closer look at the one line-art piece I am aware of for the Beta's wing stations there does in fact appear to be 3 on the one wing though I can see how someone might miss the 3rd. Assuming we are looking at the same lineart piece (I'm using the ones at Robotech Research/uRRG) that showcases the hardpoints (a closeup/cropped image of a larger shot showing the Alpha Battloid connected to the Beta). The two obvious hardpoints show 2x4 and 2x3 V patterned cylinders (bombs or missiles) sprouting from the hardpoint. The THIRD station is between them, upon close examination one will see a single missile in between the two identifiable stations. Since we can agree about the leading edge shape of the wing, there is lineart showing a third station.

Do you mean this one? http://ptn.home.xs4all.nl/images/beta_ord.jpg

[ShadowLogan]

Just to point out another two technical discrepancies, the line art for the "Beta" only actually gives it four under-wing stations, not six... and unlike the VF-1, it officially/canonically needs to jettison that ordinance before it can transform. The VF-1 does not.

I recently took a closer look at the one line-art piece I am aware of for the Beta's wing stations there does in fact appear to be 3 on the one wing though I can see how someone might miss the 3rd. Assuming we are looking at the same lineart piece (I'm using the ones at Robotech Research/uRRG) that showcases the hardpoints (a closeup/cropped image of a larger shot showing the Alpha Battloid connected to the Beta). The two obvious hardpoints show 2x4 and 2x3 V patterned cylinders (bombs or missiles) sprouting from the hardpoint. The THIRD station is between them, upon close examination one will see a single missile in between the two identifiable stations. Since we can agree about the leading edge shape of the wing, there is lineart showing a third station.

Do you mean this one? http://ptn.home.xs4all.nl/images/beta_ord.jpg

Yes.

[Seto Kaiba]

The arm thrusters don't seem to be of any use to the Alpha in Battloid or Guardian though. Just because we see the ports doesn't mean they are useable in all modes, transformation can "disconnect"/"connect" them.

Possible, but unlikely considering the OSM origins of the thrusters being in those positions... they were specifically designed for use as attitude control on the AS-C03 Condor in its "robot paratrooper" role.

Though if we are using T/W ratio to guage engine power for manoeuvrability, the Alpha would be better off solo since each main engine has a T/W of ~0.29 IINM (x2 for the VTOL),

Pretty much, yes... individually, the sub-engines have a T/W of 0.2874. That's one of several reasons I say the Beta allegedly giving the Alpha a massive boost in maneuverability in space is, like the AotSC's allegations of passive stealth design in the Alpha, simply a result of having "technical consultants" who doesn't understand aerospace engineering and were very poor translators.

But they where not slapping the word on every plane/vehicle. They consistently used in with regard to the same platform, the other 3 aircraft in use in the arc never received that treatment, and neither did things in NG. The use of the term by all appearances is quite deliberate.

Harmony Gold says otherwise, and I'm inclined to believe them as they're the ones best-positioned to know what's what.

There's no support for the notion via the animation or the production designs, so that means their insistence that it's a dialog error is standing on a firm factual grounding. It is, after all, possible to be consistently wrong... like how the Zentradi's understanding of the show's "protoculture" is radically different from what later sagas indicate it is.

I recently took a closer look at the one line-art piece I am aware of for the Beta's wing stations there does in fact appear to be 3 on the one wing though I can see how someone might miss the 3rd. Assuming we are looking at the same lineart piece (I'm using the ones at Robotech Research/uRRG) that showcases the hardpoints (a closeup/cropped image of a larger shot showing the Alpha Battloid connected to the Beta).

That's not official art, though.

The ONLY art from the design's creators that shows it with any ordinance hung from the wings shows only four pylons... not six.

(This one of the reasons I maintain the uRRG did far more harm than good as a Robotech fan site... its sourcing and research practices led to a LOT of misinformation being spread around, a good amount of which is still in play because Harmony Gold never bothered to fact-check them, and most of which is obviously ludicrous at a glance.)

[ShadowLogan]

Possible, but unlikely considering the OSM origins of the thrusters being in those positions... they were specifically designed for use as attitude control on the AS-C03 Condor in its "robot paratrooper" role.

I think it is more likely though. Using the arms in that way presents a host of problems as the arms can be in numerous positions, which I would think would complicate attitude control, because now the pilot has to move the arm into the proper place or the FBW system has to compensate. Then there is possible concern in damaging the gunpod if the main engine is used. While similar concerns arise from the legs with regard to positioning, they are less likely to be an issue given atmospheric use and experience from the VF-1.

Pretty much, yes... individually, the sub-engines have a T/W of 0.2874. That's one of several reasons I say the Beta allegedly giving the Alpha a massive boost in maneuverability in space is, like the AotSC's allegations of passive stealth design in the Alpha, simply a result of having "technical consultants" who doesn't understand aerospace engineering and were very poor translators.

Except it doesn't work that way. That T/W ratio is for an individual Alpha engine for the Alpha operating SOLO. If we add in the Beta's mass which has to be done when it is connected, it drops by nearly a 1/3. Which means the Alpha loses manoeverability while connected to the Beta due to mass, for the Beta to provide the Alpha with additional manoeverability necesitates the Beta's RCS (and/or control surfaces) to provide superior performance for a 46+ ton platform, which means when the Alpha is gone the RCS contribution for the Beta will be even better since it now is moving a lighter object (solo beta instead of combiner).

The Beta's VTOL system (which can act in RCS role) has to be able to lift IT, plus an Alpha (which only has 1 port free at best). IINM there are 2 VTOL ports on the Beta (1 each arm). That means each thruster has to generate at least 23,331kg of thrust for ~0.51 T/W (assuming a pessimistic 1.01 T/W for combined lift off w/no help from the Alpha. solo the Beta's VTOL combined T/W ~1.58). That means the VTOL engines provide superior pitch/roll/yaw roll capability than using the Alpha engines for the same manoever while connected. If the Alpha's forward VTOL engine can operate for operations it drops to 18,437.5kg each for a combined T/W of 1.01 joined OR 1.25 solo (1/2 the T/W ratio for individual engine) assuming the Alpha's VTOL engine is x2 as powerful as individual main engines. These values also assume a dry-mass mecha w/no combat load (which would drive the T/W figure up, and we know they have to go up since they do VTOL w/combat loads in animation).

As far as the Alpha's "passive stealth", it is possible. Radar return is dictated by two basic factors: shaping (and the Alpha does have odd faceted shape, though I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "stealthy") and materials (which is a lot harder to prove/disprove based on visuals). In the Mid 90s USAF was looking for ways to reduce the signature on an A-10 Thunderbolt II via materials. So the idea of adding/changing materials for "passive" stealth does have some merit.

The ONLY art from the design's creators that shows it with any ordinance hung from the wings shows only four pylons... not six.

And it is possible though that pylons are not all being used, or used in a non-uniform configuration. The second line art shot I found recently (gears online) does not show the underside of the wing, but it does leave enough space for a third pylon (identically equipped) between the two pylons either in an unused/empty state or alternate configuration to mask it if RT's PTB decide they want they extra pylon.

[Tiree]

That's not official art, though.

The ONLY art from the design's creators that shows it with any ordinance hung from the wings shows only four pylons... not six.

(This one of the reasons I maintain the uRRG did far more harm than good as a Robotech fan site... its sourcing and research practices led to a LOT of misinformation being spread around, a good amount of which is still in play because Harmony Gold never bothered to fact-check them, and most of which is obviously ludicrous at a glance.)

So this one, probably isn't accurate either: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.p ... 692&page=3

[Seto Kaiba]

I think it is more likely though. Using the arms in that way presents a host of problems as the arms can be in numerous positions, which I would think would complicate attitude control, because now the pilot has to move the arm into the proper place or the FBW system has to compensate.

We're already talking about a robot that's fully capable of managing its limbs in a mid-flight transformation without assistance from the pilot... this is hardly a deal-breaker.

Except it doesn't work that way. That T/W ratio is for an individual Alpha engine for the Alpha operating SOLO. If we add in the Beta's mass which has to be done when it is connected, it drops by nearly a 1/3.

I'm well aware of that, actually... but even that is still a decent amount of thrust coupled with the ability to vary thrust from the 3 main engines on the TLEAD/Beta. It won't make that bus particularly agile, but it's a damn sight better than nothing at all.

The Beta's VTOL system (which can act in RCS role) has to be able to lift IT, plus an Alpha (which only has 1 port free at best). IINM there are 2 VTOL ports on the Beta (1 each arm). That means each thruster has to generate at least 23,331kg of thrust for ~0.51 T/W (assuming a pessimistic 1.01 T/W for combined lift off w/no help from the Alpha. solo the Beta's VTOL combined T/W ~1.58). That means the VTOL engines provide superior pitch/roll/yaw roll capability than using the Alpha engines for the same manoever while connected.

Considering they aren't actually mentioned on the TLEAD spec, they're likely not dedicated engine systems at all... but rather using thrust diverted from the primary engines.

Also, their thrust-vectoring ability is very limited, and their orientation is particularly unhelpful, so their use in pitch/yaw/roll control is going to be fairly minimal.

As far as the Alpha's "passive stealth", it is possible. Radar return is dictated by two basic factors: shaping (and the Alpha does have odd faceted shape, though I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "stealthy") and materials (which is a lot harder to prove/disprove based on visuals).

AotSC attributes it to shaping, which holds water slightly less well than the average colander... that thing's shaping isn't so much "not passive stealth-friendly" as it is "actively hostile to passive stealth".

And it is possible though that pylons are not all being used, or used in a non-uniform configuration.

The pylons may not actually officially exist at all... the TLEAD stats have never actually mentioned the craft having pylons, and the pylons in the animation model sheets are never used in the show. I don't think even the toys ever depicted them with wing pylons.

(Of course, there are also weapons listed in the stats and on the art that that RT stats don't list.)

So this one, probably isn't accurate either: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.p ... 692&page=3

That's not production art from the series, no.

There is only one piece of art from the animation model sheets that depicts the TLEAD with under-wing ordinance, and it shows just two pylons per wing, each with a three-missile rack.

[ShadowLogan]

We're already talking about a robot that's fully capable of managing its limbs in a mid-flight transformation without assistance from the pilot... this is hardly a deal-breaker.

It isn't a deal breaker no, but managing the arms for this role would be "new" uncharted territory for the UEDF/UEEF mecha with a powerful engine like we are talking about.

but even that is still a decent amount of thrust coupled with the ability to vary thrust from the 3 main engines on the TLEAD/Beta. It won't make that bus particularly agile, but it's a damn sight better than nothing at all.

I agree it is a decent amount of thrust for the role, but if the Alpha is supposed to become MORE manoeuvrable when connected to the Beta that means the Beta has to be contributing to that manoeuvrability since the Beta's mass alone cuts into the Alpha's natural mobility.

Considering they aren't actually mentioned on the TLEAD spec, they're likely not dedicated engine systems at all... but rather using thrust diverted from the primary engines.

Also, their thrust-vectoring ability is very limited, and their orientation is particularly unhelpful, so their use in pitch/yaw/roll control is going to be fairly minimal.

Re: 2nd point
I would not be to sure about that. The system will be limited to allow sharp pitch-up only actions (which is essential for VTOL) I can agree on. Roll control is not ideal placement (that would be in the wings based on RL precedent), but it can be used that way with asymmetric values which is precisely how yaw control would also work with proper positioning. Really given the majority (2/3) of the coverage arcs the Alpha's 6 engines essentially overlap in coverage with the Beta's VTOL engines, the Beta would seem to be the source for the added manoeuvrability in those arcs and not the Alpha (which I don't discount, but the majority of the work appears to be coming from the Beta).

Re: 1st point
That would be some diversion since the VTOL system is located in the forearms, the 3 main engines are located in the legs and torso.

The pylons may not actually officially exist at all... the TLEAD stats have never actually mentioned the craft having pylons, and the pylons in the animation model sheets are never used in the show. I don't think even the toys ever depicted them with wing pylons.

(Of course, there are also weapons listed in the stats and on the art that that RT stats don't list.)

Officially as far as Robotech is concerned though they see 2x3 wing pylons, so regardless of what the OSM views... What other weapons are missing, aside from things like a name change (ex. I've seen a 2x3 "laser bomb" system mentioned, which works out to being the 1E RPG's MRM launcher that is built-in and optionally mentioned in Infopedia/AotSC).

[Seto Kaiba]

It isn't a deal breaker no, but managing the arms for this role would be "new" uncharted territory for the UEDF/UEEF mecha with a powerful engine like we are talking about.

Possibly... but they had twenty-something years to figure it out between the introduction of the Alpha fighter and the adoption of the Beta, which should be at least as good as the three years separating the first application of the AS-C03 Condor and AFC-01 Legioss's design family (and AB-01 TLEAD) in the original.

In both cases, they had a pre-existing design to work from, which ALSO has the forearm engines.

I agree it is a decent amount of thrust for the role, but if the Alpha is supposed to become MORE manoeuvrable when connected to the Beta that means the Beta has to be contributing to that manoeuvrability since the Beta's mass alone cuts into the Alpha's natural mobility.

Unless they're thrust-vectoring the Beta's engines (and it doesn't look like they are), there really isn't a way to substantiate that line from the evidence. The absence of thrust vectoring is one of the weirder cases of technology going backwards in Robotech... brought about by the latter two shows not really being made by military aviation otaku.

That would be some diversion since the VTOL system is located in the forearms, the 3 main engines are located in the legs and torso.

If you look to the line art, there are several circular structures on the fuselage-side of the TLEAD/Beta's arms that look like vents or ducting. There are worse diversions in the Legioss/Alpha, considering the orientation of the turbine compressor stage and the main engine body in Armo-Soldier/battloid mode.

Officially as far as Robotech is concerned though they see 2x3 wing pylons, so regardless of what the OSM views... [...]

Yes, but it must be noted that that's entirely down to someone's fan-fic being misrepresented as OSM material to Harmony Gold, not anything from the show itself, the production materials, or the official stats from its creators.

What other weapons are missing, aside from things like a name change (ex. I've seen a 2x3 "laser bomb" system mentioned, which works out to being the 1E RPG's MRM launcher that is built-in and optionally mentioned in Infopedia/AotSC).

The "laser bomb" system is the one to which I referred, yes... but it's not actually mentioned or even alluded to in Robotech's stats, which canonized an animation error to turn the TLEAD's dorsal missile launchers into two separate sets of launchers (one of which is located in the chest and not accessible in all modes). The "laser bomb launcher" is actually the thing the RPG thinks is a sensor array (and mounted on a Silverback as such as well).

There's a bunch of other screw-ups in the stats though... sizes and calibers stated at impossible values, and so on.

[ShadowLogan]

Unless they're thrust-vectoring the Beta's engines (and it doesn't look like they are), there really isn't a way to substantiate that line from the evidence. The absence of thrust vectoring is one of the weirder cases of technology going backwards in Robotech... brought about by the latter two shows not really being made by military aviation otaku.

By definition IINM the VTOL engines on the Beta would qualify as 2-D thrust vectoring since they have a movable outlet that can manipulate the exhaust direction. The system would be capable also inducing movement in 2-axis for sure and a 3rd is certainly possible if they can get tricky (we can fly planes w/o vertical tails, and land commercial planes by engine power alone, so getting tricky is certainly possible).

We also have to remember that Thrust Vectoring was relatively new back then in the early 80s, with very few examples that weren’t research only or intended for V/STOL instead of manoeuvrability. A lot of examples I can find are post series development, not pre-series and those are more concerned with V/STOL than manoeuvrability.

If you look to the line art, there are several circular structures on the fuselage-side of the TLEAD/Beta's arms that look like vents or ducting. There are worse diversions in the Legioss/Alpha, considering the orientation of the turbine compressor stage and the main engine body in Armo-Soldier/battloid mode.

Are there corresponding structures on the legs for all of them? I only see 1 on the leg. I don't think that establishes they are vents or ducting, we see similar circular structures elsewhere in the period which are not ducting/vents. If they where going to duct from the main engines, you would think they would have the nozzle(s) in the legs or body (though here runs into other potential issues) to increase reliability/survivability (arms do get damaged/destroyed).

Yes, but it must be noted that that's entirely down to someone's fan-fic being misrepresented as OSM material to Harmony Gold, not anything from the show itself, the production materials, or the official stats from its creators.

Are you sure that its fan-art? I agree it isn't in the show, but it makes logical sense for all the VFs to have external hardpoints for them to carry additional payload (even the F-117 had been proposed to have external hardpoints added for a Naval variant, the F-22 and F-35 both have them, so does the B-1 & B-52, along with the F-111 all of which have internal bays and external options). Nothing says they have to use those hardpoints in the animation since there existence would be a logical inclusion.

The "laser bomb" system is the one to which I referred, yes... but it's not actually mentioned or even alluded to in Robotech's stats, which canonized an animation error to turn the TLEAD's dorsal missile launchers into two separate sets of launchers (one of which is located in the chest and not accessible in all modes). The "laser bomb launcher" is actually the thing the RPG thinks is a sensor array (and mounted on a Silverback as such as well).

While the 2E RPG missed it for some reason (they got it right in 1E!), HG does acknowledge at there is a 2x3 Medium Range Missile Launcher option for the dorsal area per the Infoepdia and the Art of the Shadow Chronicles tech specs. It would be possible for the launcher and sensors to have a common mounting frame and appear similar depending on the guidance package on the missiles (optical vs radar). The system mentioned is quite definitely not a FAST-PACK that is depicted in the art earlier in the book since it says "2 optional top mounted missile launchers holding 3 x 560 mm medium range missiles", as the artwork has 9 "tubes" visible (infer total capacity of 12 though) and really only qualifies as "1".

I would not be concerned with getting the designations correct here from the OSM notes since "laser bomb" isn't very helpful in what it is (laser guided bomb, laser "bomb" for a missile*, etc) so swapping it out for a "Medium Range Missile Launcher" isn't that much of a big deal IMHO. I do believe Palladium has stated in the past about just what type of "beam weapon" they are dealing with based on animation notes.

*by this I mean the warhead fires a laser, either in a focused directed blast OR multi-port arcs for a blast radius (IIRC PB gave the Marduk such a weapon in the M2 line), Lunk does say "eat laser" and fires off missiles in Ep84 so they could have "laser" warheads.

[Seto Kaiba]

By definition IINM the VTOL engines on the Beta would qualify as 2-D thrust vectoring since they have a movable outlet that can manipulate the exhaust direction.

Based on the production line art, the TLEAD's [Beta's] VTOL nozzles only appear to be movable in the sense that they're mounted in such a way that they can be concealed inside the airframe when not in use... like folding headlights on a car.

We also have to remember that Thrust Vectoring was relatively new back then in the early 80s, with very few examples that weren’t research only or intended for V/STOL instead of manoeuvrability. A lot of examples I can find are post series development, not pre-series and those are more concerned with V/STOL than manoeuvrability.

Like I said, the latter two component series of Robotech weren't made by military aviation enthusiasts... they were made by a collection of period drama fans (Southern Cross) and a motorbike hobbyist (MOSPEADA) respectively. Joining the three shows together led to some interesting technical regressions due to the differing levels of attention paid to realism (inasmuch as a giant fighting robot can be realistic, anyway).

Are there corresponding structures on the legs for all of them? I only see 1 on the leg. I don't think that establishes they are vents or ducting, we see similar circular structures elsewhere in the period which are not ducting/vents.

There's a structure near the TLEAD's ankle which corresponds to one of the inlet-like structures on the inside of the arm... and the cover shown on it in the detail line art is identical in design (but smaller in scale) to the intake covers on the Condor's HBT turbine generators.

I'm reluctant to call it a "smoking gun" since the original creators are pretty definite on the TLEAD basically being an afterthought to appease the show's toy sponsor, but it does seem probable at this point.

If they where going to duct from the main engines, you would think they would have the nozzle(s) in the legs or body (though here runs into other potential issues) to increase reliability/survivability (arms do get damaged/destroyed).

Considering the shape of the aircraft, and the orientation of weapons therein, they didn't exactly have a ton of options... the engine nozzles are contending for space with the ordinance loading door, cockpit ladder and hatch, the drum magazines for all three of the TLEAD's 30mm Vulcan cannons, six rapid-fire laser cannons, the bomb bay doors for the napalm bombs, and the landing gear.

Are you sure that its fan-art?

I didn't say it was fan art.

I said it wasn't official, production art. It's probably something that was done for a magazine advert for the series, or for a toy or model kit's box art... though I don't believe any TLEAD toy or kit ever included hung ordinance for the wings. Model kits and toys often deviate from the official design specs to include things to make them more action-y... like how numerous VF-1 Valkyrie with FAST Pack kits have included cutaway panels that show incorrect numbers of internal missiles, or cut costs by tooling a third wing pylon instead of casting the extended pylon for inner wing, or include stuff that was cut from the series like the Legioss's first strike missiles and dorsal missile pack.

I agree it isn't in the show, but it makes logical sense for all the VFs to have external hardpoints for them to carry additional payload [...] Nothing says they have to use those hardpoints in the animation since there existence would be a logical inclusion.

If they don't exist in the animation and the production materials didn't include 'em, they don't exist... as a rule.

The Beta's hardpoints are a mistake resulting from bad sourcing practices on the uRRG's part.

HG does acknowledge at there is a 2x3 Medium Range Missile Launcher option for the dorsal area per the Infoepdia and the Art of the Shadow Chronicles tech specs.

No such thing is mentioned in the Infopedia, but it is mentioned in AotSC... that's the missile launcher component of the "Super Shadow Beta" synchro cannon pack.

[mech798]

Honestly, neither one is a successor-- they're clearly very specialized designs rather than a true multi-role fighter.

[ShadowLogan]

Based on the production line art, the TLEAD's [Beta's] VTOL nozzles only appear to be movable in the sense that they're mounted in such a way that they can be concealed inside the airframe when not in use... like folding headlights on a car.

That does not mean they can't be use in such a manner, or the nozzles don't have a greater degree of freedom.

Like I said, the latter two component series of Robotech weren't made by military aviation enthusiasts... they were made by a collection of period drama fans (Southern Cross) and a motorbike hobbyist (MOSPEADA) respectively. Joining the three shows together led to some interesting technical regressions due to the differing levels of attention paid to realism (inasmuch as a giant fighting robot can be realistic, anyway).

The technical regressions might not exist though. The later mecha do possess VTOL capacity, which gives them access to altered mobility, potentially enough to offset the lack of thrust vectoring at the main engines. The VTOL engines also allow the later era mecha to perform manoeuvres in fighter mode that the VF-1 can't duplicate w/o transforming.

I'm reluctant to call it a "smoking gun" since the original creators are pretty definite on the TLEAD basically being an afterthought to appease the show's toy sponsor, but it does seem probable at this point.

They can also just be connection points. We see circular structures on the CVR-3 after all, they are also on the MM-40's cover, and some of them on the Beta do not even have corresponding locations, all of which to me suggests they aren't. It would be easier to run a "fuel" line into the arm to a secondary engine than to divert the exhaust IMHO. They have to run "fuel" lines throughout the body anyway for any manoeuvring thrusters (unless each has its own tank, which would make refuelling complicated and potentially dumb based on real world experience*).

Considering the shape of the aircraft, and the orientation of weapons therein, they didn't exactly have a ton of options... the engine nozzles are contending for space with the ordinance loading door, cockpit ladder and hatch, the drum magazines for all three of the TLEAD's 30mm Vulcan cannons, six rapid-fire laser cannons, the bomb bay doors for the napalm bombs, and the landing gear.

While I can see an issue with trying to put it into the main body, there is a lot to work around to "fix" to get it to work correctly. The legs are a different matter, they could have moved the guns in the legs into the forearms (into the current VTOL ports) to free up space for the ducting from the leg engines to moveable nozzles like the AV-8 uses. That actually allows the Beta to retain maximum firepower for guardian mode, and would be simpler than ducting for VTOL into the arms from the legs and having to account for transformations.

If they don't exist in the animation and the production materials didn't include 'em, they don't exist... as a rule.

The Beta's hardpoints are a mistake resulting from bad sourcing practices on the uRRG's part.

The problem with the first view is that you can end up with some pretty odd things. Does that mean the Logan, AGAC, Alpha, Beta don't have ejection seats because they don't get used? What about scramblers for the radio? Anti-Missile defences (chaff/flare). Etc. These all are logically would be part of the design, and no different than including hardpoints on military fighters IMHO.

Do we know what criteria HG uses to gauge OSM materials? For all you know the sourcing might be acceptable by their criteria. Then again they might not have any "criteria".

No such thing is mentioned in the Infopedia, but it is mentioned in AotSC... that's the missile launcher component of the "Super Shadow Beta" synchro cannon pack.

I know I've seen it in the Infopedia in the past.

The 2x3 shot MRM launcher description in the spec section is incompatible with the depicted artwork for the missile launcher component of the SSB. The SSB shows 9 tubes (with another 3 for symmetry, a second image earlier only has 6), the specs say 3 only at a given size. The SSB is a single module for the missiles, the text says two can be mounted. Given the way other systems are counted on the Beta, these MRM launchers are separate individual systems in their own packages.

[Seto Kaiba]

That does not mean they can't be use in such a manner, or the nozzles don't have a greater degree of freedom.

To be fair, I can't see anything that would indicate that they could... it's not even a movable nozzle, thanks to being embedded into the swinging armored cover.

The technical regressions might not exist though. The later mecha do possess VTOL capacity, which gives them access to altered mobility, potentially enough to offset the lack of thrust vectoring at the main engines. The VTOL engines also allow the later era mecha to perform manoeuvres in fighter mode that the VF-1 can't duplicate w/o transforming.

Two significant points here:

• The VF-1 Valkyrie has, OSM-ly, demonstrated fighter-mode VTOL capability as well.
• Not all of the "later mecha" possess VTOL capability... the Logan surely doesn't, and neither does the Shadow Fighter (the VTOL engines were removed in the redesign).

Whether the Alpha or Beta can even employ their VTOL engines in normal flight is another matter entirely...

They can also just be connection points. We see circular structures on the CVR-3 after all, they are also on the MM-40's cover, and some of them on the Beta do not even have corresponding locations, all of which to me suggests they aren't.

That depends which ones you're talking about.

The Riding Suit from MOSPEADA has a number of circular connection points for the Ride Armor hardware, such as those on the tops of the shoulders, the forearms, the front of the groin plate, etc., but it also has a number of circular-shaped locking latches for keeping the body armor shut (such as the one on the lower left side of the chest). The Legioss [Alpha] and TLEAD [Beta] have some that are marked with warning trefoils, which means they're functional in some way, rather than being purely decorative.

It would be easier to run a "fuel" line into the arm to a secondary engine than to divert the exhaust IMHO. They have to run "fuel" lines throughout the body anyway for any manoeuvring thrusters (unless each has its own tank, which would make refuelling complicated and potentially dumb based on real world experience*).

All I can say on the matter is that the official OSM spec for the TLEAD does not list it with any engines beyond the three engines that are sticking out the back, and only two of those are full-power engines when not docked to a Legioss... and that the arm section that contains the nozzle is physically connected to the engine housing.

The problem with the first view is that you can end up with some pretty odd things. Does that mean the Logan, AGAC, Alpha, Beta don't have ejection seats because they don't get used? What about scramblers for the radio? Anti-Missile defences (chaff/flare). Etc. These all are logically would be part of the design, and no different than including hardpoints on military fighters IMHO.

Actually, we don't end up in nearly as weird a place as you'd think if you actually use proper sourcing practices.

There are certain, common-sense things that would obviously be there in any military aircraft like secured radio systems and the inevitable ejection seats, though some of these features (e.g. ejection seats) are documented in the production art and thus their existence is demonstrable without inference.

By the same token, there are cases where some craft demonstrably have certain capabilities that others don't... such as the VF-1's countermeasure dispenser and wing pylons. If the battlefield requirements make the feature unnecessary (e.g. a countermeasures dispenser system when you're the only faction in the setting that actually uses missiles) or the design of the craft leaves a feature stuck in mechanical impracticality (e.g. hung ordinance on a craft that can't retain same during transformation) and it's also not a supported feature in the OSM spec, then trying to write it into the specs anyway just raises uncomfortable questions as to why the valiant defenders of Earth didn't use those incredibly advantageous functions when they would've made their lives so much easier (and so much longer)?

Take, for instance, the case of the first New Generation episode... if the Alpha and/or Beta had the ability to hang heavier missiles from their wings to supplement their visual range micro-ordinance with BVR munitions, why didn't they? It would've saved tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in the botched ERF missions. If the Alpha and/or Beta had anti-missile countermeasures, why didn't they get employed against the Invid commanders who finally developed missile weaponry... or the radar-guided missiles that were used by Edwards' renegade forces? It would have saved a lot of lives and a lot of valuable equipment.

Do we know what criteria HG uses to gauge OSM materials? For all you know the sourcing might be acceptable by their criteria. Then again they might not have any "criteria".

Initially, their criteria was to defer to whatever they were told the OSM said by the "Expert fans" whose services they engaged... it led to a lot of misinformation being distributed when those fans pushed their private theories over the information they were really supposed to be providing. That's why we have animation and art-defying dimensions for most of the ships and several mecha, the problems with gunpods and fixed guns of impossible caliber for their proportions on several entries, etc. (Management didn't think updating the Infopedia was worth it, according to Tommy's comments at convention panels and on their forums, so many errors on the Infopedia went uncorrected.)

They later went to just copy-pasting their corrections from better-informed OSM fan sites... but that caused its own set of problems, considering they didn't account for the way virtually all Macross fan sites don't differentiate between the armaments of the TV and DYRL? VF-1 Valkyries. That's how we ended up with the "MLOP" in the stats... it's the UUM-7 micro-missile launcher pod which first appeared in the movie.

No such thing is mentioned in the Infopedia, but it is mentioned in AotSC... that's the missile launcher component of the "Super Shadow Beta" synchro cannon pack.

I know I've seen it in the Infopedia in the past.

It wasn't in the article for at least the last ~4-5 years of the article's existence... I didn't go back farther than that.

[ShadowLogan]

To be fair, I can't see anything that would indicate that they could... it's not even a movable nozzle, thanks to being embedded into the swinging armored cover.

I'm not so sure about that. It looks like the external cover is part of the engine nozzle housing IMHO. (I'm going off the image "tread-14.gif" over at gearsonline.ne in the section for the Beta-solot)

Two significant points here:
The VF-1 Valkyrie has, OSM-ly, demonstrated fighter-mode VTOL capability as well.
Not all of the "later mecha" possess VTOL capability... the Logan surely doesn't, and neither does the Shadow Fighter (the VTOL engines were removed in the redesign).

Whether the Alpha or Beta can even employ their VTOL engines in normal flight is another matter entirely...

The VF-1 is not credited with VTOL capacity in RT though, nor does it execute it in the show without at minimum deploying the legs IIRC.

The Logan most certainly must possess some form of VTOL capability and it is demonstrated in the animation when launching from shuttles in fighter mode ("Volunteers" doesn't show underside engine, but in "Star Dust" the engines are shown in use), and when Marie transforms in "Southern Cross" a thruster fires in the chest of her guardian upon transformation (said thruster is between the "star dust" engines, but would be properly orientated for VTOL) to slow down.

The Shadow Fighter is basically an Alpha Fighter though, so at best you have a specific model incapable of VTOL by choice not lack of technology.

I would have to review GCM/NG to look for VTOL use during flight in combat, but I do not see why they wouldn't be able to.

The Legioss [Alpha] and TLEAD [Beta] have some that are marked with warning trefoils, which means they're functional in some way, rather than being purely decorative.

I doubt the circular structures we are talking about are decorative, they likely are functional. The question is what function(s) do they serve, in many instances they appear to be connection point related. Having open/closing ducts like that would seem to be a maintenance nightmare though.

All I can say on the matter is that the official OSM spec for the TLEAD does not list it with any engines beyond the three engines that are sticking out the back, and only two of those are full-power engines when not docked to a Legioss... and that the arm section that contains the nozzle is physically connected to the engine housing.

How complete should we view specs though? All 3 arcs at the OSM level had differing levels of chosen technical detail.

There are certain, common-sense things that would obviously be there in any military aircraft like secured radio systems and the inevitable ejection seats, though some of these features (e.g. ejection seats) are documented in the production art and thus their existence is demonstrable without inference.

The option for External Hardpoints though fall in the common-sense things that would be on military aircraft expected to take offensive action. How many operational attack/fighter-craft don't have the option vs those that do in/near that period it was made to the present?

if the Alpha and/or Beta had the ability to hang heavier missiles from their wings to supplement their visual range micro-ordinance with BVR munitions, why didn't they? It would've saved tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in the botched ERF missions. If the Alpha and/or Beta had anti-missile countermeasures, why didn't they get employed against the Invid commanders who finally developed missile weaponry... or the radar-guided missiles that were used by Edwards' renegade forces? It would have saved a lot of lives and a lot of valuable equipment.

Counter measure is easy: UEEF counter measures may not have been up to the task of dealing with the guidance systems used by Edwards' OR Invid forces. Just because they carry Chaff/Flare does not mean that the chaff/flare will work on every Radar/IR seeker (that is true in RL), and in the case of the Invid might even use something else.

As to why the UEEF didn't. Short answer is they are run by idots. The Long Answer is likely more complicated:
-what is the source of their BVR munitions, and what was their stockpile like in the 2040s and could they produce more? (remember the focus is during a specific period, and the mecha in question have been around for some time in one form or another)
-given the likely mass of such munitions, it could come down to a balancing act to get the most range (Delta-V) out of the fighters vs munitions selection (payload). While that would certainly be a driving factor for the Alpha, it would be less so for the Beta solo/linked, but it would still be something the UEEF would likely consider in planning (I'd argue the UEDF RDF/ASC do the same thing).
-what is the actual effectiveness of BVR munitions against the Invid? "Invasion" Comic and the use of "Reflex Missiles" by the Conbat suggests they aren't the "field clearing" munition you think they should be since they only targeted Transports.

(Management didn't think updating the Infopedia was worth it, according to Tommy's comments at convention panels and on their forums, so many errors on the Infopedia went uncorrected.)

While I can see them being slow to update a "free service" like the Infopedia. Management might get behind something they could make money off of. That might be something I'd consider buying that didn't come across as a "rehash" product (ex just about every post-Legacy DVD collection, aside from the crossover comic the rest are basically rehashing established events to some extent) or a "look here is something just be happy" product (ex. Marines. LLA).

[Seto Kaiba]

I'm not so sure about that. It looks like the external cover is part of the engine nozzle housing IMHO. (I'm going off the image "tread-14.gif" over at gearsonline.ne in the section for the Beta-solot)

That's kind of my point... the cover only has two positions (open and closed) and the nozzle is a fixed part inside of the cover. That isn't thrust-vectoring by any means.

I doubt the circular structures we are talking about are decorative, they likely are functional. The question is what function(s) do they serve, in many instances they appear to be connection point related. Having open/closing ducts like that would seem to be a maintenance nightmare though.

Any worse than having to duct main engine thrust as a 90 degree angle through three different sets of contra-rotating parts to get from the Alpha's intakes to the nozzles? The Beta's theoretical ducted arrangement is more elegant by far than what the Alpha is using per official cutaways.

How complete should we view specs though? All 3 arcs at the OSM level had differing levels of chosen technical detail.

The specs in the Macross and MOSPEADA OSM may be at different levels of detail, but they're both at roughly the same general level of completeness for basic performance and capability. (Macross, of course, has reams of additional material in line art notations and more detailed technical writeups, but that's another matter.)

It's not like we're trying to wrangle something out of the general absence of Southern Cross information.

The option for External Hardpoints though fall in the common-sense things that would be on military aircraft expected to take offensive action. How many operational attack/fighter-craft don't have the option vs those that do in/near that period it was made to the present?

Really? Because I can name several modern aircraft that don't use them... like the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, which is probably one of the most-analogous craft to the Alpha in terms of size and its role as a close air support plane.

It's not just that the pylons are conspicuously absent from the stats and the show, it's that they're fundamentally impractical with the design of the aircraft. Neither the Alpha nor Beta could retain hung ordinance during transformation.

Counter measure is easy: UEEF counter measures may not have been up to the task of dealing with the guidance systems used by Edwards' OR Invid forces.

Edwards' forces were using the same ordinance as the rest of the UEEF... demonstrably so, considering they ran into exactly the same problem at shooting at shadow fighters, so that doesn't pan out, logically speaking.

As to why the UEEF didn't. Short answer is they are run by idots. The Long Answer is likely more complicated:

I see a much simpler answer... Occam's razor and all that... they never had the capability to begin with. Funnily enough, it's also supportable via the OSM and explains everything without the need for convoluted explanations or the implicit assumption that the UEEF brass are drooling morons.

-what is the source of their BVR munitions, and what was their stockpile like in the 2040s and could they produce more? (remember the focus is during a specific period, and the mecha in question have been around for some time in one form or another)

These people allegedly possess multiple factory satellites, and have no problem keeping their fighters supplied with dozens of short-range micro-missiles.

-given the likely mass of such munitions, it could come down to a balancing act to get the most range (Delta-V) out of the fighters vs munitions selection (payload). While that would certainly be a driving factor for the Alpha, it would be less so for the Beta solo/linked, but it would still be something the UEEF would likely consider in planning (I'd argue the UEDF RDF/ASC do the same thing).

How is range an issue? They're launched from carriers or carried along in a fold bubble across long distances...

-what is the actual effectiveness of BVR munitions against the Invid? "Invasion" Comic and the use of "Reflex Missiles" by the Conbat suggests they aren't the "field clearing" munition you think they should be since they only targeted Transports.

The Conbat's missiles aren't identified as reflex weaponry in the stats, so that's not a viable conclusion either... anti-capital ship ordinance should've been quite effective against Invid carriers if used before they launch their troops (AKA the whole point of them being BVR).

[ShadowLogan]

That's kind of my point... the cover only has two positions (open and closed) and the nozzle is a fixed part inside of the cover. That isn't thrust-vectoring by any means.

I disagree, we do not know the full range of control the nozzle has, the actual nozzle looks like it can gimbal inside the "cover" which could have several degrees of open/close.

Really? Because I can name several modern aircraft that don't use them... like the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, which is probably one of the most-analogous craft to the Alpha in terms of size and its role as a close air support plane.

It's not just that the pylons are conspicuously absent from the stats and the show, it's that they're fundamentally impractical with the design of the aircraft. Neither the Alpha nor Beta could retain hung ordinance during transformation.

Actually there was a proposed version put forth by Lockheed in the mid/early-90s for a Naval Variant of the F-117 complete with two under carriage hardpoints (at the very least this shows that it can be done). I think that is the only aircraft that readily comes to mind that is in the fighter/attack category from the 70s to the present that doesn't have external hardpoints (fuel or munitions) or the option to use them with internal weapons bays that was actually put into use:
-F-22 has external hardpoint option, internal weapons bay(s)
-F-35 has external hardpoint option, internal weapons bay(s)
-F-111 has external hardpoints, internal weapons bay(s)
-F-106 has external drop tanks option (which qualifies IMHO)
-T-50 (Sukhoi PAK) has external hardpoints with an internal bay(s)

The only things that comes to mind that has internal bay and no external hardpoints in the fighter/attack area are examples that where cancelled during development or still in development. And one of those (YF-12) has a family variant with an external pylon (M-21). So it is extremely odd to see an aircraft in the fighter/attack category with internal bays not have the option for external carriage.

No the use of pylons/rails (hardpoints) are not impractical with the design of the mecha, you just have to have the right approach:
-Missile "Gunpods" to be carried on the gunpod points for the Alpha (it is demonstrated to use 2/3 of them in fighter mode, and we know there are at least 2 normal gunpod types, and the UEEF did produce the RL-6 missile gunpod for the Cyclone, IINM the Silverback's option for turret weapons would put them in roughly the same size as a gunpod for an Alpha)
-"OVERWING" stations (rare, ex Jagua) would certainly allow greater freedom for the Alpha if on the wings (probably couldn't fire them in G-mode, might be limited to "rail" type stations), and the Beta could mount them on its forearms (more of dorsal station than "overwing", but conceptually the same)
-Under-intake stations for the Alpha (ground clearance might require connection to the Beta for F-mode to be used OR take-off/landing in G/VTOL mode), likely looking at a rail station(s) here not a pylon, would also preclude using the leg MM-40 stations in fighter mode (UEEF doesn't have an issue with blocking the MM-40s on the Beta so precedent)
-Adapting any/all of those FAST-PACK stations from TSC into missile pylon-hardpoints on the Alpha, since they aren't engines they shouldn't put as much stress on the frame
-Y-pylon (F-8 ex) or stub wing (ex AH-64/01) or rail station on the the upper leg of the Beta (I have concerns about the VTOL engine exhaust admittedly)
-Y-pylon or stub wing or rail station on the underside of the forearm location
-Y-pylons/Rail Stations/stub to either side of the Beta's docking arm (transformation issue admittedly), you might even be able to turn the arm into an internal bay

Edwards' forces were using the same ordinance as the rest of the UEEF... demonstrably so, considering they ran into exactly the same problem at shooting at shadow fighters, so that doesn't pan out, logically speaking.

That could still just mean that the UEEF guidance systems where that good that they UEEF countermeasures had yet to catch up.

I see a much simpler answer... Occam's razor and all that... they never had the capability to begin with.

Then that would be the UEEF is run by idots. These people selected the Alpha fighter with its range limitations (something that should have been readily apparent), could have fixed the range by ditching the Cyclone bay (the Cyclone itself requires the operator to be wearing CVR-3 to be fully usable another questionable thing) and creating a third design to supplement the Alpha to overcome its weakness that also has to be compromised to do so. The UEEF did not elect to fire off missiles (or BFGs) at approaching Invid formation from their capital ships (which didn't have very good point-defenses).

How is range an issue? They're launched from carriers or carried along in a fold bubble across long distances...

They might be launching from carriers, but that isn't going to help them when they start to get into dogfights and start using up propellant loads. The extra mass of those heavy weapons will cut into the Delta-V capacity for both their main and manoeuvring thrusters (even if we go with separate tanks). And once they are out of Delta-V they are dead in the water (essentially used up their operational range in space).

The Conbat's missiles aren't identified as reflex weaponry in the stats, so that's not a viable conclusion either... anti-capital ship ordinance should've been quite effective against Invid carriers if used before they launch their troops (AKA the whole point of them being BVR).

Actually the Conbats (Yellow Leader) are identified as firing Reflex Missiles in the Invasion comic (vol 1, pg12 not counting the cover sheet, opposite a Gundam ad, why can't these comics have actualy page #s printed on them?). These are those big missiles seen in the lineart, likely the generic "heavy" missile in the specs ("light" and "medium" should have seen a payload increase beyond 4 I would think).

[Seto Kaiba]

Actually there was a proposed version put forth by Lockheed in the mid/early-90s for a Naval Variant of the F-117 complete with two under carriage hardpoints (at the very least this shows that it can be done).

But nothing actually came of it, as it would've compromised the F-117's chief advantage...

-F-106 has external drop tanks option (which qualifies IMHO)

That's different, those are jettisoned once inside the area of operations... not retained during combat maneuvering.

So it is extremely odd to see an aircraft in the fighter/attack category with internal bays not have the option for external carriage.

Odd, but not unheard-of... and more readily explainable if you account for the fact that both the Legioss and TLEAD (Alpha and Beta) have wing areas that are disproportionately small for craft of their size, exacerbated by extremely poor aerodynamics.

No the use of pylons/rails (hardpoints) are not impractical with the design of the mecha, you just have to have the right approach:

The point isn't whether it could theoretically be done... it's that it wasn't done.

That could still just mean that the UEEF guidance systems where that good that they UEEF countermeasures had yet to catch up.

Now THAT would truly earn the UEEF the "pants on head" award for stupidity... you never want to have a weapon that you can't stop if an enemy captures it and uses it against you.

Then that would be the UEEF is run by idots. These people selected the Alpha fighter with its range limitations (something that should have been readily apparent), could have fixed the range by ditching the Cyclone bay (the Cyclone itself requires the operator to be wearing CVR-3 to be fully usable another questionable thing) and creating a third design to supplement the Alpha to overcome its weakness that also has to be compromised to do so. The UEEF did not elect to fire off missiles (or BFGs) at approaching Invid formation from their capital ships (which didn't have very good point-defenses).

Is that stupidity, or simply that the Alpha and Beta are not meant to be fighters to begin with?

As we discussed earlier, the Alpha and Beta are fundamentally not designed to be fighter aircraft. The Legioss/Alpha is a close air support attack plane, configured and armed appropriately to loiter at low altitudes over troop formations and armed lightly enough that the chance of fratricide is minimal while still having enough firepower to down the typical enemy. The TLEAD/Beta is much the same... it's designed for either high-thrust ballistic flight to ferry itself and its tandem fighter to or from a battle zone, and then to make low-altitude strafing runs with high-caliber cannons and light bombs.

These craft are not armed like practical fighter aircraft because they were not designed to be practical fighter aircraft or bombers... they're light and medium ground attackers for close air support. Their capabilities make good sense (mostly) when they're viewed within the scope of the designer's intent and OSM spec. It also makes a lot of sense in combination with the RPG's assertion that the UEEF Marines kept using the VF-1 in a strike fighter role after the Alpha's introduction...

They might be launching from carriers, but that isn't going to help them when they start to get into dogfights and start using up propellant loads. The extra mass of those heavy weapons will cut into the Delta-V capacity for both their main and manoeuvring thrusters (even if we go with separate tanks). And once they are out of Delta-V they are dead in the water (essentially used up their operational range in space).

Very true... but then, these craft aren't meant to be space fighters either, except for very brief combats to break through an orbital defense and secure a landing zone planetside. "Dive and attack", as the OSM has it...

Actually the Conbats (Yellow Leader) are identified as firing Reflex Missiles in the Invasion comic (vol 1, pg12 not counting the cover sheet, opposite a Gundam ad, why can't these comics have actualy page #s printed on them?). These are those big missiles seen in the lineart, likely the generic "heavy" missile in the specs ("light" and "medium" should have seen a payload increase beyond 4 I would think).

One has to wonder if that's true for all of those missiles, or just the ones issued to his group...

(Of course, using reflex warheads against the Invid is going to be less effective if you hit them AFTER they've launched from their carriers rather than before... but it'll still be more effective by far than micro-ordinance at a range where the Invid can start to hit back.)

[Jefffar]

Wait, the F-117 is a close air support craft? Did I read that right? The AV-8B and A-10 were close support aircraft. The F-117 is a stealthy deep penetration strike aircraft.


Anyway, I think this focus on aircraft equivalent is probably a dead end. The VF-1 seems designed around being an aircraft that can turn into a robot. The Alpha seems to be more a robot that can turn into an aircraft to me. Some versions were upgraded for better flight performance as the Alpha wound up being used as an aerial superiority fighter when other dedicated platforms were either phased out, in short supply or inadequate, but the aircraft mode seems more about getting there with the Alpha than the reason to be.

[Seto Kaiba]

Wait, the F-117 is a close air support craft? Did I read that right? The AV-8B and A-10 were close support aircraft. The F-117 is a stealthy deep penetration strike aircraft.

A poor choice of words on my part that doesn't quite capture the F-117's operational role... it's an air interdictor, which pounds high-value enemy targets ahead of the infantry instead of loitering only in close proximity to the infantry. It's still infantry air support in most cases (a big part of which being keeping the air safe for the slower, more vulnerable dedicated gunships).

By my read of the design, the Alpha seems to fit that job description quite handily... it's not really a fighter of any capability, but it does function reasonably well in softening the enemy up ahead of the advancing Cyclone and Silverback infantry and opening up the lines of advance (as they did in the Battle of Reflex Point). The Beta's more analogous to an A-10, a ponderous gunship laden with gravity bombs and suited to strafing.

Anyway, I think this focus on aircraft equivalent is probably a dead end. The VF-1 seems designed around being an aircraft that can turn into a robot. The Alpha seems to be more a robot that can turn into an aircraft to me.

That's a nice way of putting it...

[mech798]

Which would actually explain part of hte poor performance of the Mars Division--the Alpha pilots weren't fighter pilots--they cAS pilots and robot jocks with a secondary role of fighting airpower--which is why when things started going bad, their first impulse was to head to the deck.

[ShadowLogan]

But nothing actually came of it, as it would've compromised the F-117's chief advantage...

Yes and no. I think it was included as a selling point to make it more attractive. The F-117 is a one trick pony, and the external pylons where intended to increase its appeal by allowing it to function in additional roles (when stealth was not a priority). That nothing became of it I agree, but it was still proposed, so we know that it can be done. I do not think the external pylons option was a deciding factor with nothing becoming of the proposal (it was unsolicited after all, from a stealth technology standpoint it's generation was already on the way out).

The point isn't whether it could theoretically be done... it's that it wasn't done.

There is a problem here that we are looking at the Alpha and Beta in a sliver of their operation life times. The Alphas in the 2020s-30s could be differently equipped (not to mention the Beta prototype, and the Beta in the '30s). Consider the F-14, it wasn't cleared to drop bombs until the 90s (having been in service mid 70s, with testing done in the 80s), and the AIM-54 was retired before the F-14 (by approx. 2 years). So looking at the Alpha & Beta in the 2042-4 (or whatever HG claims is the date range) may not be truly representative of the designs over the course of their entire life times.

Now THAT would truly earn the UEEF the "pants on head" award for stupidity... you never want to have a weapon that you can't stop if an enemy captures it and uses it against you.

I agree it isn't smart, but it is a possibility. The UEDF couldn't stop those Reflex Missiles fired from the ARMD in "FTS" comic/gn, so the idea isn't without precedent in RT.

Is that stupidity, or simply that the Alpha and Beta are not meant to be fighters to begin with?

Yes it is stupidity. If the A/Bs are not meant to be fighters to begin with, it is an element of stupidity to use them as such.

Very true... but then, these craft aren't meant to be space fighters either, except for very brief combats to break through an orbital defense and secure a landing zone planetside. "Dive and attack", as the OSM has it...

Even in that model you are going to want some margin to play with. They will attempt to predict how "breif" the orbital combat will be, plus you will want some excess available to abort the "Dive" upto a certain point.

One has to wonder if that's true for all of those missiles, or just the ones issued to his group...

(Of course, using reflex warheads against the Invid is going to be less effective if you hit them AFTER they've launched from their carriers rather than before... but it'll still be more effective by far than micro-ordinance at a range where the Invid can start to hit back.)

Unknown about the availability of the missiles. All we know is that Yellow Leader calls for the use of their "reflex missiles".

For the Reflex Warheads to be effective though they have to get to the carrier (flight time), which means the Invid could see the missile coming and launch early or take some other steps (like shooting it down, or even engage in jamming since we know they have some level of jamming technology). Mass volleys of the short range missiles on the Alpha can certainly be effective (Rook and Rand emptied their entire payload for 30+ kills, or slightly better than 4missiles per 1kill which isn't bad when you consider the VF-1 fires a similar volley to deal with Regults on numerous occasions).

[Seto Kaiba]

Which would actually explain part of hte poor performance of the Mars Division--the Alpha pilots weren't fighter pilots--they cAS pilots and robot jocks with a secondary role of fighting airpower--which is why when things started going bad, their first impulse was to head to the deck.

That would explain an awful lot of the problems the 10th and 21st Mars had in their respective (botched) landing operations. If the pilots of the Mars divisions were trained as ground attack pilots, they wouldn't really be (mentally) prepared to confront the kind of aerial swarming tactics they were facing from the Invid forces occupying Earth.

(Considering how ill-prepared the 1st and 2nd ERF groups were to confront the Regess's forces in space during their approach, one has to wonder if the Regent even HAD space-based forces protecting the worlds he'd occupied. They seemed almost like they had expected to just waltz right into orbit virtually unopposed.)

Yes and no. I think it was included as a selling point to make it more attractive. The F-117 is a one trick pony, and the external pylons where intended to increase its appeal by allowing it to function in additional roles (when stealth was not a priority). That nothing became of it I agree, but it was still proposed, so we know that it can be done.

Yes, you can theoretically stick pylons on anything if you're brave, foolhardy, or Orky enough... but if it inhibits your ability to use your combat vehicle to the fullest extent of its abilities, you're going to have a bad time.

There is a problem here that we are looking at the Alpha and Beta in a sliver of their operation life times. The Alphas in the 2020s-30s could be differently equipped (not to mention the Beta prototype, and the Beta in the '30s). Consider the F-14, it wasn't cleared to drop bombs until the 90s (having been in service mid 70s, with testing done in the 80s), and the AIM-54 was retired before the F-14 (by approx. 2 years). So looking at the Alpha & Beta in the 2042-4 (or whatever HG claims is the date range) may not be truly representative of the designs over the course of their entire life times.

The fun part is that that "sliver" of their operational lifespans is actually enough to come to some pretty sound conclusions about the design. Specifically, we're treated to a view of the Alpha at the beginning (2022) and end (2042-2043) of its functional lifespan, and two hasty attempts to prolong its useful service life that pushed the aging design to its limits in ultimately flawed ways. The Beta's seen more or less right at the start of its service life, but that's liable to be cut short because of the age of its companion platform.

If we were talking about the RPG, the fighter with the service life we're only seeing a sliver of is the VF-1... since we only see the first five or so years, and miss the following twenty years of its service as the favored strike fighter of the Expeditionary Force up to the design's eventual retirement.

I agree it isn't smart, but it is a possibility. The UEDF couldn't stop those Reflex Missiles fired from the ARMD in "FTS" comic/gn, so the idea isn't without precedent in RT.

The first was fired in a surprise attack, so missing that one is excusable... the second was too, but they DID stop it.

Even in that model you are going to want some margin to play with. They will attempt to predict how "breif" the orbital combat will be, plus you will want some excess available to abort the "Dive" upto a certain point.

Without Betas, the overwhelming majority of the Alphas deployed in any combat scenario wouldn't be able to...

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

Which would actually explain part of hte poor performance of the Mars Division--the Alpha pilots weren't fighter pilots--they cAS pilots and robot jocks with a secondary role of fighting airpower--which is why when things started going bad, their first impulse was to head to the deck.

That's basically the reasoning for the Condor...it is an Armo-Soldier that converts to a Fighter. People seem to conveniently forget the "C" in AS-C03 designation. Would also certainly make sense from the point of view of Planetary Assault campaigns. Air Dominance is achieved in space against an enemy that has very short range (relatively speaking). The 21st Mars Division in Robotech was suckered into a trap. It had less to do with the Invid being flying badasses and more them pouncing when the Earth Reclamation Forces were at their most vulnerable.

[ShadowLogan]

Yes, you can theoretically stick pylons on anything if you're brave, foolhardy, or Orky enough... but if it inhibits your ability to use your combat vehicle to the fullest extent of its abilities, you're going to have a bad time.

As I understand it though, the F-117N's pylons would only be used when Stealth was not a priority. Much like how the F-22, F-35, and the cancelled RAH-66 are to work with their external hardpoints.

The fun part is that that "sliver" of their operational lifespans is actually enough to come to some pretty sound conclusions about the design

No actually it isn't. We have no idea what the full extent of the capabilities are based on the animation. The 2022 picture is done purely in testing situations, they don't give the full extent of what the units are capable of. There is a lot of time "open" that they could be used differently than in the testing (2022) shows or late NG period.

The first was fired in a surprise attack, so missing that one is excusable... the second was too, but they DID stop it.

By sending up an interceptor vehicle to shoot the thing down. They didn't use ECM or decoys or anything else, it was straight up anti-missile defense, which is an entirely different than using decoys or ECM or abort codes to take care of a rogue missile. Scott does use the Alpha/Beta missiles to counter Corg's RCB missiles.

Without Betas, the overwhelming majority of the Alphas deployed in any combat scenario wouldn't be able to...

That is patently false. Even if we discard TSC for a minute, the Alphas are shown to operate under power in the vacuum of space. That means they have some level of Delta-V capacity. That also means they can re-enter the atmosphere and as long as they have not bleed off to much speed and have sufficient Delta-V remaining can abort and return to orbit. What they can do after the abort is dictated more by any remaining Delta-V capacity after returning to orbit.

[Seto Kaiba]

No actually it isn't. We have no idea what the full extent of the capabilities are based on the animation. The 2022 picture is done purely in testing situations, they don't give the full extent of what the units are capable of. There is a lot of time "open" that they could be used differently than in the testing (2022) shows or late NG period.

All told, there's no official source-supported basis to assume that the capabilities of the baseline Alpha platform changed between its introduction in 2022 and its de facto retirement in late 2043 or early 2044. There aren't even any official mentions of variants beyond the ones known to exist in canon.

"What-ifs" are all well and good, but if we're talking about what is then we're dealing with a stationary target WRT the Alpha's capabilities, until we start trading stuff off in the Shadow upgrade.

(Of course, the same is technically true for the VF-1's internal systems... their externally-carried weapons may be subject to various improvements over the twenty-something years they're out of view, but that is pure speculation on my part.)

By sending up an interceptor vehicle to shoot the thing down. They didn't use ECM or decoys or anything else, it was straight up anti-missile defense, which is an entirely different than using decoys or ECM or abort codes to take care of a rogue missile. Scott does use the Alpha/Beta missiles to counter Corg's RCB missiles.

Let's remember, please, that there is a good deal of difference between a tactical and strategic weapon.

Come to that, in (official) Robotech we don't know how the ARMD's missiles are guided... but there's no reason to assume that ship-carried strategic-level ersatz-nukes are going to be using forms of guidance vulnerable to ECM jamming or decoys.

That is patently false. Even if we discard TSC for a minute, the Alphas are shown to operate under power in the vacuum of space. That means they have some level of Delta-V capacity. That also means they can re-enter the atmosphere and as long as they have not bleed off to much speed and have sufficient Delta-V remaining can abort and return to orbit. What they can do after the abort is dictated more by any remaining Delta-V capacity after returning to orbit.

Taking the official material's statement that the Alpha is incapable of even a suborbital flightpath under its own power, there's not a lot of wiggle room for them to get cold feet and decide to bug out. By the time they hit the mesosphere they're likely committed to landing whether they like it or not.

[Jefffar]

Yes the Alphas can't escape the planet under their own power, but truthfully, neither can the Valkyries. They can get into the lower edges of space, but nothing indicates they can escape the planet without some kind of booster augmentation. So the attacking force is going to need to risk their carriers in low orbit to pick up the Valkyries that do insert.

Also, there is doubt that the Valkyries can insert with weapons on their hardpoints. The Alpha retains its missile load after inserting.

So in a planetary assault situation, both the Alphas and the Valkyries are on one way trips unless you want to put the carriers in harms way, but the Alpha at least retains the capability to carry missiles when it gets to the target.

[Seto Kaiba]

Yes the Alphas can't escape the planet under their own power, but truthfully, neither can the Valkyries. They can get into the lower edges of space, but nothing indicates they can escape the planet without some kind of booster augmentation. So the attacking force is going to need to risk their carriers in low orbit to pick up the Valkyries that do insert.

This is (arguably) true, though it's worth noting that the VF-1 Valkyrie's ability to return to low orbit after a sortie unassisted makes recovering fighters much less risky for the carriers, as they can skim low orbit for recovery instead of having to dive down into the stratosphere.

Also, there is doubt that the Valkyries can insert with weapons on their hardpoints. The Alpha retains its missile load after inserting.

Based on the OSM, the depiction of the VF-1 power diving into the atmosphere while retaining hung weaponry in the reboot comic From the Stars, and later fighters designed to carry hung ordinance (read: "Conbats"), the evidence is not 100% conclusive (for Robotech), but it IS strongly in favor of the VF-1 being able to retain hung ordinance during reentry.

[ShadowLogan]

All told, there's no official source-supported basis to assume that the capabilities of the baseline Alpha platform changed between its introduction in 2022 and its de facto retirement in late 2043 or early 2044. There aren't even any official mentions of variants beyond the ones known to exist in canon.

There isn't much of anything on the inter-period though. The 2E RPG does mention "The mighty Alpha has been the premier aerospace superiority mecha of the UEEF for nearly thirty years, with continuous updates and new production keeping the vehicle completely up-to-date." (pg95m 2E Main Book). The 2E RPG also makes it clear on pg97 "There are currently three major standard variations:" -6H/I/Z (forgetting the -X/S suggesting it has yet to reach "standard" and/or "major" status in the fleet).

Now I agree they aren't identified specifics, but the wording does establish that what we see in 2042-4 is not static over the course of 30years as it has recieved updates, which means hardware/software capabilities have changed. It also leaves room for "minor" and non-standard variations.

Come to that, in (official) Robotech we don't know how the ARMD's missiles are guided... but there's no reason to assume that ship-carried strategic-level ersatz-nukes are going to be using forms of guidance vulnerable to ECM jamming or decoys.

By the same token though tactical missiles can have guidance systems that are less susceptible to jamming/decoys.

Taking the official material's statement that the Alpha is incapable of even a suborbital flightpath under its own power, there's not a lot of wiggle room for them to get cold feet and decide to bug out. By the time they hit the mesosphere they're likely committed to landing whether they like it or not.

A statement that as I've said many times in the past does not add up. Even if we take it as true (and I don't), the context points to a SSTO profile from the surface, not an aborted re-entry. An aborted re-entry will have a point of no-return, where it has lost to much velocity to return to orbit, but there will be a window of opportunity it can use to return to orbit.

Actually in AotSC pg79: "The Alpha is also unable to exceed suborbital altitudes on its own", so TPTB have at least updated the Alphas capabilities from the Infopedia's "the Alpha can not reach suborbital altitudes on its own,". And the 2E RPG is even technically more generous given it's statement of "but is not trans-atmospheric. This means that the Alpha needs to either hitch a ride in a mecha carrier, or be attached to a Beta to be able to escape planetary gravity wells." It appears that by the RPG the definition of 'trans-atmospheric' capability allows it to "escape planetary gravity wells" which is not the same as going into orbit around a planetary gravity well (presumably Earth level is the standard they use). IIRC in the past I've said there is "orbital velocity" and "escape velocity", the two are not the same and escape velocity has a much higher requirement (Earth's orbital velocity is ~7.9kps, but escape is ~11.2kps, the Moon's is ~1.6kps and ~2.4kps respectively).