Forums of the Megaverse®

Put a rotary launcher like the one on the b1. Maybe because of the strange shape of the bay it could be a sideways mounted rotary of rotary bomb launchers as in three rotary magazines holding x number of laser guided glide bombs mounted on a larger rotary system. If it is somehow mounted normal it should be able to carry a variety of weapons, just like the B1. Having a gravity fed weapons bay is stupid on a Transatmo weapon system. A rotary rack could be designed with an ejection system but more importantly if it is set up simular to the B1s racks they're swappable so if they don't want to use bombs then they could put in a missile rotary rack.

And now I'm thinking of ejecting them ahead of an enemy fleet, kind of like a mine field except each is a missile and each acts as a node for a network so they can be fed targeting Information at any time.

It is just seems weird that the bombs would be dumb bombs and not laser guided to me. I also have hated the reduction in missiles since TSC came out. So now most SRMs are mini missiles even though mini missiles are supposed to be the size of pop cans.

Zer0 Kay wrote:It is just seems weird that the bombs would be dumb bombs and not laser guided to me. I also have hated the reduction in missiles since TSC came out. So now most SRMs are mini missiles even though mini missiles are supposed to be the size of pop cans.

The one instance the way the bombs are depicted (Ep83) as operating though it was an all or nothing setup. Personally I do agree that having the "Bomb Bay" be reconfigurable to fire missiles makes more sense than the system implemented. We're likely looking at a custom missile size, based on the lineart in relation to a man the bomb is ~7 bomb diameters = 1 man height in CVR-3, the diameter/length ratio is 1:2. A Japanese man in 1983 (when it was created) had an average height range of 1.7 to 1.75m (if we use US at that time the range is 1.75 to 1.8m ), which means the missiles have a diameter between ~242.8mm to ~257.1mm (with a length of ~485.7mm to ~514.3mm). That compares to the Alpha's 190mm SRM with a length of ~380mm, and the Official size for the Beta's MM-16 is 340mm diameter missiles which are also SRM (though technically the Logan's MRMs are 275mm diameter but I'm pretty sure they have a different ratio of diameter to length). So theoretically the UEEF could turn the bomb bay into an SRM missile launcher with some restrictions (F-Mode only, restricted Rate Of Fire).

As far as the reduction in missiles from 1E:
-the loss of 2 LRMs on internal launchers, based on the animation (and line art) do not exist and never did
-the loss of the SRMs in the leg launchers, based on the animation (and line art) did not exist and is in fact a gun system (w/unlimited payload now) and can potentially offset the loss in the long run
-the loss of the MRMs in the top launcher, this one was never used in the animation, based on the line art it might be the OSM "Laser Bomb Launcher" (which wasn't used IIRC), mention of something akin to them is mentioned in the AotSC write-up for the Beta but it somewhat contentious as some contend it refers to the FAST Pack System (though it also works for the T-Structure).
-the dual MM-40s yielding 80 SRMs was replaced by a more screen accurate MM-20/16 setup yielding 56 missiles (though you could give the MM-16 reloads)

It should be noted that the reduction of missiles can be offset in 2E by the use of the wing stations, though you lose transformation capability to battloid mode until you fire them all (or eject them at a loss). The Beta does have 6 wing stations (3 per), and they can be configured to replaced the MRMs or some of the SRMs lost in terms of raw count. It probably should also be noted that in terms of damage output by missiles (non-critical max damage roll using the most destructive type), the 2E mecha puts out 6720 MDC before the use of the wing stations (with wing stations it varies by configuration as the new total for SRM/Mini =8880, MRM =8520) versus a fully loaded 1E version at 7200. 2E carries fewer missiles overall, but those missiles are more deadly than the 1E counter parts (in 2E the SRMs can be x2 as deadly and the MRMs can be x2.5 as deadly). Interestingly enough by weight (ignoring the weapon pod and focusing just on the missiles contained), there is actually margin to increase the Mini payload by a factor of 3 (3 SRMs = 90lbs, 6 Minis = 30lbs, 1 MRM =80lbs, based on the VM-9).

Zer0 Kay wrote:Put a rotary launcher like the one on the b1. Maybe because of the strange shape of the bay it could be a sideways mounted rotary of rotary bomb launchers as in three rotary magazines holding x number of laser guided glide bombs mounted on a larger rotary system. If it is somehow mounted normal it should be able to carry a variety of weapons, just like the B1. [....]

Not a viable suggestion, I'm afraid.

As with other suggestions involving the bomb bay, this idea isn't workable because the bomb bay doesn't have direct access to the exterior of the aircraft. There's a good six feet of very narrow chute that those bombs have to roll down to get out of the aircraft. The chute can't be enlarged, because it passes directly around load-bearing portions of the mecha's drivetrain and transformation system.

Zer0 Kay wrote:[...] Having a gravity fed weapons bay is stupid on a Transatmo weapon system.

Well, yes... that would definitely be a problem if the Beta were a true transatmospheric fighter-bomber.

Key word: "If".

Unlike the VF-1 Valkyrie, neither the Alpha nor the Beta were designed to fight effectively in space. Their limited spaceflight capability was meant to ferry them from a staging area or ship down to the surface of a planet, with a limited ability to defend themselves while making reentry. It wasn't until Robotech: the Shadow Chronicles tried to make them more "Macross-y" that they ended up being misrepresented as actual space fighters. The Beta can fly in space, but it's really only meant to fight on the surface of a planet.

Zer0 Kay wrote:It is just seems weird that the bombs would be dumb bombs and not laser guided to me.

Why would they need to be laser-guided? The Beta's a low-altitude close air support aircraft carrying exclusively low-yield munitions. It's dropping bombs from a few hundred to maybe a few thousand feet, not tens of thousands. You don't need laser guidance to be precise at those ranges. Moreover, the bombs in the OSM spec are incendiary devices loaded with napalm, so precision wasn't exactly a critical point there either.

Zer0 Kay wrote:I also have hated the reduction in missiles since TSC came out. So now most SRMs are mini missiles even though mini missiles are supposed to be the size of pop cans.

The only mecha that really got hit with it was the VF-1... and inconsistently at that since the UUM-7 missile pods and Super Pack launchers use the same missile but it's identified two different ways in the RT2E stats. I suspect a big part of it was meant to NERF the VF-1 so that it wouldn't simply outclass the Alpha in every respect.

So... since practically all of the proposals to "do the Beta Fighter better" are logically precluded by other aspects of its design, I think it's time to consider an alternative approach to the question.

Instead of approaching "doing it better" in terms of changing its design or specifications, to approach it in terms of how the Beta's development history can be rewritten to make its flaws more explicable without changing how it's depicted in the animation.

I'm working on something to that effect that I'll post tomorrow. Mostly, I'm retooling its background in terms of it being 1. an improvised transformable fighter-bomber and 2. something designed for the preemptive strike on the Robotech Masters homeworld rather than as a general-duty aircraft. I've got some thoughts regarding the perceived drop in armor strength vs. the VF-1 (in animation), where it and the Alpha got their names, and some other ideas that work in some in-jokes in a way that I think works better for the setting as a whole.

@Seto
More as an FYI, but as discussed in the past AotSC mentions a 2x3 MRM pack. While that optional feature isn't mentioned in the infopedia, and what is being referenced in AotSC is contested I found that the MPC Beta instructions (Ver. 1-3 specifically, I downloaded a copy of the manual for reasons recently and noticed) identifies the Battloid mode "T-Structure" as a missile pod 3x on the same page (in the pdf copy of the instructions its on page 3 (Step 1-3 of Transformation Sequence). Now said missile pod doesn't get classified in terms of range or diameter, but said structure would line up closely with the stated diameter of the MRM pack.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Put a rotary launcher like the one on the b1. Maybe because of the strange shape of the bay it could be a sideways mounted rotary of rotary bomb launchers as in three rotary magazines holding x number of laser guided glide bombs mounted on a larger rotary system. If it is somehow mounted normal it should be able to carry a variety of weapons, just like the B1. [....]

Not a viable suggestion, I'm afraid.

As with other suggestions involving the bomb bay, this idea isn't workable because the bomb bay doesn't have direct access to the exterior of the aircraft. There's a good six feet of very narrow chute that those bombs have to roll down to get out of the aircraft. The chute can't be enlarged, because it passes directly around load-bearing portions of the mecha's drivetrain and transformation system.

One more drawback is that even if you could fit a rotary system into the crew access area, you still have to be able to load said mechanism, plus with the Beta I would hazard that you would also loose payload if you moved all the bombs from the chutes into that cavity.

I think part of the problem is that people call it a bomb bay and they picture things like the B-1B, F-111, B-52, or B-17/29s of WW2, or other "classic" bomber bays. The reality is that the Beta's "bomb bay" is more like a series of clip/magazine feeds than a classic bomb bay.

ShadowLogan wrote:@Seto
More as an FYI, but as discussed in the past AotSC mentions a 2x3 MRM pack. While that optional feature isn't mentioned in the infopedia, and what is being referenced in AotSC is contested I found that the MPC Beta instructions (Ver. 1-3 specifically, I downloaded a copy of the manual for reasons recently and noticed) identifies the Battloid mode "T-Structure" as a missile pod 3x on the same page (in the pdf copy of the instructions its on page 3 (Step 1-3 of Transformation Sequence). Now said missile pod doesn't get classified in terms of range or diameter, but said structure would line up closely with the stated diameter of the MRM pack.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Put a rotary launcher like the one on the b1. Maybe because of the strange shape of the bay it could be a sideways mounted rotary of rotary bomb launchers as in three rotary magazines holding x number of laser guided glide bombs mounted on a larger rotary system. If it is somehow mounted normal it should be able to carry a variety of weapons, just like the B1. [....]

Not a viable suggestion, I'm afraid.

As with other suggestions involving the bomb bay, this idea isn't workable because the bomb bay doesn't have direct access to the exterior of the aircraft. There's a good six feet of very narrow chute that those bombs have to roll down to get out of the aircraft. The chute can't be enlarged, because it passes directly around load-bearing portions of the mecha's drivetrain and transformation system.

One more drawback is that even if you could fit a rotary system into the crew access area, you still have to be able to load said mechanism, plus with the Beta I would hazard that you would also loose payload if you moved all the bombs from the chutes into that cavity.

I think part of the problem is that people call it a bomb bay and they picture things like the B-1B, F-111, B-52, or B-17/29s of WW2, or other "classic" bomber bays. The reality is that the Beta's "bomb bay" is more like a series of clip/magazine feeds than a classic bomb bay.

Um... all but the B1 and F-111 are "magazine" fed. They roll the bombs of racks. I don't know any way it could be more "magazine"ee.
So B1 has bays but bombs are mounted on a rotary rack
B-52, 17 and 29 all have a bay with bombs on racks in the case of the 17 and 29 the bay was open and could be walked through to get to the various gun positions. THAT is what I figured most people think of, especially if descriptions say people can be carried in it.
The F-111 is pretty much the same as a fighter's munitions bay and can, also like a fighter, carry more munitions on hard points... after all it is a (F) fighter.

Again, the only walk through bays are on the bombers that had gun positions and all of those are gone now.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Um... all but the B1 and F-111 are "magazine" fed. They roll the bombs of racks. I don't know any way it could be more "magazine"ee.

So... what ShadowLogan is getting at there is that the Beta's bomb bay isn't really a bomb bay. There's no operational versatility. The bomb racks in the "bay" are permanent fittings which can only accept the one size/type of bomb and can't be remodeled to accept other weapons because they feed into a chute of fixed size. The bombs themselves are stacked in single columns and only 2 can be dropped at a time, one from each of the two chutes.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Um... all but the B1 and F-111 are "magazine" fed. They roll the bombs of racks. I don't know any way it could be more "magazine"ee. [...]

The Beta literally stores the bombs in what could be described as a clip/magazine configuration. The Bombs are resting literally on top of each other in 4 chute/shafts (just like a clip/magazine). Bomb Racks and their bays on real world bombers are far more roomy by comparison. Creating another unique difference between the Beta and real world bomb bays (from dedicated bombers AFAIK) is the fact that the bombs do not drop out of the floor, they drop out of the sides.

Here are some OSM lineart depictions of the bomb bay (AFAIK lineart in the RPG doesn't exist depicting the bay, but since the RPG is modeling the show):
http://www.gearsonline.net/series/mospe ... ead-13.gif
http://www.gearsonline.net/series/mospe ... ead-23.gif

Those also matchup with the animation as depicted in Ep83 (the lineart shows Mint & Ariel in the cavity between the chutes with loaded bombs, but those bombs are absent in the animation shot). Ep83 timecodes (treat as approximate) @15:50-15:55 for bomb release external shots only, and empty when Ariel/Mint are in it @16:41 & @17:35. Robotech Research does have a pic of the Ariel/Mint in the bay (in the Picture Archive under the Beta mecha)

Seto wrote:The bomb racks in the "bay" are permanent fittings which can only accept the one size/type of bomb and can't be remodeled to accept other weapons because they feed into a chute of fixed size

This I have to disagree with to some extent. I think it would be extremely unlikely that said cavity could not be remodeled for other purposes (the cavity exists, its far easier to gobble up free space than to create it), and it would be extremely odd that they could not size other types of devices* that could be deployed from the same cavity. Now the UEEF might not see the utility in retrofitting the space or developing additional types of devices to use that space, but they most certainly could.

*by device it could be a weapon (bomb, missile, retractable gun system) or non-weapon (cargo pod, automated sensor drone/post, fuel storage, sensors, etc).

ShadowLogan wrote:

Seto wrote:The bomb racks in the "bay" are permanent fittings which can only accept the one size/type of bomb and can't be remodeled to accept other weapons because they feed into a chute of fixed size

This I have to disagree with to some extent. I think it would be extremely unlikely that said cavity could not be remodeled for other purposes (the cavity exists, its far easier to gobble up free space than to create it), and it would be extremely odd that they could not size other types of devices* that could be deployed from the same cavity. Now the UEEF might not see the utility in retrofitting the space or developing additional types of devices to use that space, but they most certainly could.

It would have to be the size of the bombs or smaller, because remember the bomb "bay" doesn't actually have any direct access to the outside of the craft. There's a very narrow chute on each side that is just large enough for the bombs to roll down and there's no room to enlarge that because it's running down either side of the Beta's ambulatory drivetrain (and inaccessible in other modes anyway).

ShadowLogan wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Um... all but the B1 and F-111 are "magazine" fed. They roll the bombs of racks. I don't know any way it could be more "magazine"ee. [...]

The Beta literally stores the bombs in what could be described as a clip/magazine configuration. The Bombs are resting literally on top of each other in 4 chute/shafts (just like a clip/magazine). Bomb Racks and their bays on real world bombers are far more roomy by comparison. Creating another unique difference between the Beta and real world bomb bays (from dedicated bombers AFAIK) is the fact that the bombs do not drop out of the floor, they drop out of the sides.

Here are some OSM lineart depictions of the bomb bay (AFAIK lineart in the RPG doesn't exist depicting the bay, but since the RPG is modeling the show):
http://www.gearsonline.net/series/mospe ... ead-13.gif
http://www.gearsonline.net/series/mospe ... ead-23.gif

Those also matchup with the animation as depicted in Ep83 (the lineart shows Mint & Ariel in the cavity between the chutes with loaded bombs, but those bombs are absent in the animation shot). Ep83 timecodes (treat as approximate) @15:50-15:55 for bomb release external shots only, and empty when Ariel/Mint are in it @16:41 & @17:35. Robotech Research does have a pic of the Ariel/Mint in the bay (in the Picture Archive under the Beta mecha)

Seto wrote:The bomb racks in the "bay" are permanent fittings which can only accept the one size/type of bomb and can't be remodeled to accept other weapons because they feed into a chute of fixed size

This I have to disagree with to some extent. I think it would be extremely unlikely that said cavity could not be remodeled for other purposes (the cavity exists, its far easier to gobble up free space than to create it), and it would be extremely odd that they could not size other types of devices* that could be deployed from the same cavity. Now the UEEF might not see the utility in retrofitting the space or developing additional types of devices to use that space, but they most certainly could.

*by device it could be a weapon (bomb, missile, retractable gun system) or non-weapon (cargo pod, automated sensor drone/post, fuel storage, sensors, etc).

So it is magazine style as there is no clip securing the munitions together.

Could also go smaller diameter, thousands of mini-missile (actual cyclone size mini-missile) sized bombs.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Could also go smaller diameter, thousands of mini-missile (actual cyclone size mini-missile) sized bombs.

That runs the risk of bombs wedging into the chute, since the chute's set up with rollers for a specific size of bomb, but I guess it's possible.

Probably wouldn't accomplish much, but it's possible.

Gee according to that second picture they could do rotary racks. In addition to the side racks, using up the stupid unused compartment. And according to the second picture they do drop straight down from doors on the side of the large... unused compartment. The first picture makes it look like the internal racks slant but that is probably a forced perspective... IF the second picture is correct.

SERIOUSLY what kind of weapon designer puts in a void in a fighter/bomber that isn't used for anything, has a boarding ramp and a freaking bench... between explosive munitions!

Oh wait it is convoluted boarding passage to the cockpit! So stupid. You have to climb the ramp then jump across the gap to go to a ladder up into the cockpit. New rule for Beta's if the Bombs go off internally it immediately blows out the cockpit.

That drawing doesn't even make sense. So you crawl up the landing gear bay into the bomb bay... where is the stairs down from the bomb bay into the wheel well? Where the freak is the mechanisms and ammo for the gun

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Could also go smaller diameter, thousands of mini-missile (actual cyclone size mini-missile) sized bombs.

That runs the risk of bombs wedging into the chute, since the chute's set up with rollers for a specific size of bomb, but I guess it's possible.

Probably wouldn't accomplish much, but it's possible.

Wouldn't accomplish much? So you're saying a CBU 97 doesn't accomplish much? Granted there is a huge difference release submunitions just above target and dropping small bombs from on high. So figure each of those bombs could be replaced by let say 32 mini-bombs so now you have 512 munitions that are more than enough for unarmored vehicles and personnel and heck even civilian structures or fields of the FOL. If they're GPS guided all the more dangerous.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Wouldn't accomplish much? So you're saying a CBU 97 doesn't accomplish much? Granted there is a huge difference release submunitions just above target and dropping small bombs from on high. So figure each of those bombs could be replaced by let say 32 mini-bombs so now you have 512 munitions that are more than enough for unarmored vehicles and personnel and heck even civilian structures or fields of the FOL. If they're GPS guided all the more dangerous.

The CBU-97's 40 "skeet" submunitions have enough stopping power to severely damage or disable even well-armored fighting vehicles. The mini-missiles on the Cyclone typically require direct hits on a known weak point of Invid mecha to be effective. Also, when have the Invid or Robotech Masters ever had unarmored vehicles on the battlefield? If you're bombing civilian structures or Flower of Life fields, the incendiary devices in the OSM spec are going to be a lot more effective and efficient.

So, I've been workshopping an alternate development history for the Beta that makes its various issues more explicable. Haven't yet composed it into a proper narrative yet, but here's the skeleton of it for your amusement/enjoyment/critique:

1. Development of the Alpha and Beta began during the First Robotech War.
2. The Alpha and Beta were originally a single aircraft, a large delta-wing Veritech Bomber structurally resembling the Saab Viggen's close-coupled canard delta wing design.
3. After the war, the developers adapted their design to the requirements of the planned preemptive strike on the Robotech Masters homeworld by dividing it in two.
4. The fuselage was separated midway, with the front "A Parts" enlarging the canard into a delta wing and the ram-air precompressor into a full (but much smaller) engine.
5. The detachable rear "B Parts" were adapted into a large booster and mission pack system to main the original design's ferry range and heavy payload capacity codenamed "Span Loader".
6. Several variants of the B Parts were proposed including:
   • Bomber configuration (nicknamed "Bomber Jacket")
   • Ferry configuration (nicknamed "Windbreaker")
   • Light VTOL transport configuration (nicknamed "Trenchcoat")
7. The original B Parts concept was rejected on resource grounds, since jettisoned B Parts would be damaged or destroyed by crashing after separation.
8. Development of B Parts changes to unmanned support aircraft using a Ghost AI.
9. A Parts are accepted as a close air support attacker to support ground troops in the planned invasion.
10. Developer proposes reworking B Parts as an unmanned veritech.
11. Prototype unmanned Veritech B Parts scrapped after adapted QF-3000 AI fails to meet onboard processing needs.
12. Program suspended.
13. Unmanned B Parts Veritech prototype retooled as a manned Veritech.

I'm working on explanations for a couple of its specific deficiencies. I think what I'm leaning towards for the reduced close combat durability is that the design exchanged the laminated carbon composite armor of the VF-1 for a cemented carbide that had less impact and projectile resistance but greater resistance to lasers, particle beams, and plasma weapons.

So, as depicted, the Beta's bomb bay could only be redesigned with a major redesign of the lower anatomy of the Beta. Not impossible, but difficult. Probably becoming a new fighter rather than our trusted, familiar Beta. Perhaps this may be part of the not fully explored Shadow Beta or Super Beta upgrade program, who knows. There's room for each GM to provide his own take on it.

As for Seto's redoning of the Beta origin story. The designations Alpha, Beta and Legios lend themselves to the idea that the Legios was the design from the ground up, with the Alpha and Beta never intended to be independant weapons sytems, but part of a greater whole that could seperate to meet specific tactical objectives.

For thsoe that decry the Alpha's alleged lesser abilities compared to the VF-1, it may be wise to remember that. The Legios is the Super VF-1 repalcement, not the Alpha or the Beta. The Alpha is giving the detachable cockpit of the VF-1 the ability to fly and fight as it's own veritech while the remainder of the VF-1 continues to attack.

The Expeditionary Forces could wind up relying on the Alpha because 1) It is a formidable mecha in its own right, not needing the Beta for most missions and 2) Issues on having enough of the Beta's available to properly equip the force.

Seto wrote:It would have to be the size of the bombs or smaller, because remember the bomb "bay" doesn't actually have any direct access to the outside of the craft. There's a very narrow chute on each side that is just large enough for the bombs to roll down and there's no room to enlarge that because it's running down either side of the Beta's ambulatory drivetrain (and inaccessible in other modes anyway).

Obviously any device you put into these cavities will need to be sized to fit the cavity and work with the existing infrastructure.

Without retrofitting the cavities with additional equipment (which likely means a smaller size missile), based on the the basic size/shape of the Beta's bombs would allow them to be replaced by a missile of similar size (which should be possible, likely looking at SRM-class) or putting it in a launch "shroud" (leveraging rocket launch vehicle technology) that falls away after engine ignition on an existing missile.

A more complicated missile setup would be to turn each of ~225mm diameter bomb into a multi-barrel missile launcher that fires off its missiles after deployment while it is in mid-air. At ~225mm diameter you could easily fit in between 9x 60mm or 5x 78mm Mini Missiles, only 1x 190mm SRM. The possibility also exists for a set of reload(s) depending on the length of the missiles in question. Weather these missiles are targeted by the host Beta or by automated equipment on the launcher is best left to finalizing the design (but we know you can share sensor information with remote platforms, and smart missile guidance packages should fit from an RPG POV).

Using it to drop cargo pods at the same size as the regular bombs, would give you a container with a volume of ~22.5-26.7L (depending on the intended height of the man in the lineart). For comparison the Cyclone's side containers have a volume of ~107L each and the top container ~35.9L. IINM this is the volume for some portable tool boxes. These could be used to resupply troops on the ground (when a Horizon-T can not go) with fresh PC cells, ammunition, food, water, medical supplies, etc.

Given the dimenisons of the Beta's bombs, the UEEF should be able to create small-scale drones either with flight capablity or ground capability (never mind things like a static ground station). These drones likely are more useful in non-combat rolls rather than combat.

Converting the space for use by other avionics (for C3, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) or a retractable gun system (not really needed per say) or reaction mass/fuel (just the bombs would give up ~360-427L in total, more when you consider the geometry of the bombs leaves gaps in the chutes, plus the chute "funnel").

Seto wrote:The mini-missiles on the Cyclone typically require direct hits on a known weak point of Invid mecha to be effective. Also, when have the Invid or Robotech Masters ever had unarmored vehicles on the battlefield?

Well from a (RAW) RPG Game mechanic POV, those weapons might not destroy a target outright (individually) without a well placed shot, BUT said attacks can still soften up the target. Using sub-munitions to create a mind field could still be a detriment to non-flying mecha like the Inorganics (IIRC all but one can not fly) or Bioroids (w/o their Hoversleds). Against the flying Invid mecha, you'd have to bait them to the ground (possible). We know the Masters have conventional hover vehicles for interior ship use, which means they could theoretically use them for Bioroid Terminators or other non-Bioroid Infantry operations to get around outside the ships (when a Dropship is not practical/available/viable).

ZerO Kay wrote:Could also go smaller diameter, thousands of mini-missile (actual cyclone size mini-missile) sized bombs.

I would think something like using each bomb as a sub-munition dispenser would be more viable than going 60-70mm diameter sized bombs:
1. faster loading (16 vs 16xhowever many each bomb is worth in terms of volume)
2. avoid the issue of potential jamming (which might be mitigated by adding additional hardware into the chutes)

Zer0 Kay wrote:SERIOUSLY what kind of weapon designer puts in a void in a fighter/bomber that isn't used for anything, has a boarding ramp and a freaking bench... between explosive munitions!

Said cavity and boarding ramp are for loading of the bombs (why a bench? beats me, might just be an unintended feature that can be used as a bench). Remember the exit ports for the bombs are not ideal for reloading purposes, each exit port feeds back to two of those chutes so you would have to "snake" the bomb up the chute. It would be more practical (and safer I suspect) to have them load them from the cavity/boarding ramp setup than to snake them like that.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Oh wait it is convoluted boarding passage to the cockpit! So stupid. You have to climb the ramp then jump across the gap to go to a ladder up into the cockpit.

Actually it is one of two accesses point to the cockpit, another has the seat lowered down from the cockpit. This can be seen in the show (Ep "Metamorphosis") and in lineart (change the numbers in one of the above pics to -08).

I don't know where the gun itself went, but the ammo is not an issue since it is now a beam weapon so can draw straight from the mecha avoiding the issue from the conventional projectile version found in the 1E RPG (Palladium really dropped the ball on this mecha in 1E).

Jeffar wrote:As for Seto's redoning of the Beta origin story. The designations Alpha, Beta and Legios lend themselves to the idea that the Legios was the design from the ground up, with the Alpha and Beta never intended to be independant weapons sytems, but part of a greater whole that could seperate to meet specific tactical objectives.

For thsoe that decry the Alpha's alleged lesser abilities compared to the VF-1, it may be wise to remember that. The Legios is the Super VF-1 repalcement, not the Alpha or the Beta. The Alpha is giving the detachable cockpit of the VF-1 the ability to fly and fight as it's own veritech while the remainder of the VF-1 continues to attack.

I agree the concept for the Alpha and Beta should have been a ground up design to work the way they do because really if they started as separate programs that had to connect (at a later given time), it really brings into question the UEEF's intelligence given there are far more simpler fixes to the Alpha that could be done potentially. It's like they took the most complicated approach they could think of to address an issue.

Honestly I have wondered in the past if the Beta makes a better replacement for the (stock) VF-1 than the Alpha. From a technology standpoint it seems a closer match to the VF-1 (even in Super config) than an Alpha in terms of capability, it has external hardpoints (50% more though weather they are 1:1 in capabilities is another matter), it has more powerful beam weapons, it can exceed the FAST-Packs internal capacity, it has equal/superior range as the VF-1 (both can do SSTO, the Beta can even fly to the Moon after an SSTO). Its main draw back is its aerodynamics (which likely are compromised due to the Alpha linkup requirement).

Jefffar wrote:So, as depicted, the Beta's bomb bay could only be redesigned with a major redesign of the lower anatomy of the Beta. Not impossible, but difficult. Probably becoming a new fighter rather than our trusted, familiar Beta.

Which has been the moral of the story for practically all of the proposed improvements.

Jefffar wrote:As for Seto's redoning of the Beta origin story. The designations Alpha, Beta and Legios lend themselves to the idea that the Legios was the design from the ground up, with the Alpha and Beta never intended to be independant weapons sytems, but part of a greater whole that could seperate to meet specific tactical objectives.

There is, somewhat entertainingly, a similar idea explored in some of Shoji Kawamori's concept works that eventually evolved into the VF-11 Thunderbolt.

Of course, the real reason the Beta's (TLEAD's) design is such a mess is that it was a late addition to the series developed after the Alpha (Legioss) at the insistence of the show's main sponsor and toy partner Gakken, who wanted more (and more focus on) transforming jet fighters in MOSPEADA after seeing the money Takatoku Toys was raking in on Macross.

Jefffar wrote:For thsoe that decry the Alpha's alleged lesser abilities compared to the VF-1, it may be wise to remember that. The Legios is the Super VF-1 repalcement, not the Alpha or the Beta. The Alpha is giving the detachable cockpit of the VF-1 the ability to fly and fight as it's own veritech while the remainder of the VF-1 continues to attack.

All in all, I'd say that the Legioss+TLEAD/Alpha+Beta combiner is more like a VF-1 w/ Atmospheric Escape Booster replacement. The main roles of the TLEAD/Beta in the animation were to extend the ferry range of the Legioss/Alpha to allow fighters to fly escort for Mars Base taskforces departing the staging areas on the moon and increasing the service ceiling of the Legioss to allow it to reach orbit under its own power. The vast majority or totality of its weapons are unavailable while the two are docked, either because they're blocked or simply impractical to employ. It never achieved widespread-enough deployment to become ubiquitous the way the Super Pack did.

So the unflattering comparison is actually fair on its own, though the advantage comes in that the VF-1's Super Pack or escape booster can't function as a second aircraft. It only gets worse since the Robotech materials blindly copy-pasted from Macross fansites and ended up including movie-only weapons options that don't exist in Robotech and would tend to obliterate the Alpha's only real advantage (amount of missiles carried).

Jefffar wrote:The Expeditionary Forces could wind up relying on the Alpha because 1) It is a formidable mecha in its own right, not needing the Beta for most missions and 2) Issues on having enough of the Beta's available to properly equip the force.

Really, I think there's a third option that is the best/truest answer... the Expeditionary Forces wound up relying on the Alpha because they didn't need high-speed, high-altitude dogfighters, interceptors, or air superiority fighters. They were expecting to be fighting largely groundbound, lightly armored mecha like Bioroids with mechanized infantry and larger ground mecha, and were looking for a VTOL jet substitute for a close air support gunship. In that capacity, the Alpha is exactly what the doctor ordered. It has a rapid-fire cannon and a surprisingly large quantity of short-ranged air-to-ground munitions for a craft of its size, and its VTOL capability and Guardian-mode ability to loiter indefinitely at low altitudes make it ideal for low altitude support of infantry. The TLEAD/Beta is also designed around that kind of role, being essentially an A-10 equivalent to the Alpha's AV-8 or helicopter gunship with a trio of 30mm rotary cannons and a bomb bay full of anti-personnel incendiary devices.

The reason it compares unfavorably to the VF-1 is that it's not designed for the same job... it was rewritten into that compromising position by fan materials misrepresented as official. Taken in its original context, it's an apples and oranges comparison. You don't judge a fish by its inability to climb trees.

Zer0 Kay wrote:SERIOUSLY what kind of weapon designer puts in a void in a fighter/bomber that isn't used for anything, has a boarding ramp and a freaking bench... between explosive munitions!

One who's working to the demands of an impatient toy manufacturer who holds your project's purse strings...

The TLEAD was originally designed as a booster similar to the one for the Invit/Invid scout. It was never supposed to be a separate aircraft, which is why the animation struggles to find something for the characters to do with it.

ShadowLogan wrote:I don't know where the gun itself went, but the ammo is not an issue since it is now a beam weapon so can draw straight from the mecha avoiding the issue from the conventional projectile version found in the 1E RPG (Palladium really dropped the ball on this mecha in 1E).

... 1E was actually correct in that regard. The design has three 30mm rotary cannons. The line art clearly shows ammunition drums.

ShadowLogan wrote:I agree the concept for the Alpha and Beta should have been a ground up design to work the way they do because really if they started as separate programs that had to connect (at a later given time), it really brings into question the UEEF's intelligence given there are far more simpler fixes to the Alpha that could be done potentially. It's like they took the most complicated approach they could think of to address an issue.

The Alpha really doesn't need to be "fixed"... it just needs to be presented as the low altitude close air support aircraft it was designed to be.

The vast majority of its supposed issues stem from attempts to rewrite it into something it's not, a multirole strike fighter replacement for the VF-1.

ShadowLogan wrote:Honestly I have wondered in the past if the Beta makes a better replacement for the (stock) VF-1 than the Alpha. From a technology standpoint it seems a closer match to the VF-1 (even in Super config) than an Alpha in terms of capability, it has external hardpoints (50% more though weather they are 1:1 in capabilities is another matter), it has more powerful beam weapons, it can exceed the FAST-Packs internal capacity, it has equal/superior range as the VF-1 (both can do SSTO, the Beta can even fly to the Moon after an SSTO). Its main draw back is its aerodynamics (which likely are compromised due to the Alpha linkup requirement).

Its lack of aerodynamics aside, it'd be better in attacker roles than the VF-1 because of its three rotary cannons and large anti-personnel bomb capacity.

OSM-ly, the VF-1's attacker role was mainly limited to a light fighter-bomber role dropping small quantities of precision munitions like Paveways or slightly larger quantities of gravity bombs like the old NATO Mk.82. Its small size, constrained by the Battroid mode size limit of "approximately the expected size of the aliens", meant that it didn't have the capacity to be a truly effective light bomber or attacker.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Wouldn't accomplish much? So you're saying a CBU 97 doesn't accomplish much? Granted there is a huge difference release submunitions just above target and dropping small bombs from on high. So figure each of those bombs could be replaced by let say 32 mini-bombs so now you have 512 munitions that are more than enough for unarmored vehicles and personnel and heck even civilian structures or fields of the FOL. If they're GPS guided all the more dangerous.

The CBU-97's 40 "skeet" submunitions have enough stopping power to severely damage or disable even well-armored fighting vehicles. The mini-missiles on the Cyclone typically require direct hits on a known weak point of Invid mecha to be effective. Also, when have the Invid or Robotech Masters ever had unarmored vehicles on the battlefield? If you're bombing civilian structures or Flower of Life fields, the incendiary devices in the OSM spec are going to be a lot more effective and efficient.

1. mini-missiles damage conventional tanks better than the submunitions would. They're MD tech while conventional tanks are high SDC tech.
2. Invid Mecha are tougher than conventional tanks
3. We are never show civilian or transport equipment except for humans
4. I'm obviously mixing what we have now with what we'd have in RT so none if it matters because in RT they wouldn't bother doing it because... Your right.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Jefffar wrote:So, as depicted, the Beta's bomb bay could only be redesigned with a major redesign of the lower anatomy of the Beta. Not impossible, but difficult. Probably becoming a new fighter rather than our trusted, familiar Beta.

Which has been the moral of the story for practically all of the proposed improvements.

Jefffar wrote:As for Seto's redoning of the Beta origin story. The designations Alpha, Beta and Legios lend themselves to the idea that the Legios was the design from the ground up, with the Alpha and Beta never intended to be independant weapons sytems, but part of a greater whole that could seperate to meet specific tactical objectives.

There is, somewhat entertainingly, a similar idea explored in some of Shoji Kawamori's concept works that eventually evolved into the VF-11 Thunderbolt.

Of course, the real reason the Beta's (TLEAD's) design is such a mess is that it was a late addition to the series developed after the Alpha (Legioss) at the insistence of the show's main sponsor and toy partner Gakken, who wanted more (and more focus on) transforming jet fighters in MOSPEADA after seeing the money Takatoku Toys was raking in on Macross.

Jefffar wrote:For thsoe that decry the Alpha's alleged lesser abilities compared to the VF-1, it may be wise to remember that. The Legios is the Super VF-1 repalcement, not the Alpha or the Beta. The Alpha is giving the detachable cockpit of the VF-1 the ability to fly and fight as it's own veritech while the remainder of the VF-1 continues to attack.

All in all, I'd say that the Legioss+TLEAD/Alpha+Beta combiner is more like a VF-1 w/ Atmospheric Escape Booster replacement. The main roles of the TLEAD/Beta in the animation were to extend the ferry range of the Legioss/Alpha to allow fighters to fly escort for Mars Base taskforces departing the staging areas on the moon and increasing the service ceiling of the Legioss to allow it to reach orbit under its own power. The vast majority or totality of its weapons are unavailable while the two are docked, either because they're blocked or simply impractical to employ. It never achieved widespread-enough deployment to become ubiquitous the way the Super Pack did.

So the unflattering comparison is actually fair on its own, though the advantage comes in that the VF-1's Super Pack or escape booster can't function as a second aircraft. It only gets worse since the Robotech materials blindly copy-pasted from Macross fansites and ended up including movie-only weapons options that don't exist in Robotech and would tend to obliterate the Alpha's only real advantage (amount of missiles carried).

Jefffar wrote:The Expeditionary Forces could wind up relying on the Alpha because 1) It is a formidable mecha in its own right, not needing the Beta for most missions and 2) Issues on having enough of the Beta's available to properly equip the force.

Really, I think there's a third option that is the best/truest answer... the Expeditionary Forces wound up relying on the Alpha because they didn't need high-speed, high-altitude dogfighters, interceptors, or air superiority fighters. They were expecting to be fighting largely groundbound, lightly armored mecha like Bioroids with mechanized infantry and larger ground mecha, and were looking for a VTOL jet substitute for a close air support gunship. In that capacity, the Alpha is exactly what the doctor ordered. It has a rapid-fire cannon and a surprisingly large quantity of short-ranged air-to-ground munitions for a craft of its size, and its VTOL capability and Guardian-mode ability to loiter indefinitely at low altitudes make it ideal for low altitude support of infantry. The TLEAD/Beta is also designed around that kind of role, being essentially an A-10 equivalent to the Alpha's AV-8 or helicopter gunship with a trio of 30mm rotary cannons and a bomb bay full of anti-personnel incendiary devices.

The reason it compares unfavorably to the VF-1 is that it's not designed for the same job... it was rewritten into that compromising position by fan materials misrepresented as official. Taken in its original context, it's an apples and oranges comparison. You don't judge a fish by its inability to climb trees.

Zer0 Kay wrote:SERIOUSLY what kind of weapon designer puts in a void in a fighter/bomber that isn't used for anything, has a boarding ramp and a freaking bench... between explosive munitions!

One who's working to the demands of an impatient toy manufacturer who holds your project's purse strings...

The TLEAD was originally designed as a booster similar to the one for the Invit/Invid scout. It was never supposed to be a separate aircraft, which is why the animation struggles to find something for the characters to do with it.

ShadowLogan wrote:I don't know where the gun itself went, but the ammo is not an issue since it is now a beam weapon so can draw straight from the mecha avoiding the issue from the conventional projectile version found in the 1E RPG (Palladium really dropped the ball on this mecha in 1E).

... 1E was actually correct in that regard. The design has three 30mm rotary cannons. The line art clearly shows ammunition drums.

ShadowLogan wrote:I agree the concept for the Alpha and Beta should have been a ground up design to work the way they do because really if they started as separate programs that had to connect (at a later given time), it really brings into question the UEEF's intelligence given there are far more simpler fixes to the Alpha that could be done potentially. It's like they took the most complicated approach they could think of to address an issue.

The Alpha really doesn't need to be "fixed"... it just needs to be presented as the low altitude close air support aircraft it was designed to be.

The vast majority of its supposed issues stem from attempts to rewrite it into something it's not, a multirole strike fighter replacement for the VF-1.

ShadowLogan wrote:Honestly I have wondered in the past if the Beta makes a better replacement for the (stock) VF-1 than the Alpha. From a technology standpoint it seems a closer match to the VF-1 (even in Super config) than an Alpha in terms of capability, it has external hardpoints (50% more though weather they are 1:1 in capabilities is another matter), it has more powerful beam weapons, it can exceed the FAST-Packs internal capacity, it has equal/superior range as the VF-1 (both can do SSTO, the Beta can even fly to the Moon after an SSTO). Its main draw back is its aerodynamics (which likely are compromised due to the Alpha linkup requirement).

Its lack of aerodynamics aside, it'd be better in attacker roles than the VF-1 because of its three rotary cannons and large anti-personnel bomb capacity.

OSM-ly, the VF-1's attacker role was mainly limited to a light fighter-bomber role dropping small quantities of precision munitions like Paveways or slightly larger quantities of gravity bombs like the old NATO Mk.82. Its small size, constrained by the Battroid mode size limit of "approximately the expected size of the aliens", meant that it didn't have the capacity to be a truly effective light bomber or attacker.

Dang Toy manufacturer's

Jefffar wrote:So, as depicted, the Beta's bomb bay could only be redesigned with a major redesign of the lower anatomy of the Beta. Not impossible, but difficult. Probably becoming a new fighter rather than our trusted, familiar Beta. Perhaps this may be part of the not fully explored Shadow Beta or Super Beta upgrade program, who knows. There's room for each GM to provide his own take on it.

As for Seto's redoning of the Beta origin story. The designations Alpha, Beta and Legios lend themselves to the idea that the Legios was the design from the ground up, with the Alpha and Beta never intended to be independant weapons sytems, but part of a greater whole that could seperate to meet specific tactical objectives.

For thsoe that decry the Alpha's alleged lesser abilities compared to the VF-1, it may be wise to remember that. The Legios is the Super VF-1 repalcement, not the Alpha or the Beta. The Alpha is giving the detachable cockpit of the VF-1 the ability to fly and fight as it's own veritech while the remainder of the VF-1 continues to attack.

The Expeditionary Forces could wind up relying on the Alpha because 1) It is a formidable mecha in its own right, not needing the Beta for most missions and 2) Issues on having enough of the Beta's available to properly equip the force.

Loading through a snaked port is nothing new. They have to do that with all of the guns in fighters. In the case of the bombs it would just be larger. So two magazines, remove the open area and the alternate cockpit access and make it a larger magazine that feeds bombs into the two shoots. Could double or tripple the bomb capacity and then fully enclosing the bomb section would grant more protection to the cockpit and not make the cockpit the direction the blast goes.

Zer0 Kay wrote:1. mini-missiles damage conventional tanks better than the submunitions would. They're MD tech while conventional tanks are high SDC tech.
2. Invid Mecha are tougher than conventional tanks

Are they really, though? We know what the RPG says and all, but we know just as well that the distinction's entirely arbitrary.

I'm gonna spoiler tag the minor tangent I'm gonna go on here, just for those who don't wanna be bothered.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Loading through a snaked port is nothing new. They have to do that with all of the guns in fighters. In the case of the bombs it would just be larger. So two magazines, remove the open area and the alternate cockpit access and make it a larger magazine that feeds bombs into the two shoots. Could double or tripple the bomb capacity and then fully enclosing the bomb section would grant more protection to the cockpit and not make the cockpit the direction the blast goes.

True, but autoloader carriages for doing that kind of thing to vehicle-mounted weapons tend to be on the bulky side and we're talking about an aircraft that's designed to operate out of improvised field bases without niceties like hangars, airstrips of even the most improvised sort, or sophisticated maintenance gear. It's only natural they'd include concessions for hand-loading of the bomb bay due to the likelihood of operating out of frontline bases without the necessary autoloading apparatus.

Seto wrote:The TLEAD was originally designed as a booster similar to the one for the Invit/Invid scout. It was never supposed to be a separate aircraft, which is why the animation struggles to find something for the characters to do with it.

IINM the Beta's use of its various weapon systems as depicted in the animation don't repeat between the course of the (few) various episodes where it operates solo. And when its connected the only two weapon systems used are the bomb bay and the MM-16 (2E RPG designation), though the MM-16 does get used solo 1x. I know it sounds strange, but that seems to be the case.

Seto wrote:... 1E was actually correct in that regard. The design has three 30mm rotary cannons. The line art clearly shows ammunition drums.

In the OSM you mean, it appears that in RT it has been converted over to a beam system.

Seto wrote:The Alpha really doesn't need to be "fixed"... it just needs to be presented as the low altitude close air support aircraft it was designed to be.

To an extent, however the Beta exists to address a range issue on the design. A good deal of what the Beta brings is under utilized/dead weight when its connected to the Alpha, if one dropped all those dead weight features you could shrink the overall size of the Beta, possibly even to the point of a more FAST-Pack level Add-on than here's a big booster add-on.

Seto wrote:Its lack of aerodynamics aside, it'd be better in attacker roles than the VF-1 because of its three rotary cannons and large anti-personnel bomb capacity.

Its large missile capacity also means it can operate on equal footing to the VF-1 in mission profiles centered around the use of air-air missiles (you might need to swap out the specific type of missiles used). The 6 wing stations (by the Infopedia, not the 2E RPG) are equivalent to the VF-1 station (capable of carrying a long-range missile).

Its aerodynamics are an issue, there isn't much that can be done.

[spoiler]

Seto wrote:So, what's the value of a Mega-Damage point anyway?

Off hand its a bit of mess. Using the generic damage table for crash table based on speed, and a bit of flexibility in terms of interaction, if you do the math based on muzzle velocity the M-16 can do MD.

This figure flucutes a bit, but megaversally it can be documented that a Flashlight or radio battery is equivalent to 0.25MD, a Car Battery is 2MD. And no, megaversally it doesn't get more detailed than than since flashlights can run on AAA, AA, C, and D batteries and Car Batteries also have some range.

ShadowLogan wrote:IINM the Beta's use of its various weapon systems as depicted in the animation don't repeat between the course of the (few) various episodes where it operates solo. And when its connected the only two weapon systems used are the bomb bay and the MM-16 (2E RPG designation), though the MM-16 does get used solo 1x. I know it sounds strange, but that seems to be the case.

The dorsal missile launcher and bomb bay are basically the only two weapons unobstructed, yeah.

ShadowLogan wrote:In the OSM you mean, it appears that in RT it has been converted over to a beam system.

In correct information... it was misrepresented as a beam weapon in the fanfic of someone who lied to HG.

ShadowLogan wrote:To an extent, however the Beta exists to address a range issue on the design.

That's the thing... that ISN'T an issue if the Alpha is presented as it was conceived.

It's not a space fighter. It has limited space maneuvering capability, but almost exclusively for the purpose of making reentry to provide cover for an orbit-to-surface landing operation and to operate in support of a mechanized infantry force. The Beta existed as a capability-enhancement to allow a small number of fighters to fly escort for a fleet from a lunar staging area to an orbital attack site.

EDIT: To make my point clearer, what I'm saying is that the Beta doesn't address a deficiency in a correctly-represented Alpha... it adds a capability the Alpha doesn't have because it didn't need it per its design requirements.

ShadowLogan wrote:A good deal of what the Beta brings is under utilized/dead weight when its connected to the Alpha, if one dropped all those dead weight features you could shrink the overall size of the Beta, possibly even to the point of a more FAST-Pack level Add-on than here's a big booster add-on.

Yeah, it really would make more sense in context if they'd left it as a disposable flight booster but Gakken got green-eyed jealous looking at the fat stacks of cash Takatoku was raking in.

ShadowLogan wrote:Its large missile capacity also means it can operate on equal footing to the VF-1 in mission profiles centered around the use of air-air missiles (you might need to swap out the specific type of missiles used). The 6 wing stations (by the Infopedia, not the 2E RPG) are equivalent to the VF-1 station (capable of carrying a long-range missile).

Not quite... its lack of maneuverability and poor aerodynamics are basically going to limit it to an interceptor role in standoff engagements. It can't dogfight nearly as well.

ShadowLogan wrote:Off hand its a bit of mess. Using the generic damage table for crash table based on speed, and a bit of flexibility in terms of interaction, if you do the math based on muzzle velocity the M-16 can do MD.

This figure flucutes a bit, but megaversally it can be documented that a Flashlight or radio battery is equivalent to 0.25MD, a Car Battery is 2MD. And no, megaversally it doesn't get more detailed than than since flashlights can run on AAA, AA, C, and D batteries and Car Batteries also have some range.

... muzzle velocity alone is a useless metric for computing damage. You need projectile kinetic energy. A 5.56x45mm NATO round only has about 1/10th the energy of a .50 BMG.

Seto wrote:EDIT: To make my point clearer, what I'm saying is that the Beta doesn't address a deficiency in a correctly-represented Alpha... it adds a capability the Alpha doesn't have because it didn't need it per its design requirements.

I'm not arguing, just taking the POV that the requirement for the Alpha to have better range (main driver for the Beta) could be the result of mission creep that was added later (either in the OSM or RT). I mean it isn't like platforms don't get mission creep in the real world (the B-1B, B-2, and B-52 all started out as dedicated nuclear bombers, but later could drop conventional bombs, or the F-14 getting the capacity to drop bombs in the 90s, etc) so why should a fictional world be any better.

Seto wrote:Yeah, it really would make more sense in context if they'd left it as a disposable flight booster but Gakken got green-eyed jealous looking at the fat stacks of cash Takatoku was raking in.

Honestly I don't get why the even went the combo fighter route for the "realistic" genre they where pursuing with GCM* (something more "super" I could), they could have just had two stand-alone fighters in a high-low mix (F-15/F-16 pair or F-22/F-35).

*While it does have a certain degree of novelty about it, I just find treating it as "the rule of cool" to be unsatisfactory in this case.

Seto wrote:Not quite... its lack of maneuverability and poor aerodynamics are basically going to limit it to an interceptor role in standoff engagements. It can't dogfight nearly as well.

The Beta's aerodynamics are of a bigger concern, because if you can fix that you've probably also increased the maneuverability. Then again aspects of the Beta's (or Alpha or ASC VFs) design could in theory translate to better maneuverability than is apparent or even render this issue moot.

The one advantage a Beta might have over the VF-1 in a dog-fight (using strictly guns) is that the array of 3 forward guns creates a better hit zone than the VF-1 (even if we allow for the head weapons to fire with the GU-11, they all do so in pretty much the same overlapping zone, where the Beta's are spread out more).

Seto wrote:... muzzle velocity alone is a useless metric for computing damage. You need projectile kinetic energy. A 5.56x45mm NATO round only has about 1/10th the energy of a .50 BMG.

Not arguing, but speed is the only factor in a crash per palladium's rule set (though you can use mass/weight but then it ignores speed). So under those rules a 100kg object traveling at the same velocity as a 10kg object still do the same amount of damage. I know it doesn't make any sense from a physics perspective, but for the game world it provides a quick dirty solution, but it does illustrate how wonky damage is managed in the Palladium system given the actual game rules damage for an M-16 vs what it would be if it followed the crash rules).

ShadowLogan wrote:I'm not arguing, just taking the POV that the requirement for the Alpha to have better range (main driver for the Beta) could be the result of mission creep that was added later (either in the OSM or RT). I mean it isn't like platforms don't get mission creep in the real world (the B-1B, B-2, and B-52 all started out as dedicated nuclear bombers, but later could drop conventional bombs, or the F-14 getting the capacity to drop bombs in the 90s, etc) so why should a fictional world be any better.

I'm not sure I'd call it mission creep... it's practically an afterthought, since the only real use for the TLEAD/Beta was/is to fly escort for a troop ship moving from a staging area to the area of operations and to ferry a Legioss/Alpha back to orbit from the planet's surface after the fact if no ships were available to do the job.

ShadowLogan wrote:I don't get why the even went the combo fighter route for the "realistic" genre they where pursuing with GCM* (something more "super" I could), they could have just had two stand-alone fighters in a high-low mix (F-15/F-16 pair or F-22/F-35).

Gakken was already forcing a major retooling of the story to accommodate its demand for greater emphasis on the transforming fighters. Another popular trend around the time from the super robot branch of the mecha genre was combining mecha, taken to its logical extreme by Beast King GoLion and Armored Fleet Dairugger XV.

Basically, Gakken double-dipped.

ShadowLogan wrote:The Beta's aerodynamics are of a bigger concern, because if you can fix that you've probably also increased the maneuverability. Then again aspects of the Beta's (or Alpha or ASC VFs) design could in theory translate to better maneuverability than is apparent or even render this issue moot.

Not compared to something like a VF-1... and the ASC designs are just pure trash, churned out with the minimum possible effort by Tatsunoko's overworked and hopelessly out-of-the-loop design team.

ShadowLogan wrote:The one advantage a Beta might have over the VF-1 in a dog-fight (using strictly guns) is that the array of 3 forward guns creates a better hit zone than the VF-1 (even if we allow for the head weapons to fire with the GU-11, they all do so in pretty much the same overlapping zone, where the Beta's are spread out more).

Eh... right advantage, wrong vehicle. The VF-1's coaxial laser cannons can converge fire and aim off-axis. It can fire more than 90 degrees off axis, meaning it can shoot at targets alongside the VF not just in front of it.

ShadowLogan wrote:Not arguing, but speed is the only factor in a crash per palladium's rule set (though you can use mass/weight but then it ignores speed). So under those rules a 100kg object traveling at the same velocity as a 10kg object still do the same amount of damage. I know it doesn't make any sense from a physics perspective, but for the game world it provides a quick dirty solution, but it does illustrate how wonky damage is managed in the Palladium system given the actual game rules damage for an M-16 vs what it would be if it followed the crash rules).

Granted, it's a great example of how wonky the damage system is... though I'm not sure I'd put projectile damage and crashing in the same category.

Seto wrote:I'm not sure I'd call it mission creep... it's practically an afterthought, since the only real use for the TLEAD/Beta was/is to fly escort for a troop ship moving from a staging area to the area of operations and to ferry a Legioss/Alpha back to orbit from the planet's surface after the fact if no ships were available to do the job.

Call it what you want I guess. But the fact is the (intended in RT since it hadn't entered production yet) users found the Alpha to be range deficient to their evolving needs and responded to it.

Seto wrote: Another popular trend around the time from the super robot branch of the mecha genre was combining mecha, taken to its logical extreme by Beast King GoLion and Armored Fleet Dairugger XV.

I know combining mecha where common for Super Robots (Makainzer Z is even older with the piloted Hovercraft linking into the main 'bot), but for the "realistic" genre Mospeada was aiming to be seen as it seems out of place in terms of execution/approach. In terms of real world precedent I don't know of any aircraft that linkup/separate this way (Parasites typically are top/down or on the sides), the separation is used by staged rockets, but those don't try to reverse the process. Even in spaceflight there isn't as much precedent for this approach at the time (in '83 only Salyut 6 and 7 space stations did this, and it was typically the smaller craft coming in from behind on the larger, toward the end of each Stations life it would receive an expansion module on the front and dock to its rear).

Seto wrote:Not compared to something like a VF-1... and the ASC designs are just pure trash, churned out with the minimum possible effort by Tatsunoko's overworked and hopelessly out-of-the-loop design team.

Its actually harder to say IMHO. All the designs will come at the dog fight scenario with some advantages over the others. The UEEF VFs both have VTOL capability without changing modes, which can be an advantage (as seen in the Harrier in the Falklands war), the UEEF and ASC designs are also smaller (theoretically making them harder to hit, require less room to maneuver). Then factor in that the show establishes that flying Battloid mode equivalents (like the Zentreadi FPA, or the Invid Gosu, or even typical Invid Iigaa or Gurab) tend to be superior to fixed wing fighter designs in a dogfight (even elite RDF pilots had trouble with the Z-FPA on screen*, and per dialogue in Invasion the Conbat needed Condor nt-B escort to deal with the Iigaas, etc), the units could switch modes to "dog fight" in a non-traditional sense.

*on Screen Roy Fokker score 3 kills in F mode, Max and Miryia combined scored 5 in Battloid mode all using cannon fire. The FPA scored 5 kills against the VF-1 in F mode and 3 in Battloid (I have 7 for G-mode, which I'm not sure on). Corg also shot down 9 Alphas in F mode vs 0 in Battloid on screen, though he did give a beat down to 2 in Battloid piloted by Scott and Rand (I wouldn't call them flyable, but they didn't go all explodie like the others). The Alpha only scored 2 kills against the generic Gosu, all in Battloid mode (Lancer).

Seto wrote:Eh... right advantage, wrong vehicle. The VF-1's coaxial laser cannons can converge fire and aim off-axis. It can fire more than 90 degrees off axis, meaning it can shoot at targets alongside the VF not just in front of it.

Not what I'm getting at. The Beta's guns cover 3 spots in a forward arc, the best a normal VF-1 will do is two spots, even with the moveable turret (ignoring model differences). While the Beta's guns are fixed, they also create a larger hit-zone when firing their guns together than the VF-1 can't do. The VF-1's turret is an asset, but it doesn't necessarily balance out. If the Beta's guns can cut off 30deg of forward arc, even if concentrated, is still better than the VF-1 which only gets 2x 10deg arcs. (Note off hand I don't know what the actual arcs would be, these are just for illustrative purposes).

Seto wrote:Granted, it's a great example of how wonky the damage system is... though I'm not sure I'd put projectile damage and crashing in the same category.

Ordinarily I wouldn't either, but from a basic physics perspective there isn't much different when you think about.

If you want to get technical about it there are some real world systems that have been stated out in Rifts, which is another MD setting. One of which is the 20mm cannon from the F-16C, and (when) firing a similar size burst as the HRG-70 it doesn't do the same amount of damage.

ShadowLogan wrote:Call it what you want I guess. But the fact is the (intended in RT since it hadn't entered production yet) users found the Alpha to be range deficient to their evolving needs and responded to it.

Fair enough, though please remember my viewpoint for continued exploration of this topic is leaning more toward making the flaws explicable rather than trying to errata them away.

ShadowLogan wrote:I know combining mecha where common for Super Robots (Makainzer Z is even older with the piloted Hovercraft linking into the main 'bot), but for the "realistic" genre Mospeada was aiming to be seen as it seems out of place in terms of execution/approach.

While Artmic's designers absolutely invested a lot of effort into the realism and veracity of the project that became Genesis Climber MOSPEADA, with special attention given to the Ride Armors that were intended to be the main mecha of the series, their sponsor and toy licensee Gakken doesn't appear to have shared quite the same commitment to their artistic vision. They weren't above using their financial influence over the project to compel the series-in-development to undergo a major change in direction in the name of chasing toy industry trends.

ShadowLogan wrote:Its actually harder to say IMHO.

I was talking more in terms of the actual production design process. Tatsunoko Production's in-house design team "Ammonite" didn't put a ton of time or effort into the designs for Southern Cross. Given how troubled the production was, that may or may not be because there wasn't enough time to do a proper job of it. The end result was designs and concepts that were thinly-disguised knockoffs of material from the genre's dominant properties: Space Battleship Yamato, Mobile Suit Gundam, and Super Dimension Fortress Macross.

ShadowLogan wrote:Then factor in that the show establishes that flying Battloid mode equivalents (like the Zentreadi FPA, or the Invid Gosu, or even typical Invid Iigaa or Gurab) tend to be superior to fixed wing fighter designs in a dogfight (even elite RDF pilots had trouble with the Z-FPA on screen*, and per dialogue in Invasion the Conbat needed Condor nt-B escort to deal with the Iigaas, etc), the units could switch modes to "dog fight" in a non-traditional sense.

This has much less to do with the shape of the mecha than it does with armament and performance of individual designs.

The VF-1 Valkyrie struggled with the Zentradi Queadluun-Rau battle suit because the latter's flight performance was far higher. Indeed, in Macross, the Queadluun-Rau battle suit's performance so exceeded the norm that the ancient Protoculture had to go and design a better breed of pilot to handle it, as its performance was beyond the abilities of the general-duty soldier type Zentradi. After the war, captured Queadluun-Rau units remained prized assets due to that excessively high performance that was only truly bettered by 4th Generation VFs (which prompted a modernized version's development in the form of the Queadluun-Rhea type seen in Macross Frontier). It's especially relevant that, unlike the VF-1, the Queadluun-Rau has an inertial damper system for protecting its pilot from the excessive g-forces that its overpowered engines create.

The Legioss in MOSPEADA struggled with the agility of the Invit Iigaa and other types because they were massively more advanced technologically and the Legioss's design is made for stable low-altitude flight not high maneuverability.

The Convert and Conbat, well, that's mainly due to the old Armo-Fighter having exclusively fixed armaments and being basically an interceptor or an attacker patterned as a light bomber rather than a dogfighter.

ShadowLogan wrote:Not what I'm getting at. The Beta's guns cover 3 spots in a forward arc, the best a normal VF-1 will do is two spots, even with the moveable turret (ignoring model differences). While the Beta's guns are fixed, they also create a larger hit-zone when firing their guns together than the VF-1 can't do. The VF-1's turret is an asset, but it doesn't necessarily balance out. If the Beta's guns can cut off 30deg of forward arc, even if concentrated, is still better than the VF-1 which only gets 2x 10deg arcs. (Note off hand I don't know what the actual arcs would be, these are just for illustrative purposes).

While that's not wrong, the problem with your reasoning is that having multiple fixed guns covering an arc is only useful in a dogfight if your weapons aren't precise enough to guarantee a hit on your first try. It's compensating for accuracy with volume.

Of course, the TLEAD/Beta isn't a dogfighter and those rotary cannons aren't meant for air-to-air use. Those are large-caliber guns meant for use in strafing ground targets. The aircraft they're mounted on is essentially a spacefuture equivalent of the A-10A Thunderbolt II. It has some missiles that are meant for defense, but by in large its entire design is organized around air-to-ground operations.

Seto wrote:Fair enough, though please remember my viewpoint for continued exploration of this topic is leaning more toward making the flaws explicable rather than trying to errata them away.

Explainable they maybe, but some aspects I think require them to be errata fixed rather than a more detailed side note. Then again some of the proposals here aren't so much errata fixes (X doesn't work/make sense) as opposed to a capability expansion (ex. using the Beta's bomb bay for deploying missiles).

Seto wrote:While Artmic's designers absolutely invested a lot of effort into the realism and veracity of the project that became Genesis Climber MOSPEADA, with special attention given to the Ride Armors that were intended to be the main mecha of the series, their sponsor and toy licensee Gakken doesn't appear to have shared quite the same commitment to their artistic vision. They weren't above using their financial influence over the project to compel the series-in-development to undergo a major change in direction in the name of chasing toy industry trends.

I'm not objecting to the inclusion of the basic concept per say, only its execution. What would the A/B stack look like if they did a top/bottom pairing or side-side pairing, both of which have some real world precedent* even in 1983.

*Top/Bottom: B-29/X-1, various Parasite Fighters/Flying-"aircraft carrier", the D-21 drone in the SR-71 family. Side-Side was done: B-36 with RF-84s in the 50s, other testing combos also occurred).

Seto wrote:This has much less to do with the shape of the mecha than it does with armament and performance of individual designs.

Very true, but the battloid shapes would seem to be counter intuitive in terms of atmospheric dog fighting and is established in universe that way to be superior. Which makes a conventional analysis of a given design's combat capabilities a bit skewed if we ignore the other modes. The UEEF/ASC VFs might not be as fighter mode agile as the VF-1, but they might make up for it in a dog fight by switching out of Fighter Mode.

Seto wrote:While that's not wrong, the problem with your reasoning is that having multiple fixed guns covering an arc is only useful in a dogfight if your weapons aren't precise enough to guarantee a hit on your first try. It's compensating for accuracy with volume.

Very true, but when going against more agile targets being accurate on your first try is a lot harder. Size of the intended target can also be an issue. Fighter guns intended to engage accurately mecha operated by 40ft giants may find themselves less accurate against smaller mecha from an equal distance.

Seto Kaiba wrote:While that's not wrong, the problem with your reasoning is that having multiple fixed guns covering an arc is only useful in a dogfight if your weapons aren't precise enough to guarantee a hit on your first try. It's compensating for accuracy with volume.

The more or less the entire history of guns air to air combat would seem to demonstrate that volume of fire is better at generating hits and kills than accuracy of fire.

There's a reason most modern fighters have a gun or guns with a combined ROF inexcess of 3000 rpm.

Jefffar wrote:The more or less the entire history of guns air to air combat would seem to demonstrate that volume of fire is better at generating hits and kills than accuracy of fire.

There's a reason most modern fighters have a gun or guns with a combined ROF inexcess of 3000 rpm.

Eh... sort of. In practice, the reason older gunfighters adopted a "more is more" philosophy in adopting multiple guns was a product of the poor accuracy of those fixed machine guns, the relatively low velocity of the rounds they fired, and the inherently high difficulty of aiming those weapons accurately mainly or exclusively by eye. The need for multiple guns faded as improvements in technology saw better sighting and range-finding mechanisms, faster bullets, and more accurate guns come into service. Now, most fighters carry only one high-velocity cannon that benefits from radar and laser gunsights, using a higher rate of fire to compensate for the even higher airspeeds and greater durability of fighter aircraft in the modern age.

Multiple guns was a way to compensate for poor accuracy and improve your odds of landing a hopefully-fatal hit on something. It is, as the idiom goes, "spraying and praying".

Disciplined accurate fire yields far better odds of a kill with less expenditure of resources.

Once you've progressed to optical weapons, accuracy and projectile velocity are no longer concerns so the only thing you have to worry about is having the necessary stopping power to inflict lethal damage.

ShadowLogan wrote:Explainable they maybe, but some aspects I think require them to be errata fixed rather than a more detailed side note. Then again some of the proposals here aren't so much errata fixes (X doesn't work/make sense) as opposed to a capability expansion (ex. using the Beta's bomb bay for deploying missiles).

Dunno about that... I think there's more to be gained from framing the Beta's performance in its proper context than trying to invent new capabilities which don't necessarily make sense for its actual design intent or role.

ShadowLogan wrote:I'm not objecting to the inclusion of the basic concept per say, only its execution. What would the A/B stack look like if they did a top/bottom pairing or side-side pairing, both of which have some real world precedent* even in 1983.

The Legioss/Alpha isn't a parasite fighter though... and the TLEAD/Beta isn't big enough to support it as one. I suspect part of the reason they did it the way they did was so that the two aircraft would be relatively close in size to each other for the sake of toy sales.

The TLEAD/Beta started as the Span Loader, a non-transformable booster pack that clamped onto the back end of the Legioss/Alpha in a manner similar to the VF-1's transatmospheric launch booster. When they turned it into a manned fighter they kept the same orientation, presumably so that the design would remain relatively streamlined. The concept they worked out for it, which may have been shared with the original Span Loader, was that the Legoss wasn't a passenger, its engine output was being tapped to supplement the engine output of the booster... the connector for which also allowed the Legioss to switch modes while connected in order for it to fight effectively in space.

ShadowLogan wrote:Very true, but the battloid shapes would seem to be counter intuitive in terms of atmospheric dog fighting and is established in universe that way to be superior.

It's not counterintuitive, it's just an extreme form of thrust-vectoring that abandons lift-based flight altogether. It's also not sustainable at speed, meaning you're either giving up top speed for a brief boost in agility or you're just plain slow but agile because you're flying purely on thrust and nothing else.

It's never establishd to be superior, just different.

ShadowLogan wrote:Which makes a conventional analysis of a given design's combat capabilities a bit skewed if we ignore the other modes. The UEEF/ASC VFs might not be as fighter mode agile as the VF-1, but they might make up for it in a dog fight by switching out of Fighter Mode.

Unlikely, because speed and maneuverability when you abandon lift-based flight are dependent entirely on engine power and thrust-to-weight ratio... so the UEEF/ASC VFs aren't going to shine in that regard either. They're all quite heavy and all the Beta lack the engine power the VF-1 has on tap.

ShadowLogan wrote:Very true, but when going against more agile targets being accurate on your first try is a lot harder. Size of the intended target can also be an issue. Fighter guns intended to engage accurately mecha operated by 40ft giants may find themselves less accurate against smaller mecha from an equal distance.

There is that, but that's more of an issue if you're firing projectiles (bullets, missiles) or slow-moving energy bolts.

If you're using lasers or proper particle beam weapons that have optical levels of accuracy and the speed to target is at or just below the speed of light, to shoot accurately is a much lower hurdle to clear. I don't think size is quite the issue you're arguing it is either, since the VF-1's coaxial laser cannons were designed to be used to shoot down things like high-speed missiles. The extreme precision offered by a weapon like that makes it rather odd that the later designs in Robotech have nothing similar.

Seto wrote:Dunno about that... I think there's more to be gained from framing the Beta's performance in its proper context than trying to invent new capabilities which don't necessarily make sense for its actual design intent or role.

While we are adding capabilities, adding capabilities is nothing new to real world designs so why wouldn't RT (or even the OSM) do this. The Beta's internal bombs have very limited applications, but we know there are missions the Beta is used for beyond just bombing, so having additional ways to utilize that space makes sense. Even you have acknowledged that HG seems to be steering the use of the designs to roles they are not intended for, which could require changes to make them viable for the role as time goes on.

Seto wrote:The Legioss/Alpha isn't a parasite fighter though... and the TLEAD/Beta isn't big enough to support it as one. I suspect part of the reason they did it the way they did was so that the two aircraft would be relatively close in size to each other for the sake of toy sales.

Well in a sense they are a Parasite Fighter when the operate from the Horizon-T. However I'm not saying for connection purposes they have to be a Parasite/Host combo, but when it comes to air-air docking setups Parasite/Host combos provide working examples on how air-air docking setups have been shown to work. AFAIK no air-air docking setup works the way the A/B does*, if the Beta was still a disposable booster setup I don't think I'd have an issue with it per say (since it essentially emulate rocket staging).

*I mean if you think about it the exhaust wash from the Alpha during separation/connection should cause issues for the Beta during those operations. If the Beta's engines can toss a (relative to Beta) streamlined Gurab, then a brick faced Beta should have issues from the Alpha.

Seto wrote:Unlikely, because speed and maneuverability when you abandon lift-based flight are dependent entirely on engine power and thrust-to-weight ratio... so the UEEF/ASC VFs aren't going to shine in that regard either. They're all quite heavy and all the Beta lack the engine power the VF-1 has on tap.

We know the UEEF/ASC VFs in Battloid mode have a speed advantage over the VF-1 in Battloid mode when it comes to flight (even the VF-1R in the 2E RPG with its increase in speed). So theoretically these designs have a partial leg up over the VF-1 as in a Battloid mode based dogfight they'd be faster.

As for their weight, technically the Logan comes in at 6.5tons dry (or ~1/2 the weight of the VF-1). Personally I think the weights should come down for the UEEF/ASC units due to their smaller size (Logan is fine), along the lines of the 1E RPG (justify the OSM change as coming from change in available technology/materials RT setting, with a foot note the maximum tested to speed is equal to the OSM but the units actual top speed has never been test for). If that is done the Alpha (H/I) actually lives up to its "high t/w" ratio relative to the Infopedia VF-1, possibly closer to par with the YF-4. Other units its a bit harder to gauge since the Logan/AGAC OSM info is sparse IINM, but the Beta would see the most improvement in terms of T/W ratio (even using the beefier RT version) as it loses about 1/2 the mass. Of course another way to get the T/W ratios up would be to give them Overboost capability. That's my personal take though.

Gauging maneuverability can also be a bit problematic. Technically these fighters are designed to maneuver in space, which means they likely have some form of Reaction Control System (even if they aren't depicted), something that could work in atmosphere and give a "boost" to aerodynamic control surface based maneuverability (those control surfaces equate to generating a force on the aircraft causing it to move in a given direction, which means you can supplement/replace those with engine thrust), so even if it doesn't have "traditional thrust vectoring" (ala F-22, AV-8) it might have the equivalent (possibly even better).

Seto wrote:There is that, but that's more of an issue if you're firing projectiles (bullets, missiles) or slow-moving energy bolts.

Actually its still an issue for beam weapons. You have the time for the light from the object to reach the pilot (which might be further slowed by intermediaries), you have the pilots reaction time, you have the weapon warm-up time before the beam is fired, you have the time for the beam weapon to travel to the target, plus time on target (if we want to be somewhat realistic, beam weapons likely require varying times on target where an impactor/explosive could be considered instant). Against a moving object, which could be jiggly around in the gun sight or traveling through it would be possible to miss.

While a missile is much smaller than any intended mecha, it should probably be considered that said object will likely be following a predictable path something that may not be true of a larger manned vehicle, allowing for it to be engaged successfully. Plus if we're talking (RAW) RPG, those LLW-20s are great against Missiles (Mini and SRM), but against a Regult (or Bioroid or even Iigaa) they aren't all that effective (unless its hanging on by a thread) in terms of one-shotting it (the Beta's EU-14s have a better chance because they could do it on a Critical Strike roll without rolling max damage. An LLW-20 can not). In terms of strike bonuses IINM (@Level 1) the Beta's EU-14s have the same bonus to strike as the LLW-20 on the VF-1 (note for a generic setup, specific character setups might have higher strike bonuses along with the C&C networking bonuses).

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:1. mini-missiles damage conventional tanks better than the submunitions would. They're MD tech while conventional tanks are high SDC tech.
2. Invid Mecha are tougher than conventional tanks

Are they really, though? We know what the RPG says and all, but we know just as well that the distinction's entirely arbitrary.

I'm gonna spoiler tag the minor tangent I'm gonna go on here, just for those who don't wanna be bothered.

Spoiler:

So, what's the value of a Mega-Damage point anyway?

If we were to take the one weapon that is 100% original to Robotech that is also the only weapon in Robotech to offer performance data in strictly objective terms, we can estimate it. That's the Super Cyclone's railgun, which is indicated in the official RTSC artbook to have a muzzle energy of 70kJ. It does 1D6 MD for a single round or 1D4x10+10 MD for a ten round burst. Those numbers both average out to 3.5 MD per 70kJ or 0.05 MD per kJ. A .50 BMG rifle or machine gun is a Mega Damage weapon at that point. Most of the small arms in game would not even come close to dealing 1 MD, including the H90, barely reaching 2kJ per shot on average. Of course, then you go to the opposite extreme where a one second burst from an A-10's 30mm rotary cannon would tip the scales at 711 MD, or a single M829A3 anti-tank round at 606 MD.

Southern Cross and MOSPEADA really aren't Mega Damage settings, but the RPG egregiously exaggerates the stats vs. what's onscreen and OSM because the first saga is an adaptation of Macross, a series that absolutely DOES justify a sharp divide between SD and MD, and they've kind of shortsold that one to balance things out and to avoid the damage numbers entering JRPG territory. Apply the same scaling to the OSM VF-1's weapons and the lightest of them is dealing 250-1000 MD/sec, the gunpod doing over 2,400 MD per 10 round burst, and missiles that top out over 40,000 MD before you even get to the lightest of the ersatz nukes.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Loading through a snaked port is nothing new. They have to do that with all of the guns in fighters. In the case of the bombs it would just be larger. So two magazines, remove the open area and the alternate cockpit access and make it a larger magazine that feeds bombs into the two shoots. Could double or tripple the bomb capacity and then fully enclosing the bomb section would grant more protection to the cockpit and not make the cockpit the direction the blast goes.

True, but autoloader carriages for doing that kind of thing to vehicle-mounted weapons tend to be on the bulky side and we're talking about an aircraft that's designed to operate out of improvised field bases without niceties like hangars, airstrips of even the most improvised sort, or sophisticated maintenance gear. It's only natural they'd include concessions for hand-loading of the bomb bay due to the likelihood of operating out of frontline bases without the necessary autoloading apparatus.

Was the rt1e 50 cal capable of MD? Citation please.

As for the loader... AV-8 Harriers, V-22 crash hawk... I mean Osprey and many helicopters are also designed to be operated out of improvised fields and I don't know a single one that has built in weapon systems that were meant to be hand loaded.
Usually that is just the manned guns.

It is more effective that those improvised airfields are just fueling stations because it takes a lot more logistics to fly in all those bombs without a loader just to have them sitting around for people to hand load onto their bomber.

ShadowLogan wrote:While we are adding capabilities, adding capabilities is nothing new to real world designs so why wouldn't RT (or even the OSM) do this. The Beta's internal bombs have very limited applications, but we know there are missions the Beta is used for beyond just bombing, so having additional ways to utilize that space makes sense. Even you have acknowledged that HG seems to be steering the use of the designs to roles they are not intended for, which could require changes to make them viable for the role as time goes on.

Granted, when new capabilities are added to a combat aircraft it's usually modernization to add a functionality that is now expected of them in their specific battlefield role. It's very rare to see any kind of new feature addition added that isn't directly related to their existing capabilities. The TLEAD/Beta is an attacker and light bomber, it has minimal concessions for air-to-air combat for self-defense on the battlefield but it's absolutely not configured to be an effective fighter aircraft.

I disagree with the assessment that HG is steering the TLEAD/Beta to a role it wasn't intended for... mainly because they couldn't find a use for it beyond "FAST Pack", which is the same conundrum the original creators ran into.

ShadowLogan wrote:Well in a sense they are a Parasite Fighter when the operate from the Horizon-T.

I can't argue that... it's definitely a parasite fighter when it's carried underneath the Horizont.

ShadowLogan wrote:However I'm not saying for connection purposes they have to be a Parasite/Host combo, but when it comes to air-air docking setups Parasite/Host combos provide working examples on how air-air docking setups have been shown to work. AFAIK no air-air docking setup works the way the A/B does*, if the Beta was still a disposable booster setup I don't think I'd have an issue with it per say (since it essentially emulate rocket staging).

True, though as I've said I don't think there was any intention there of modeling it on a real world docking concept. The TLEAD design started life as a disposable booster system called the Span Loader that connected to the rear of the Legioss/Alpha the same way the VF-1's orbital escape booster did, though with provision for the mecha to transform while connected. That concept was carried over to the TLEAD/Beta when Gakken poked its oar in and insisted on more, and more importance for, transforming planes.

ShadowLogan wrote:We know the UEEF/ASC VFs in Battloid mode have a speed advantage over the VF-1 in Battloid mode when it comes to flight (even the VF-1R in the 2E RPG with its increase in speed). So theoretically these designs have a partial leg up over the VF-1 as in a Battloid mode based dogfight they'd be faster.

If you're talking about maneuverability in a Battloid mode fight, it's not top speed that counts... it's acceleration. The thrust-to-weight ratio. You're using an extreme form of thrust vectoring while also staying aloft via thrust. Your ability to change direction quickly is contingent on the maximum instantaneously deliverable thrust and the weight of the aircraft. If you examine the Battloid-mode fights in midair, they're not about speed... they're about turning and dodging.

ShadowLogan wrote:Gauging maneuverability can also be a bit problematic. Technically these fighters are designed to maneuver in space, which means they likely have some form of Reaction Control System (even if they aren't depicted), something that could work in atmosphere and give a "boost" to aerodynamic control surface based maneuverability (those control surfaces equate to generating a force on the aircraft causing it to move in a given direction, which means you can supplement/replace those with engine thrust), so even if it doesn't have "traditional thrust vectoring" (ala F-22, AV-8) it might have the equivalent (possibly even better).

While that's true, the usefulness of verniers for that kind of thing depends on their maximum rated output and the amount of fuel available for them to burn. That tends to bias things towards a larger airframe which has more room for fuel.

(Of the lot, the VF-1 is the only one known to actually use its verniers this way in atmosphere as well as in space.)

ShadowLogan wrote:Actually its still an issue for beam weapons. You have the time for the light from the object to reach the pilot (which might be further slowed by intermediaries), you have the pilots reaction time, you have the weapon warm-up time before the beam is fired, you have the time for the beam weapon to travel to the target, plus time on target (if we want to be somewhat realistic, beam weapons likely require varying times on target where an impactor/explosive could be considered instant). Against a moving object, which could be jiggly around in the gun sight or traveling through it would be possible to miss.

Eh... not really, no.

Lightspeed delay in sighting a beam weapon is only a concern for starship-mounted beam weapons operating at the extreme long range. Most VF-mounted energy weapons are designed for use from point-blank range out to a distance of a few kilometers. Light travels 1km in 0.0000033356 seconds. I don't think it's going to be an issue at dogfight ranges. The longest engagement range we actually get cited is about 1 light second, in the first few episodes by the Zentradi. Not a significant delay there either.

The pilot's reaction time is a factor... but not much of one. We're talking about heavily computerized, heavily automated mecha. The pilot isn't manually controlling limbs or manually aiming guns, the onboard computers are doing that for them based on inputs from onboard sensors and the pilot's selection of an identified target. The computer keeps the weapon locked on target, all the pilot has to react with is pulling the trigger.

Time to target goes back to my first point. If you're talking about a slow-moving energy blob like the Invid energy weapons fire that's absolutely a concern, but if you're firing a laser or a particle beam moving at relativistic speeds, it's not really a concern because you're either at that 0.0000033356 seconds per kilometer speed or just below it. This optical-level accuracy and efficiency is a big part of why the military in Macross uses laser weapons, and later particle beam weapons, for things like dogfighting and missile interception. It's also almost certainly why the Mars Colony forces in the original MOSPEADA were so keen on laser small arms.

ShadowLogan wrote:While a missile is much smaller than any intended mecha, it should probably be considered that said object will likely be following a predictable path something that may not be true of a larger manned vehicle, allowing for it to be engaged successfully. Plus if we're talking (RAW) RPG, those LLW-20s are great against Missiles (Mini and SRM), but against a Regult (or Bioroid or even Iigaa) they aren't all that effective (unless its hanging on by a thread) in terms of one-shotting it (the Beta's EU-14s have a better chance because they could do it on a Critical Strike roll without rolling max damage. An LLW-20 can not). In terms of strike bonuses IINM (@Level 1) the Beta's EU-14s have the same bonus to strike as the LLW-20 on the VF-1 (note for a generic setup, specific character setups might have higher strike bonuses along with the C&C networking bonuses).

At least for Macross, that doesn't appear to be a genuine concern since VFs have shown the capability to shoot down highly-mobile missiles while pursuing an erratic flight path themselves.

As for damage, remember that the numbers in the RPG are arbitrary and do not reflect actual performance in the series. The VF-1 is shown to be more than capable of killing Regults with only a short burst of fire from its lasers.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Was the rt1e 50 cal capable of MD? Citation please.

Erm... I don't wish to be rude, but I feel you may have misunderstood my post?

What I did there was extrapolate how much energy-on-target is was equal to one point of Mega Damage using the only weapon in canon Robotech which is in the RPG and also has its performance stated in a objectively quantifiable form. Namely, its muzzle energy is given as 70kJ. Since the stats for single round discharge and burst fire both average 3.5MD/round, the equivalent ratio of energy-on-target to MD can be estimated to be 0.05 Mega Damage per kilojoule. An 800gr Barnes .50 BMG round has a muzzle energy of 20.195kJ. That means that .50 BMG rifle or machine gun can deal at least 1 point of mega-damage.

It's just a fun little analysis in connection with the point about the Mega Damage and MDC values in-game being arbitrary. It's possible, using something like that, to correct the scaling though one can quickly find the numbers becoming unmanageably large as I demonstrated via reference to the OSM.

Zer0 Kay wrote:It is more effective that those improvised airfields are just fueling stations because it takes a lot more logistics to fly in all those bombs without a loader just to have them sitting around for people to hand load onto their bomber.

Given the ease of refueling on the Alpha and Beta, it strikes me as unlikely that any improvised frontline bases the UEEF would set up in the course of a planetary assault would be used solely for that purpose. Rearming is essential, and neither the Alpha nor the Beta carries spare ammunition.

Seto wrote:I disagree with the assessment that HG is steering the TLEAD/Beta to a role it wasn't intended for... mainly because they couldn't find a use for it beyond "FAST Pack", which is the same conundrum the original creators ran into.

I wasn't thinking of the Beta specifically in this regard, but the Alpha being steered toward roles it wasn't intended for. Though given the A/B stack is also being pressed into those roles along side the Alpha it would make sense for them to have atleast considered alternate weapons configurations to bring more value from the Beta (the "Beta full of Missiles" line from TSC, most of which in stock configuration can't be used, might make more sense in this regard then).

Who knows how HG might develop the MPC "head variants" in the future, though likely they won't develop the idea of other changes going along side the head and just use it as a marketing thing that exists outside canon.

Seto wrote:If you're talking about maneuverability in a Battloid mode fight, it's not top speed that counts... it's acceleration. The thrust-to-weight ratio. You're using an extreme form of thrust vectoring while also staying aloft via thrust. Your ability to change direction quickly is contingent on the maximum instantaneously deliverable thrust and the weight of the aircraft. If you examine the Battloid-mode fights in midair, they're not about speed... they're about turning and dodging.

The fact the VF-1 is the slowest, could indicate that it has less thrust available for movement (speed and manuevering). It should also be noted that maneuverability also relates to non-thrust based manuverability too, the Battloids can still do "roll", "yaw", and "pitch" manuvers by moving their bodies/limbs to keep a target in sight (or avoid a shot).

Seto wrote:While that's true, the usefulness of verniers for that kind of thing depends on their maximum rated output and the amount of fuel available for them to burn. That tends to bias things towards a larger airframe which has more room for fuel.

Very true, but it's probably also worth considering how the verniers are being powered because while you could power them seperately:
-there is some precedent form real world spacecraft for the RCS and main engines to share fuel sources (Soyuz T and later variants like the TM and TMA), though the common approach is seperate systems
-it is also possible the verneirs could be powered by the main engine directly (ala X-32 or the non-traditional AV-8 with its side ports as opposed to the rear). We know the Alpha and Beta both have this capability (even if HG insists these are seperate VTOL engines), which means theoretically they could power other exhaust ports. The ASC units aren't clear per say AFAIK.

Seto wrote:As for damage, remember that the numbers in the RPG are arbitrary and do not reflect actual performance in the series. The VF-1 is shown to be more than capable of killing Regults with only a short burst of fire from its lasers.

I agree the numbers in the RPG are largely arbitrary. Even the 20mm cannon damage is arbitrary*

*

Zer0 Kay wrote:Was the rt1e 50 cal capable of MD? Citation please.

Actually yes, though it wasn't listed as ".50 cal" but rather its metric converted value of 12.7mm. This is the same size as the M-89 machinegun found on the 1E Tomahawk, Sea Sergeant and Commanchero helicopters, and the AAR-Recon II land vehicle. They did MD via bursts, but AFAIK no single round damage is ever listed for the 1E M-89. Now the M-89 might use specialized explosive rounds instead of of straight kinetic impact ammunition in these mecha mounted roles compared to the personal weapon .50cal. We know you can get explosive bullets for the Badger sub-machinegun (BK5/Sent), a 9mm weapon IIRC.

Zer0 Kay wrote:It is more effective that those improvised airfields are just fueling stations because it takes a lot more logistics to fly in all those bombs without a loader just to have them sitting around for people to hand load onto their bomber.

1. Is this universal for all Militaries? After all the designer(s) of the RT Mecha are Japanese, and the Japanese military might do things similar but different than their American counter parts.
2. Is this even universal form a timeline perspective? Say from roughly WW2 to 1983 (when the Beta was designed).
3. Given an OSM perspective, the nearest base would be about 250,000miles away (the Moon, possibly farther) or where ever the ships are positioned but none of the 3 known types are setup to handle the OSM version of the Beta in this way (and the Horizon-T can't service the weapons, leaving the Garfish and Ikazuchi and IIRC neither of which in the OSM stats are supposed to carry the OSM version of the Beta).
4. While it might seem strange for an aircraft to load ordnance this way (hand load), don't Tanks still load the ammunition for their main gun this way?

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Was the rt1e 50 cal capable of MD? Citation please.

Erm... I don't wish to be rude, but I feel you may have misunderstood my post?

What I did there was extrapolate how much energy-on-target is was equal to one point of Mega Damage using the only weapon in canon Robotech which is in the RPG and also has its performance stated in a objectively quantifiable form. Namely, its muzzle energy is given as 70kJ. Since the stats for single round discharge and burst fire both average 3.5MD/round, the equivalent ratio of energy-on-target to MD can be estimated to be 0.05 Mega Damage per kilojoule. An 800gr Barnes .50 BMG round has a muzzle energy of 20.195kJ. That means that .50 BMG rifle or machine gun can deal at least 1 point of mega-damage.

It's just a fun little analysis in connection with the point about the Mega Damage and MDC values in-game being arbitrary. It's possible, using something like that, to correct the scaling though one can quickly find the numbers becoming unmanageably large as I demonstrated via reference to the OSM.

Yes and no because your breaking the MD rules. IIRC the original was something like "even if you sprayed a machinegun at the side of an MD structure it doesn't matter how many rounds you expend as they will not penetrate." The entire point of MD was that unless an attack could do over 99 SDC with one round then nothing happened except some minor paint damage. Firing Lead shot out of the A-10s GAU-8/A Avenger isn't going to do much to a tank. Likewise firing an M2 full auto at any MDC structure isn't going to do anything, individually the rounds don't have enough energy to punch through and there is no way to get round on round accuracy to change that. Likewise loading a gunpod with soft lead bullets will see the bullets disintegrate on impact. Energy weapons however are more likely to stay "round on round" during the beams duration.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:It is more effective that those improvised airfields are just fueling stations because it takes a lot more logistics to fly in all those bombs without a loader just to have them sitting around for people to hand load onto their bomber.

Given the ease of refueling on the Alpha and Beta, it strikes me as unlikely that any improvised frontline bases the UEEF would set up in the course of a planetary assault would be used solely for that purpose. Rearming is essential, and neither the Alpha nor the Beta carries spare ammunition.

That is exactly the point. It would easier to supply a forward base with fuel than it would be to ferry munitions and drop them off. Munitions sitting in one place is less safe than going back and forth in a high speed bomber, for the munitions, the personnel and the aircraft. While it would be safer to jump out grab the coke bottles and drop them in the fuel compartment.

ShadowLogan wrote:I wasn't thinking of the Beta specifically in this regard, but the Alpha being steered toward roles it wasn't intended for. Though given the A/B stack is also being pressed into those roles along side the Alpha it would make sense for them to have atleast considered alternate weapons configurations to bring more value from the Beta (the "Beta full of Missiles" line from TSC, most of which in stock configuration can't be used, might make more sense in this regard then).

Who knows how HG might develop the MPC "head variants" in the future, though likely they won't develop the idea of other changes going along side the head and just use it as a marketing thing that exists outside canon.

All in all, I don't think we really have to worry about that... and can likely safely discount it outright, since Robotech: the Shadow Chronicles is the sole canonical offender and as one of the failed Robotech sequels it's likely to end up decanonized if Harmony Gold ever considers another inevitably-unsuccessful attempt to resuscitate the Robotech brand.

The "Beta full of missiles" remark is odd even in context since the Beta doesn't carry that many missiles and the character who supposedly benefitted from "a Beta full of missiles" was only shown firing missiles from the Alpha section IIRC. They didn't model the launchers on the Beta. Even then, the Alpha-Beta combiner's not really outside its comfort zone. It's depicted as flying escort for a fleet to land troops on Earth, which is what it was for in the original.

ShadowLogan wrote:The fact the VF-1 is the slowest, could indicate that it has less thrust available for movement (speed and manuevering). It should also be noted that maneuverability also relates to non-thrust based manuverability too, the Battloids can still do "roll", "yaw", and "pitch" manuvers by moving their bodies/limbs to keep a target in sight (or avoid a shot).

Personally, being intimately familiar with the VF-1's specs as I am... I'd say it probably has a lot more to do with the fact that the VF-1's sub-engines are a cluster of liquid fuel rockets with relatively low onboard fuel. If you recall, the Robotech stats tend to subtly misrepresent certain details of flight speed for the Alpha and Beta... often citing only the speeds for the six-engine configuration. The VF-1's got the best thrust-to-weight ratio of the lot, so in burst maneuvering it should be the fastest. Something the animation definitely supports.

ShadowLogan wrote:Very true, but it's probably also worth considering how the verniers are being powered because while you could power them seperately:
-there is some precedent form real world spacecraft for the RCS and main engines to share fuel sources (Soyuz T and later variants like the TM and TMA), though the common approach is seperate systems
-it is also possible the verneirs could be powered by the main engine directly (ala X-32 or the non-traditional AV-8 with its side ports as opposed to the rear). We know the Alpha and Beta both have this capability (even if HG insists these are seperate VTOL engines), which means theoretically they could power other exhaust ports. The ASC units aren't clear per say AFAIK.

Undeniably worth considering, though configurations like that have their limits... especially when it comes to diverting main engine output, since the positioning of such nozzles becomes very limited and reduces their usefulness unless the system becomes extremely complex and bulky like the vernier rings on Macross's VF-14, VF-17, VF-19F/S, etc.

ShadowLogan wrote:While AotSC does state the Railgun is 70kJ, the question does have to be considered if that output is for a single round or from a burst (where it could be doing the most damage) in how PB interpretted the value/statment assuming they factored it in at all.

Muzzle energy is always listed on a single-round basis... that assumption makes no logical sense.

If it were for a 10 round burst, then that heavy anti-vehicle railgun is considerably less powerful than a bolt-action rifle chambered for .600 Nitro Express... the lightest option for which offers more than 9kJ in muzzle energy.

ShadowLogan wrote:1. Is this universal for all Militaries? After all the designer(s) of the RT Mecha are Japanese, and the Japanese military might do things similar but different than their American counter parts.
2. Is this even universal form a timeline perspective? Say from roughly WW2 to 1983 (when the Beta was designed).
3. Given an OSM perspective, the nearest base would be about 250,000miles away (the Moon, possibly farther) or where ever the ships are positioned but none of the 3 known types are setup to handle the OSM version of the Beta in this way (and the Horizon-T can't service the weapons, leaving the Garfish and Ikazuchi and IIRC neither of which in the OSM stats are supposed to carry the OSM version of the Beta).
4. While it might seem strange for an aircraft to load ordnance this way (hand load), don't Tanks still load the ammunition for their main gun this way?

1. No. Though it's worth noting that MOSPEADA draws its inspiration from the US forces in World War II not Japanese practice for the most part.
2. Nope.
3. The Horizont can actually carry a TLEAD in its cargo pods, there is art showing as much. It can't be launched from there, but it can be deployed after the Horizont lands and drops off its cargo at the chosen landing site.
4. Yes, tanks are still loaded by hand. It would be quite unusual for a bomber to be loaded purely by hand one bomb at a time, but dedicated bombers seldom carry such small, light munitions. Fighter-bombers of the Second World War were loaded by hand, though.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Yes and no because your breaking the MD rules. IIRC the original was something like "even if you sprayed a machinegun at the side of an MD structure it doesn't matter how many rounds you expend as they will not penetrate."

Only for a weapon that is not capable of inflicting Mega Damage... my little thought experiment there was intended to show how arbitrary the distinction is by showing that even conventional weapons are technically MD in terms of how much energy they convey to the target.

Zer0 Kay wrote:That is exactly the point. It would easier to supply a forward base with fuel than it would be to ferry munitions and drop them off. Munitions sitting in one place is less safe than going back and forth in a high speed bomber, for the munitions, the personnel and the aircraft. While it would be safer to jump out grab the coke bottles and drop them in the fuel compartment.

Remember, the Mars Colony Recapture forces in the original and UEEF in RT are infantry-based forces. Their operating profile is to force their way through any opposition in orbit for long enough to drop ground troops and supplies to establish beachheads on the planet's surface (ala Point K) and then operate from those to strike at the enemy. The Legioss/Alpha and TLEAD/Beta are designed to support those troops from the air, and their supplies of fuel and ammunition are going to be dropping from orbit to those staging areas the same way the ground forces do: on Horizont descent shuttles and on Garfish high-speed transports. It would make sense for autoloaders to be a part of the supplies dropped, but it also makes sense to have the ability to manually load in the event that autoloaders aren't available.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:That is exactly the point. It would easier to supply a forward base with fuel than it would be to ferry munitions and drop them off. Munitions sitting in one place is less safe than going back and forth in a high speed bomber, for the munitions, the personnel and the aircraft. While it would be safer to jump out grab the coke bottles and drop them in the fuel compartment.

Remember, the Mars Colony Recapture forces in the original and UEEF in RT are infantry-based forces. Their operating profile is to force their way through any opposition in orbit for long enough to drop ground troops and supplies to establish beachheads on the planet's surface (ala Point K) and then operate from those to strike at the enemy. The Legioss/Alpha and TLEAD/Beta are designed to support those troops from the air, and their supplies of fuel and ammunition are going to be dropping from orbit to those staging areas the same way the ground forces do: on Horizont descent shuttles and on Garfish high-speed transports. It would make sense for autoloaders to be a part of the supplies dropped, but it also makes sense to have the ability to manually load in the event that autoloaders aren't available.

So we're talking more foward airbase than improvised airfield. We're talking support, troops, quick assemble buildings. Not, this is a clear field. We will use this and burry the munitions over there.

Zer0 Kay wrote:So we're talking more foward airbase than improvised airfield. We're talking support, troops, quick assemble buildings. Not, this is a clear field. We will use this and burry the munitions over there.

A little from column A, a little from column B?

We never really get to see a well established surface base because on Earth because the troops simply didn't survive long enough to build one. The beachheads we do see are basically clusters of landed ships that had begun to unload supplies on whatever clear patch of ground was available and defensible.

Seto wrote:The "Beta full of missiles" remark is odd even in context since the Beta doesn't carry that many missiles and the character who supposedly benefitted from "a Beta full of missiles" was only shown firing missiles from the Alpha section IIRC. They didn't model the launchers on the Beta. Even then, the Alpha-Beta combiner's not really outside its comfort zone. It's depicted as flying escort for a fleet to land troops on Earth, which is what it was for in the original.

I agree the comment is odd for a number of reasons. However the question is when flying fleet escort if the Beta section can be configured better to do the job. How useful are those ~16 bombs (4 metric tons) for the fleet escort role? Could the space be put to better use?

As for Mia, yeah I think she was shown to fire from the Alpha exclusively.

Seto wrote:Personally, being intimately familiar with the VF-1's specs as I am... I'd say it probably has a lot more to do with the fact that the VF-1's sub-engines are a cluster of liquid fuel rockets with relatively low onboard fuel. If you recall, the Robotech stats tend to subtly misrepresent certain details of flight speed for the Alpha and Beta... often citing only the speeds for the six-engine configuration. The VF-1's got the best thrust-to-weight ratio of the lot, so in burst maneuvering it should be the fastest. Something the animation definitely supports.

The VF-1 sub-engines being liquid (chemical?) fuel rockets though would severely limit their operating time. The later VFs might have taken a lessons learned approach and used an approach that delivered better results allowing them to achieve higher speeds at slower acceleration rate due to longer operating time.

Seto wrote:Undeniably worth considering, though configurations like that have their limits... especially when it comes to diverting main engine output, since the positioning of such nozzles becomes very limited and reduces their usefulness unless the system becomes extremely complex and bulky like the vernier rings on Macross's VF-14, VF-17, VF-19F/S, etc.

Everything is a balancing act I agree. I'm not sure I agree that positioning limitations reduce the usefulness. The reality is that you might end up with a hybrid setup where the RCS exhaust ports are powered different (some might be self contained, some might draw from a centralized source, some might use redirected engine) for what would work best for a given location since we are talking about a transforming vehicle.

For example the Alpha might use redirected exhaust for RCS ports on the intake/lower-leg/forearm modules due to the engines being located there. Redirected exhaust is used on the central spine (VTOL thruster locations) already so it would make sense to duplicate it there. Common Fuel Sourced might find its way into the upper-arm/leg modules since fuel has to make its way from the intake modules to the lower leg/forearm to fuel those engines. The wings and nose section could be common fuel sourced or self contained, transformation requirements I think rule outs making them redirects without a complicated setup. The Beta, Logan, and AGACs could follow a similar model.

Seto wrote:Muzzle energy is always listed on a single-round basis... that assumption makes no logical sense.

But is that the way PB's writer(s) interpreted it? Was it even a factor when they assigned the MD value?

It might also be worth considering if that kJ/MD ratio holds true across multiple examples. A Car Battery holds 2MD worth of Energy and a battery for a radio/flashlight holds 0.25MD worth of energy (Megaversally speaking, mentioned previously up the page). Now radio/flashlight battery isn't really well defined but the 3 most common types in my experience have been:
-AA cell Battery holds 15.39kJ of energy*. Or 0.25MD/15.39kJ =~0.0162MD/kJ.
-AAA cell Battery holds 6.21kJ of energy*. Or 0.25MD/6.21kJ=~0.042MD/kJ
-C Cell Battery holds 42.12kJ of energy*. Or 0.25MD/42.12MD=~0.006MD/kJ
-Random Car Battery** has 12V x 12A x 1hr (3600sec)= 518.4kJ. So 2MD/518.4kJ=~0.004MD/kJ.
-2nd Random Car Battery*** has 12V x 16A x 1hr (3600sec) =691.2kJ. So 2MD/691.2 =~003MD/kJ

None of which match up with the 0.05MD/kJ you calculated earlier, and we can't even be sure which battery to size to use for the flashlight/radio. Car Batteries aren't standard either. Operating time can also vary for those AA/AAA/C batteries depending on manufacturer (Energizer's claim is their batteries last longer), so even the above isn't set in stone.

*sourced from: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/Kh ... mova.shtml

**https://www.autozone.com/batteries-starting-and-charging/battery/p/duralast-platinum-agm-battery-aux12-group-size-aux12-180-cca/478444_0_0
***https://www.autozone.com/batteries-starting-and-charging/battery/p/odyssey-battery-pc680mjt-group-size-16-170-cca/411843_0_0

ShadowLogan wrote:I agree the comment is odd for a number of reasons. However the question is when flying fleet escort if the Beta section can be configured better to do the job. [...]

On its own, the TLEAD/Beta has no role in fleet escort operations beyond being docked to a Legioss/Alpha for use as a booster module to ferry it from the operation's staging area into the combat zone. It's just a propulsion system.

ShadowLogan wrote:[...] How useful are those ~16 bombs (4 metric tons) for the fleet escort role? Could the space be put to better use?

... oh wow, I forgot how badly the RPG short-sold the bomb capacity. It's 72 bombs, not 17, in the original spec.

Like the Legioss/Alpha, the TLEAD/Beta is not meant to be a space fighter. Its limited space capability is essentially meant to ferry it and a Legioss/Alpha into the area of operations as an escort and skirmish screen to give the larger warships a chance to launch the Legioss/Alpha units that provide the armed escort for the Horizont shuttles carrying the ground troops and their equipment and the Garfish transports carrying bulk supplies for the invasion force. It's only after the invasion force is on the ground that the TLEAD/Beta gains a role of its own as a close air support attacker and light bomber.

The TLEAD/Beta's existing configuration already gives it enough fuel to ferry itself and an attached Legioss/Alpha a not-inconsiderable distance. Given the way we've seen planetary assault forces operate in other sagas, a ferry range able to cover flight from lunar orbit to Earth orbit should be enough to allow a combiner to operate from a fold-in point to the area of operations in normal conditions.

ShadowLogan wrote:The VF-1 sub-engines being liquid (chemical?) fuel rockets though would severely limit their operating time. The later VFs might have taken a lessons learned approach and used an approach that delivered better results allowing them to achieve higher speeds at slower acceleration rate due to longer operating time.

It's a tradeoff. The VF-1's liquid fuel rocket boosters offer 73% more thrust than the sub-engine systems of the Legioss/Alpha. Their combined output is a little over 130% what the Legioss/Alpha's four sub-engines can deliver together. There wasn't a perceived need to sustain high-speed flight in GERWALK or Battroid (Guardian or Battloid) mode, so the endurance of the system was not a priority compared to maximum instantaneous acceleration. The VF-1 can vector its main engines to sustain flight in those modes, but neither are really meant for sustained level flight. It's going to be the most agile of the lot due mainly to the fact that it simply has the most thrust to throw around in any given direction.

The TLEAD/Beta has a similar operational concept in that, unlike the Legioss/Alpha, its not meant to hover in place. It's made to strafe ground targets with its rotary cannons in support of ground troops, make bombing runs on enemy infrastructure, and turn into a big stompy robot for ground combat in support of the infantry.

The reason the Legioss/Alpha has a higher top speed in Armo-Diver/Guardian mode is because instead of fighting like a plane it's mostly made to fight like an attack helicopter. It's designed to hover at low altitudes and engage targets at close range with its gunpod and missiles. Its engines are set up to allow the craft t maneuver at speed in that capacity, with the main engines and two sub-engines providing vertical thrust and the aft vectorable VTOL nozzle and other two sub-engines providing horizontal thrust.

ShadowLogan wrote:Everything is a balancing act I agree. I'm not sure I agree that positioning limitations reduce the usefulness. The reality is that you might end up with a hybrid setup where the RCS exhaust ports are powered different (some might be self contained, some might draw from a centralized source, some might use redirected engine) for what would work best for a given location since we are talking about a transforming vehicle.

Inevitably, though that - as well as the type of thruster used - also limits their useful endurance in that kind of maneuvering.

The TLEAD/Beta isn't really made for airborne combat in any mode except its bomber/attacker mode. Its a heavy, cumbersome thing. It's not going to win any turning fights or evasion-intensive combats. That's not what it's made for, after all. Lt. Bernard only takes it into combat in that capacity i extremis after his Legioss/Alpha is shot down and disabled.

ShadowLogan wrote:But is that the way PB's writer(s) interpreted it? Was it even a factor when they assigned the MD value?

Palladium's writeup doesn't mention it. They may not have known, or may not have cared since their damage assessments are largely arbitrary.

The reason I selected it is that it's the only weapon in the RPG that is 100% Robotech-original and has an objective Robotech-specific quantification of its performance. (In other words, no need for OSM sourcing so bias from that side's inter-saga disparities could be avoided.)

Seto wrote:On its own, the TLEAD/Beta has no role in fleet escort operations beyond being docked to a Legioss/Alpha for use as a booster module to ferry it from the operation's staging area into the combat zone. It's just a propulsion system.

I agree the TLEAD/Beta is used as a propulsion system, but said unit can contribute so much more to the role to enhance the Alpha's capability in the role of the fleet's air-defender:
-6x Wing Stations: each roughly equal to a VF-1 station (Infopedia, but even using the shorted 2E RPG version), being connected to the Alpha means it isn't going to battloid mode anytime soon so the mode limitation is a non-issue. One criticism of the Alpha is its lack of (canon) BVR capacity, well the Beta can provide that (canon).
-the 2x3 MRM option (AotSC, possibly identified in the MPC Beta manual), ironically I think PB got this right in 1E (isn't this structure identified as the Laser Bomb Launcher in the OSM). Though if this module could also be configured to fire smaller SRMs (190mm) in place of the MRM you could be looking at an extra 30 SRMs (5 per MRM)
-the MM-16 (which it does use in Ep84/85 1x by a Shadow stack)
-convert the bomb bay to release missiles (16 missiles* or 72**)

*Its 16 in the 1E, I don't get how you are supposed to evenly divide 17 between the four storage chutes or two release doors (PB misconception on how they are dropped?). Though if PB is going by the maximum capacity (4 tons), and assuming a real world standard bomb weight (500lbs, 1000lbs, 2000lbs) then their numbers actually make more sense (72 bombs for 4 metric tons = an ~120lb bomb, not exactly a standard size AFAIK).

**If done, those 72 could explain Marcus's statement, as that would be 2.2x more capacity for the combo than the solo Alpha, really that's ~2.47x when factoring in the still available MM-16 (and ignoring the MM-20s). Never mind if the unit was carrying missiles on the wings (which Mia wasn't shown to, but theoretically could) or other optional options (FAST Pack, T-Structure apparently). And slightly more importantly, huh??? are the other 50+ stored or does the bomb depicted break into sub munitions to generate the 72? I mean a rough calculation (using Infopedia sizes and sizes in on this page) shows you could stack 18*4=72 bombs and fit within the overall height of the Beta (F Mode). Then again 72 could also be the combined "bay" and "wing stations" capacity.

Seto wrote:Palladium's writeup doesn't mention it. They may not have known, or may not have cared since their damage assessments are largely arbitrary.

The reason I selected it is that it's the only weapon in the RPG that is 100% Robotech-original and has an objective Robotech-specific quantification of its performance. (In other words, no need for OSM sourcing so bias from that side's inter-saga disparities could be avoided.)

But if PB is not known to acknowledge or otherwise have factored the value in, doesn't that make the MD/kJ ratio potentially meaningless due to the arbitrary nature of MD/MDC values? Especially with only one citation to check for consistency or otherwise indicate a pattern?

ShadowLogan wrote:I agree the TLEAD/Beta is used as a propulsion system, but said unit can contribute so much more to the role to enhance the Alpha's capability in the role of the fleet's air-defender:

Oh, it could... but the question we must ask is "is there a pressing need for it to?".

For most intents and purposes, I would have to say "No". The only area where it could potentially offer meaningful improvement without a drastic rework would be the underwing pylons that don't exist in the actual animation. That poses a twofold problem: whether the Legioss/Alpha's FCS has the capability to support target acquisition and guidance for longer-ranged munitions and whether there is a longer-ranged missile available with enough stopping power to make the additional weight and complexity worth it. Macross's VFs have several effective anti-formation and/or AOE options like the multi-warhead cluster missiles and tactical thermonuclear reaction weapons, which can and usually are deployed at long range to drastically reduce the numbers of approaching enemies. The setting of the original MOSPEADA lacked any equivalent, and in the Robotech version the equivalent technology seems to have been abandoned after the First Robotech War. That may make it difficult or at least not economical to make a longer-ranged missile "value-added" for the TLEAD/Beta since the most you'll score kills-wise is one enemy per missile.

ShadowLogan wrote:*Its 16 in the 1E, I don't get how you are supposed to evenly divide 17 between the four storage chutes or two release doors (PB misconception on how they are dropped?). Though if PB is going by the maximum capacity (4 tons), and assuming a real world standard bomb weight (500lbs, 1000lbs, 2000lbs) then their numbers actually make more sense (72 bombs for 4 metric tons = an ~120lb bomb, not exactly a standard size AFAIK).

Yeah, the bombs shown in the art are definitely not a standard NATO size.

ShadowLogan wrote:**If done, those 72 could explain Marcus's statement, as that would be 2.2x more capacity for the combo than the solo Alpha, really that's ~2.47x when factoring in the still available MM-16 (and ignoring the MM-20s). Never mind if the unit was carrying missiles on the wings (which Mia wasn't shown to, but theoretically could) or other optional options (FAST Pack, T-Structure apparently). And slightly more importantly, huh??? are the other 50+ stored or does the bomb depicted break into sub munitions to generate the 72? I mean a rough calculation (using Infopedia sizes and sizes in on this page) shows you could stack 18*4=72 bombs and fit within the overall height of the Beta (F Mode). Then again 72 could also be the combined "bay" and "wing stations" capacity.

Nope, all 72 are supposedly stored within the bay... which is apparently quite a bit deeper than the art would suggest.

ShadowLogan wrote:But if PB is not known to acknowledge or otherwise have factored the value in, doesn't that make the MD/kJ ratio potentially meaningless due to the arbitrary nature of MD/MDC values? Especially with only one citation to check for consistency or otherwise indicate a pattern?

Potentially, yeah. It was as close as I could get to a reliable Robotech-exclusive number since, even though it is not referenced directly in PB's stats the RT2E game is meant to reflect canon and that number is from a canon resource.

Seto wrote:For most intents and purposes, I would have to say "No". The only area where it could potentially offer meaningful improvement without a drastic rework would be the underwing pylons that don't exist in the actual animation. That poses a twofold problem: whether the Legioss/Alpha's FCS has the capability to support target acquisition and guidance for longer-ranged munitions and whether there is a longer-ranged missile available with enough stopping power to make the additional weight and complexity worth it.

I have to say yes. The issue of being able to cue up a target for a longer range munition is a potential issue within series canon, within the 2E RPG the answer I think would be yes based on the Radar specs (range, tracking) would allow for easy use of MRM. Nothing else you have the combiner taking targeting data from a remote source (which 2E RPG sort of has already given you can link sensors for added bonuses, so the data link is there, weather it can be used in this way is likely a GM call). From a canon POV, the Beta is supposed to be able to carry and use LRMs on those stations, so it would logically have to have some ability to cue the missiles (something the Alpha should be able to tie into given it can control the Beta for flight purposes).

Weather the UEEF has ordnance that would be of benefit is an issue, but one the UEEF could address if they wanted to. The Conbat shows they could produce said weapons (Invasion comic), and it isn't like the UEEF exclusively uses 1-size missile for a given categorization (Beta carries 190mm and 340mm, Alpha has 190mm and 78mm, the Cyclone uses 60mm). Toss in things like the Garfish (missile launchers) or the UEEF nt-Battloids or Silverback options (2E RPG) and we know the UEEF has the theoretical capability to produce a variety of missile sizes and types. That renders the issue moot either directly at introduction of the Beta or afterward IMHO.

Even if we assume the UEEF is too stupid (or has some type of death wish) to put MRM or LRMs on the Beta wing stations for the Alpha to use, loading them up with known available SRMs could allow the A/B stacks to release a massive volley like in "Hired Gun" and leave them with a sizeable reserve, which IIRC "Hired Gun" had something like ~15 kills for each Alpha (while not part of the RPG rules per say for mecha, rules do exist for spaceships that could be adapted for mecha).

Seto wrote:Potentially, yeah. It was as close as I could get to a reliable Robotech-exclusive number since, even though it is not referenced directly in PB's stats the RT2E game is meant to reflect canon and that number is from a canon resource.

But it is one example and the RPG does assign values in an arbitrary way, which means for it to be even considered valid you'd need additional data points to show it works the way you think it does. While additional points doesn't exist w/n RT, megaversally Palladium has provided an idea of the MD energy density of certain power sources for the Rifts setting. And theoretically one should be able to use SDC weapons (real world ones) to achieve this (since 100SDC = 1 MD).

ShadowLogan wrote:I have to say yes. The issue of being able to cue up a target for a longer range munition is a potential issue within series canon, within the 2E RPG the answer I think would be yes based on the Radar specs (range, tracking) would allow for easy use of MRM.

A point of order... search radar and targeting radar are two different systems on an aircraft equipped for radar-assisted gun sighting and radar-based guided missile operation.

What the RT2E RPG provides stats for is the craft's search radar. The targeting radar range is likely much shorter, given that these craft are using missiles with a range of only a few kilometers. There would not have been a need to install a longer-ranged targeting radar if the aircraft is designed to operate with short-ranged munitions only.

More importantly, even in the TLEAD/Beta were to be equipped with a longer-ranged targeting radar to accommodate longer-ranged munitions on the underwing pylons that don't exist in the animation but do in the RT version of the stats, those weapons would be unusable while docked because the TLEAD/Beta's targeting radar is almost guaranteed to be obstructed by the Legioss/Alpha, meaning all those weapons would have to function off the Legioss/Alpha's shorter-ranged targeting radar.

ShadowLogan wrote:Nothing else you have the combiner taking targeting data from a remote source (which 2E RPG sort of has already given you can link sensors for added bonuses, so the data link is there, weather it can be used in this way is likely a GM call).

Eh... as a GM call, I'd call it a stretch. Normal inter-aircraft data links are for increased situational awareness and coordinated operational control. Normally you'd need a separate aircraft with a more powerful set of radars to coordinate indirect fire like that. Not to mention it only works with certain types of guidance system.

ShadowLogan wrote:Weather the UEEF has ordnance that would be of benefit is an issue, but one the UEEF could address if they wanted to.

Yes and no? When it comes to the Invid, simply having a longer range isn't going to make the missile more effective because it can still only kill one target. The Invid are big believers in the idea that quantity has a quality all its own. Scoring six more kills from long range isn't going to make an appreciable difference when several hundred Invid are coming at you. Without a warhead that offers an anti-formation blast radius there's really no point in taking longer-ranged munitions. You're just spending more - money, resources, whatever - to get the same result.

ShadowLogan wrote:Even if we assume the UEEF is too stupid (or has some type of death wish) to put MRM or LRMs on the Beta wing stations for the Alpha to use, loading them up with known available SRMs could allow the A/B stacks to release a massive volley like in "Hired Gun" and leave them with a sizeable reserve, which IIRC "Hired Gun" had something like ~15 kills for each Alpha (while not part of the RPG rules per say for mecha, rules do exist for spaceships that could be adapted for mecha).

*gestures broadly at the Beta's missile launchers*

What're those, chopped liver? With correct specs, that's an additional 48 missiles bringing the total available to 108. (Remember, those underwing pylons don't actually exist in the animation.)

ShadowLogan wrote:But it is one example and the RPG does assign values in an arbitrary way, which means for it to be even considered valid you'd need additional data points to show it works the way you think it does. While additional points doesn't exist w/n RT, megaversally Palladium has provided an idea of the MD energy density of certain power sources for the Rifts setting. And theoretically one should be able to use SDC weapons (real world ones) to achieve this (since 100SDC = 1 MD).

Ideally, yes... but unfortunately the Super Cyclone's railgun is literally the only weapon in all Robotech to have the Robotech stats quantify its performance in objective terms.

For anything else, you'd have to go to the OSM... which is more likely to be disputed whereas a 100% Robotech-original spec is undeniably Robotech-applicable.

Seto wrote:More importantly, even in the TLEAD/Beta were to be equipped with a longer-ranged targeting radar to accommodate longer-ranged munitions on the underwing pylons that don't exist in the animation but do in the RT version of the stats, those weapons would be unusable while docked because the TLEAD/Beta's targeting radar is almost guaranteed to be obstructed by the Legioss/Alpha, meaning all those weapons would have to function off the Legioss/Alpha's shorter-ranged targeting radar.

But if the UEEF is intending for the docked Beta to share its weapons with the Alpha why wouldn't the designers have accounted for this either on the Beta (move the antennas for clearance) or the Alpha (give it targeting capabilities beyond what it needed solo) or allow the Beta's targeting system to utilize data from the Alpha (or another source)?

Seto wrote:Eh... as a GM call, I'd call it a stretch. Normal inter-aircraft data links are for increased situational awareness and coordinated operational control. Normally you'd need a separate aircraft with a more powerful set of radars to coordinate indirect fire like that. Not to mention it only works with certain types of guidance system.

That is normal inter-aircraft data links of today, though there are at least concept stages for such actions to allow one platform to use weapons of another. So in a futuristic sense they could do it. From a certain POV the A/B stack already shows they can do this in RT with the Alpha/Beta since the Alpha section is known to use Beta section weapons (essentially one platform controlling another's weapons, though the link is more extensive).

Seto wrote:*gestures broadly at the Beta's missile launchers*

What're those, chopped liver? With correct specs, that's an additional 48 missiles bringing the total available to 108. (Remember, those underwing pylons don't actually exist in the animation.)

Really it doesn't matter if we use RT specs (split launchers and w/wings in use) or corrected to OSM (single launchers w/o wings) or a hybrid (single launchers w/wings in use as seen in OSM artwork), you would still be leaving the Alpha/Beta stack with a sizeable reserve of SRMs to make a "Hired Gun" style attack a viable option beyond a desperation move. If the Alpha fires all of its 60x 190mm SRMs, that leaves it with its 8x 78mm payload, but it also leaves the unit with 16+[6*3]=34 SRMs or 48 SRMs or 48+[6*3]=66 SRMs, any one of which IMHO counts as a sizable reserve (you still have at least 50% of the Alpha solo main system capacity remaining vs ~13% for just the secondary 78mm system. So which would you rather have the option for >50% margin remaining or 13% after a massive salvo?). And this assumes the RPG wing configuration for SRMs since Infopedia/AotSC really doesn't detail options for those multi-ejection racks like it does in the VF-1.

Seto wrote:Yes and no? When it comes to the Invid, simply having a longer range isn't going to make the missile more effective because it can still only kill one target.

Depends on what that target is though. If you have an anti-Invid Transport Missile and you can shoot it down before it launches it payload, that's 1 missile that just replaced the need to deal with 450 Iigaas (or a smaller number of heavier units). Radius and quantity are an issue if you have to deal with the Transport's charges and not the transport itself.

While I think it is relatively easy to explain why the OSM lacked Anti-Formation missiles to deal with the Inbit, in RT it is a lot harder to justify given historical context (Zentreadi) before the SDF-3 would even leave Earth (2022), never mind dealing with the Invid Regent (directly or via Sentinels). So either the Invid have some unseen ability to nullify this type of attack or the UEEF exhausted its supply (and for whatever reason can't make more or innovate a new option).

Seto wrote:Ideally, yes... but unfortunately the Super Cyclone's railgun is literally the only weapon in all Robotech to have the Robotech stats quantify its performance in objective terms.

For anything else, you'd have to go to the OSM... which is more likely to be disputed whereas a 100% Robotech-original spec is undeniably Robotech-applicable.

I have to disagree here. If one is trying to determine the ratio for a game world mechanic (damage) compared to a real world measure (energy), then there isn't a real need to limit the search to just Robotech (2E) as there are other lines that use the same mechanics (MD/MDC) that they put out. We even have statements from one of those lines (Rifts) that provides a vague indication of what that ratio looks like, but we can also use SDC weapons as MD:SD has an established ratio.

What is the Kinetic Energy of an M-16 round vs its SDC damage, the M-16 is stated at 4d6 SDC (Rifts MB, RT 1E, Macross 2) damage*, and it has KE of ~1.8kJ**. Now as 1MD = 100 SDC, that means we have a ratio of 0.24/1.8=0.13MD/kJ. That compares to the 0.05MD/kJ you calculated. If there was an actual consistent ratio as you suggest, then the M-16 round should have been 0.0013MD/kJ or at least smaller than the 20mm round.

Additional SDC weapons like the 9mm pistol (2d6SDC = .12MD/0.47kJ=0.25MD/kJ) or the .45 Pistol (4d6SDC = .24MD/0.5kJ=0.48MD/kJ) further show that there isn't an actual pattern. Couple this with earlier calculations done above for batteries and their stated MD content in Rifts, and it really does show that there is no ratio that is used (not that I don't think it would be nice to have such a ratio).

*Technically the damage has been upped to 5d6 in Heroes Unlimited 2E and Rifts MercOps for that size of rifle bullet (ratio of ~0.17MD/kJ). 2E RT doesn't officially stat out the M-16 or the bullet size IIRC.

**https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy (M-16 rifle fires 5.56x45mm)

ShadowLogan wrote:But if the UEEF is intending for the docked Beta to share its weapons with the Alpha why wouldn't the designers have accounted for this either on the Beta (move the antennas for clearance) or the Alpha (give it targeting capabilities beyond what it needed solo) or allow the Beta's targeting system to utilize data from the Alpha (or another source)?

Placement options for radar transmitters, receivers, and guide oscillators are kind of limited because to be fully effective the radar needs the widest possible field of view. This normally means that the radar systems end up located in the aircraft's nose to avoid any potential obstructions in their field of view. Having the nose's field of view completely obstructed by the docking hardware and a docked Legioss/Alpha renders that system useless and there's not really a viable alternative placement with an adequate field of view.

Expanding the capabilities of the Legioss's/Alpha's radar systems would increase the cost of the Legioss/Alpha to no useful end for most aircraft. Only a handful - those of squadron leaders in the RTSC "movie" or those flying escort for a fleet in the series - are ever equipped with a TLEAD/Beta. It's be an especially problematic design change for the Legioss/Alpha because it has two primary radars in its design already: one in the nose and another in the deployable sensor pod stored behind the cockpit that takes over for it in Armo-Soldier/Battloid mode. It wasn't an issue in the animation since the TLEAD/Beta doesn't have the underwing pylons mentioned in the Robotech stats and only carries short-ranged missiles internally.

ShadowLogan wrote:That is normal inter-aircraft data links of today, though there are at least concept stages for such actions to allow one platform to use weapons of another. So in a futuristic sense they could do it. From a certain POV the A/B stack already shows they can do this in RT with the Alpha/Beta since the Alpha section is known to use Beta section weapons (essentially one platform controlling another's weapons, though the link is more extensive).

Yes, the Rockwell B-1R Lancer was supposed to have the capability to accept target information from the F-22 shared over an encrypted formation data link.

That proposed capability didn't allow one aircraft to fire another's weapons... it just allowed one aircraft to flag a potential target for another's attention. The goal was to have the F-22 indirectly boost its firepower by turning the B-1 into an AMRAAM dispenser that would stand off at just under the maximum engagement range and select targets based on inputs from F-22's closer to the enemy. The two aircraft still needed to both be in targeting range, because the firing platform is still using its own targeting radar and avionics to program the missiles.

ShadowLogan wrote:Depends on what that target is though. If you have an anti-Invid Transport Missile and you can shoot it down before it launches it payload, that's 1 missile that just replaced the need to deal with 450 Iigaas (or a smaller number of heavier units). Radius and quantity are an issue if you have to deal with the Transport's charges and not the transport itself.

While I think it is relatively easy to explain why the OSM lacked Anti-Formation missiles to deal with the Inbit, in RT it is a lot harder to justify given historical context (Zentreadi) before the SDF-3 would even leave Earth (2022), never mind dealing with the Invid Regent (directly or via Sentinels). So either the Invid have some unseen ability to nullify this type of attack or the UEEF exhausted its supply (and for whatever reason can't make more or innovate a new option).

The absence of anti-formation munitions can be explained in any of several ways, I think:

First, and most obvious, is that the TLEAD/Beta doesn't actually have any underwing pylons in the animation. They don't carry those munitions because they don't have the capability to.

Second, given that the equivalent of Macross's thermonuclear reaction weaponry in Robotech - reflex weaponry - requires the incredibly rare fuel "protoculture" to manufacture they may be considered too resource-intensive to produce. Especially if, as a biological material, protoculture used in the warheads has a relatively short shelf life.

Third, given that the Legioss/Alpha is a close air support attacker and the TLEAD/Beta is a close air support gunship and light bomber, neither would ordinarily be expected to fill the air superiority role that would ordinarily entail lugging around long-ranged anti-formation and anti-ship missiles.

Fourth, as the UEEF developed the Alpha and Beta around the hypothetical requirements for an invasion of the Robotech Masters homeworld, it's doubtful they would've considered using anti-formation weapons necessary since they were expecting to have the element of surprise and numerical superiority over a lightly-defended planet recently shorn of its space-based defenses.

Fifth and lastly, with the strategic focus being overwhelmingly on landing ground forces the role of anti-ship operations may have been considered to fall entirely to the larger warships escorting troop transports and supply haulers.

ShadowLogan wrote:I have to disagree here. If one is trying to determine the ratio for a game world mechanic (damage) compared to a real world measure (energy), then there isn't a real need to limit the search to just Robotech (2E) as there are other lines that use the same mechanics (MD/MDC) that they put out. We even have statements from one of those lines (Rifts) that provides a vague indication of what that ratio looks like, but we can also use SDC weapons as MD:SD has an established ratio.

Despite the "Megaversal" premise, Palladium's game lines are rarely consistent with themselves, never mind each other.

All in all, I felt it was more advisable to limit the scope of the hypothesis's data set to the most directly-related materials only: the 2E RPG core book that HG policed the contents of and the official RTSC artbook HG published.

Seto wrote:Placement options for radar transmitters, receivers, and guide oscillators are kind of limited because to be fully effective the radar needs the widest possible field of view. This normally means that the radar systems end up located in the aircraft's nose to avoid any potential obstructions in their field of view. Having the nose's field of view completely obstructed by the docking hardware and a docked Legioss/Alpha renders that system useless and there's not really a viable alternative placement with an adequate field of view.

Conformal Antennas in the Wings spring to mind as the most likely location. Though the reality is that VFs likely have several radar antennas (linked to a central "processor") to give each mode the best field of view, since if its only in the nose the Alpha/Beta/VF-1 would be facing at the ground in Battloid mode (basically useless). Placing it in the nose on the Beta also means its pointed downward when docked (the nose folds down to a battloid position).

Seto wrote:Expanding the capabilities of the Legioss's/Alpha's radar systems would increase the cost of the Legioss/Alpha to no useful end for most aircraft

Several possibilities exist that would allow for it:
-1. there are (at least) two UEEF aerospace "fighters" we know exist (Wolfe, Carpenter) that have yet (and never will be) addressed in the PB RPG that could share systems with the Alpha (Conbat shares with the Beta), but have need for said capability. Basically the Alpha inherits the ability due to sharing avionics with another platform.
-2. while of no useful end for most Alphas, this would allow any Alpha to drop into the role that would require it (its also possible plans existed at one time for every Alpha to have a Beta counterpart)
-3. unstated capability exists for it to use based on the OSM Model Kits (this falls into GM "fixes" and non-canon until HG decides they recton something like this in)
-4. the UEEF gave the Alpha's radar capabilities that it planned to exploit at a later time in the form of an upgrade (that has yet to materialize)

Seto wrote:First, and most obvious, is that the TLEAD/Beta doesn't actually have any underwing pylons in the animation. They don't carry those munitions because they don't have the capability to.

That really only works for analysis of the old animation. It doesn't prevent use in new media (comics, animation, video games) if they every appear.

Seto wrote:Second, given that the equivalent of Macross's thermonuclear reaction weaponry in Robotech - reflex weaponry - requires the incredibly rare fuel "protoculture" to manufacture they may be considered too resource-intensive to produce. Especially if, as a biological material, protoculture used in the warheads has a relatively short shelf life.

Well we know the UEEF had Reflex Warheads at one point (Invasion Comic #1 per dialogue) available for the Conbat.

As for Protoculture Shelf Life. We know the stuff has a shelf-life from TRM saga, but it appears to be very long (the Masters having been cut off from new PC sources for at least 30years didn't start having the issue until 2029-30). There is also nothing that establishes the UEEF PC supply was degrading like it was in TRM for the Masters, we know it was getting low (1yr supply in 2044 after the SDF-3 goes missing) but we also don't know how much PC goes into making a warhead vs fueling a known mecha.

I would also add there is no requirement that the anti-formation/ship warhead be a Reflex/PC-fueled Weapon. It might be the most convenient (in universe), but it isn't the only option.

Seto wrote:Third, given that the Legioss/Alpha is a close air support attacker and the TLEAD/Beta is a close air support gunship and light bomber, neither would ordinarily be expected to fill the air superiority role that would ordinarily entail lugging around long-ranged anti-formation and anti-ship missiles.

While the Alpha might not call for it, the Beta's use as a bomber could require it to launch long range ordnance in other roles (anti-fortification missiles for ex.). Plus the Beta is supposed to be the replacement for the Conbat Fighter, which is known to use anti-ship missiles (Invasion Comic #1).

Seto wrote:Fourth, as the UEEF developed the Alpha and Beta around the hypothetical requirements for an invasion of the Robotech Masters homeworld, it's doubtful they would've considered using anti-formation weapons necessary since they were expecting to have the element of surprise and numerical superiority over a lightly-defended planet recently shorn of its space-based defenses.

While the UEEF would have the element of surprise, its questionable if they would have numerical superiority or even accurate information on the defenses at Tirol as those would be nearly 10years out of date (at best) allowing for the Masters to have ample time to respond to the loss of their Zentreadi "Police Force".

Seto wrote:Fifth and lastly, with the strategic focus being overwhelmingly on landing ground forces the role of anti-ship operations may have been considered to fall entirely to the larger warships escorting troop transports and supply haulers.

This seems at odds though with 10th MD using the Conbats for Anti-Ship duty. It also is at odds with the way the UEEF engaged the Masters in "Outsiders" during the 2RW using their Fighters to attack the City Ship(s) (Tok wasn't relegated to transport duties until late in the UEEF mission, per the Infopedia though whenever "late" is supposed to be isn't clear). We also don't see the 21st MD warships engage the Invid transports before they could launch their mecha. If anti-warship duty was the purview of the capital ships for the UEEF it certainly doesn't look that way.

Seto wrote:Despite the "Megaversal" premise, Palladium's game lines are rarely consistent with themselves, never mind each other.

All in all, I felt it was more advisable to limit the scope of the hypothesis's data set to the most directly-related materials only: the 2E RPG core book that HG policed the contents of and the official RTSC artbook HG published.

While some of the older lines are less "megaversal", more recent lines tend to be far more consistent in terms of plug-and-play IMHO.

While 2E RT doesn't have the M-16/AK-47 or the generic 9mm/.45 Pistol, they do have SDC weapon equivalents that could be assumed to firing the same cartridges (M25, M55, M37, M-35 from TSC and TRM), plus the 105mm Cannon on the VHT-1 is listed as firing APFSDS, which we can look up the muzzle velocity and mass involved, due to various options in terms of specific models here* I went with the M900 (0.023MD/kJ) and M735 (0.027MD/kJ), since the SB gives the option for either tungsten or depleted uranium (at the same damage).

Adding in the RT 105mm in terms of a MD/kJ ratio assessment shows there doesn't appear to be one. The VHT-1's 105mm APFSDS if treated as being equivalent to the M900 or M735 would hit with over 6.5 Mega Joules of Energy, vs the 70 Kilo Joules of energy from the 20mm HRG-70. Yet the APFSDS has a smaller ratio value than the HRG-70, and even the SDC weapons don't line up having a higher MD/kJ ratio.

Now it appears we've been calculating the ratio differently, it appears you are using the AVG die roll, and I'm using max damage. Putting the HRG-70 into max format yields up 0.086MD/kJ.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105%C3%97617mm

ShadowLogan wrote:Conformal Antennas in the Wings spring to mind as the most likely location. Though the reality is that VFs likely have several radar antennas (linked to a central "processor") to give each mode the best field of view, since if its only in the nose the Alpha/Beta/VF-1 would be facing at the ground in Battloid mode (basically useless). Placing it in the nose on the Beta also means its pointed downward when docked (the nose folds down to a battloid position).

Well, yes... we know where those secondary radar antennas and receivers are on the craft that have them via the OSM.

The VF-1's secondary radar systems are in its head. The Legioss/Alpha's are in a sensor pod that sits over the craft's shoulder in its robot form. The TLEAD/Beta is never mentioned as having any, as its cockpit is more or less aligned with its weapons in all modes except when docked and subordinate to the Legioss/Alpha.

ShadowLogan wrote:-1. there are (at least) two UEEF aerospace "fighters" we know exist (Wolfe, Carpenter) that have yet (and never will be) addressed in the PB RPG that could share systems with the Alpha (Conbat shares with the Beta), but have need for said capability. Basically the Alpha inherits the ability due to sharing avionics with another platform.

Sharing one or two components doesn't mean the entire avionics suite is shared... or even compatible. The Legioss/Alpha is a craft with very different requirements to any other in the setting since it's a close air support attacker rather than a fighter.

ShadowLogan wrote:-2. while of no useful end for most Alphas, this would allow any Alpha to drop into the role that would require it (its also possible plans existed at one time for every Alpha to have a Beta counterpart)

Potentially, but as the RT version cites "cost and complexity" as reasons for turning down a superior multirole fighter it seems rather unlikely to me that they would deliberately include some unneeded and useless features intended for compatibility with a cancelled project.

ShadowLogan wrote:-3. unstated capability exists for it to use based on the OSM Model Kits (this falls into GM "fixes" and non-canon until HG decides they recton something like this in)

As I have pointed out on previous occasions this topic was broached, the so-called "first strike" missiles are something invented for a plamodel/toy rather than developed as a part of MOSPEADA's source material. It's not considered canon even in MOSPEADA, and thus would have been profoundly unlikely to merit inclusion in the Robotech setting given Harmony Gold tended to follow OSM (or at least what they were misinformed was OSM) fairly closely when the franchise was active.

Now that Harmony Gold has Bent The Knee to Big West after a devastating series of legal defeats overseas, expecting anything to change in the Robotech setting is rather silly.

ShadowLogan wrote:-4. the UEEF gave the Alpha's radar capabilities that it planned to exploit at a later time in the form of an upgrade (that has yet to materialize)

Unlikely, for the same reasons given in point number two...

ShadowLogan wrote:That really only works for analysis of the old animation. It doesn't prevent use in new media (comics, animation, video games) if they every appear.

It's not my intention to sound rude, but that kind of argument has never not been wishful thinking...

On the very few occasions in the last twenty-one years that Harmony Gold actually tried to develop original material, they scarcely deviated from the OSM at all. Indeed, the animators working on the Shadow Chronicles movie appear to have ignored the Robotech stats for ship sizes and scaled their crude CG models according to OSM information. The only deviations were trivial ones for the sake of the Battlestar Galactica "inspired" plot in Shadow Chronicles.

When it was active, Robotech was as conservative and change-averse as a franchise could get. Neither Harmony Gold nor its licensees put any serious effort into deviating from the animation in what little they produced, and now that Harmony Gold has effectively surrendered the field to Big West expecting that to change is rather... unrealistic might be a nice word for it.

ShadowLogan wrote:Well we know the UEEF had Reflex Warheads at one point (Invasion Comic #1 per dialogue) available for the Conbat.

Which don't appear to have been anywhere near as effective or powerful as the ones in the Macross Saga...

ShadowLogan wrote:As for Protoculture Shelf Life. We know the stuff has a shelf-life from TRM saga, but it appears to be very long (the Masters having been cut off from new PC sources for at least 30years didn't start having the issue until 2029-30). There is also nothing that establishes the UEEF PC supply was degrading like it was in TRM for the Masters, we know it was getting low (1yr supply in 2044 after the SDF-3 goes missing) but we also don't know how much PC goes into making a warhead vs fueling a known mecha.

It's possible degradation is factored into the 1 year reserve of the UEEF, and that the Masters simply had better preservation methods through long experience.

ShadowLogan wrote:I would also add there is no requirement that the anti-formation/ship warhead be a Reflex/PC-fueled Weapon. It might be the most convenient (in universe), but it isn't the only option.

There are no examples of practical alternatives in the setting.

ShadowLogan wrote:While the Alpha might not call for it, the Beta's use as a bomber could require it to launch long range ordnance in other roles (anti-fortification missiles for ex.). Plus the Beta is supposed to be the replacement for the Conbat Fighter, which is known to use anti-ship missiles (Invasion Comic #1).

The TLEAD/Beta is designed for a close air support role... and none of the enemies it's used against build what would be considered conventional fortifications.

It would also be far from the first time in military history that a next-generation replacement omitted some capability that turned out be necessary down the road. The F-4 and fighter-mounted guns is a favorite example.

ShadowLogan wrote:While the UEEF would have the element of surprise, its questionable if they would have numerical superiority or even accurate information on the defenses at Tirol as those would be nearly 10years out of date (at best) allowing for the Masters to have ample time to respond to the loss of their Zentreadi "Police Force".

Granted, but they were expecting to fight an alien race who had culturally and technologically stagnated, who were in the midst of an energy crisis, and who were used to letting someone else do their fighting for them. The Bioroid is definitely NOT an effective weapon... to the extent that it's rather questionable whether it really IS intended to be a weapon.

ShadowLogan wrote:This seems at odds though with 10th MD using the Conbats for Anti-Ship duty. It also is at odds with the way the UEEF engaged the Masters in "Outsiders" during the 2RW using their Fighters to attack the City Ship(s) (Tok wasn't relegated to transport duties until late in the UEEF mission, per the Infopedia though whenever "late" is supposed to be isn't clear). We also don't see the 21st MD warships engage the Invid transports before they could launch their mecha. If anti-warship duty was the purview of the capital ships for the UEEF it certainly doesn't look that way.

Now, it's been a while... but IIRC it was openly acknowledged that the 1st ERF was under-equipped for its mission. Including the fact that it was equipped with obsolete fighters instead of Alphas. That may have forced a non-standard approach.

Likewise, in "Outsiders" we know that the UEEF ships that were sent back are an obsolete and inferior design that is nigh-useless in a capital ship fight and almost entirely dependent upon its fighters to have any combat potential at all.

We do see in RTSC the UEEF take potshots at the Invid ships... though with a conspicuous lack of success.

ShadowLogan wrote:Now it appears we've been calculating the ratio differently, it appears you are using the AVG die roll, and I'm using max damage. Putting the HRG-70 into max format yields up 0.086MD/kJ.

Yes, I wanted to outline it as weapons that are capable of consistently dealing Mega Damage rather than ones that might cross that threshold in a freak accident or lucky shot.