The year is 2015. In the Macross universe, that means UN Spacy

>>13610083

They'd completely overpower them. Didn't you see Zero?

A VF can do things in a dogfight that a traditional aircraft simply cannot. It's really not much of a contest at all.

>how would they do with planes that are modern real world fighters except with much more thrust, maneuverability, and armour strength
Gee I don't know buddy.

>>13610161
If it was directed by Michael Bay the US military will pull some retarded plot magic bomb or have some 8 year old computer genius hack into their mainframe

I can see current fighters being slightly more maneuverable than the VFs in their fighter mode, considering that the VF-1 and VF-3000 are based on the much older F-14 and that the VF-4 is primarily optimized for space-use.

In terms of speed, firepower and combat range/radius, the VFs completely outclass the 5th generation fighters.

>>13610197
Stale meme really. Besides, if it really was a Bay film the US would have the VFs in the first place.

>>13610083
F-22s with data linking and AWACs support, AESA radar, AIM-120 supported by missile truck F-15SE Silent Eagles on data link should make quick work of dogfight-reliant jets from beyond visual range, faster than they can react.

>>13610492
Fifth-gen planes with AIM-9X with all these supporting weapon systems is like an Ace Combat QAAM on steroids. It's like having the Ghost drones at their worst coming onto you.

>>13610492

Even with all that, still can't beat the VF-1s.

>>13610497

>Fifth-gen with AIM-9X
>same as Ghost

I don't remember a 5th-gen being able to dodge sideways in midair and fire a barrage of micro-missiles.

>>13610378
The VF-1 and VF-3000 have thrust vectoring and vernies to help with maneuverability too.

Macross micro-missiles are much more maneuverable than modern short-range air-to-air missiles.

>>13610535

And they each have onboard AI (although not on the same level as a Ghost drone) that calculates the flight trajectory of their target and work with the other missile AIs to box-in and destroy their target.

>>13610378
>combat range/radius

Fucking this. VF engines are decades ahead of real ones. They can stay in flight far longer and have a much higher ceiling.

Also, VF pilot suits are much better at protecting the pilots from high G maneuvers.

>>13610535
>>13610544
And yet, even with all that technology their missiles still can't hit anything that's moving at speeds higher than "I'm an enemy grunt."

>>13610559

Of course. Chalk it up to pilot skills + thrust vectoring + GERWALK mode + battroid mode.

I seriously doubt a 5th-gen can evade all those micro-missiles.

>>13610555
>>13610637

It's not about maneuvers or Cold War era dogfighting, it's about Real World-era planes having all the stealth, sniping, sensor ranges and datalinking to plink VFs out of the sky before they even know it.

Fifth gens don't even have to come close. The AIM-120D variant has a range of 180 km. That's far beyond the horizon. Raptors can sit comfortably far enough and be untouchable.

>>13611497
>Implying they can't just shoot the missile and close in with their superior speed

File: lolwut.jpg (19KB, 274x155px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 274x155px

>>13611497
Arguing real world planes have any chance of beating transforming space planes built out of energy converting space armor that can engage enemies within the distances encountered in space. 10/10

>>13611497
VFs have laser cannons that get used as CIWS. I don't imagine that many missiles fired at BVR ranges will hit a VF.

>>13611530
>engage enemies within the distances encountered in space

You mean WW2 gun range, then totally yes they can beat them.

File: reaction missile barrage.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>13611497
You're also forgetting all Valkyries have active stealth. Those planes aren't locking onto shit.

>>13611706
IR signatures are still IR signatures

>>13611497
>Using missiles against VFs
You do know that they have laser CIWS, and they have no problems shooting down micro-missiles even with their gunpod, and our missiles aren't as tiny as the ones they deal with regularly, and they deal with missile swarms reguarly.

Expecting our missiles to hit a VF is silly.

File: Macross - Carrier Force.jpg (2MB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1440px

>>13611729

IR sensors on aircraft don't have much more range than your AIM-120. From a frontal approach facing a VF's active stealth an IR sensor isn't going to catch jack on heat signatures. Unless you're saying that the AIM-120 can do BVR-IR in which case I call into question your blood alcohol levels.

But let's assume that the VF's active stealth doesn't exist and assume the proposed viewpoint that current-world fighters and missile technology can shoot down VFs that have repeatedly proven themselves capable of outmaneuvering more agile missiles themselves.

At 10 000 meters operation ceiling (a range within the F-22A's own) a VF-11B (without its ubiquitous booster pack) can maneuver and supercruise at Mach 3.5+. Now, I don't know how fast a single AIM-120 missile flies at specific heights but let's take its maximum maintained speed of Mach 4 for this.

That's not a very large speed difference. The whipping boy of Macross 7 could dodge the missile entirely through maneuvering. If the pilot feels lazy, he/she only has to climb to 30 000 meters and above by which the VF-11's top speed is now Mach 8.2 - faster than the missile. Certainly out of reach of the F-22A's own tracking. No doubt the AIM-120 is quite maneuverable as contrary to depictions of missiles in HAWX and anything that isn't a QAAM in Ace Combat, but I sincerely doubt the AIM-120, which has to contend with air resistance, is more maneuverable than a standard micromissile, either of UN/NUNS/rouge Zentran/Mentran make which usually have either their own maneuvering thrusters or thrust vectoring, in space, where there is no pesky air resistance. It's not like the VF-11B can't outmaneuver them long enough to dump flares and pull evasion, either.

Maybe it is possible to shoot down a Plus-era standard VF with a modern fighter. At an exchange rate of maybe 1 VF : 20 fighters with satellite support, ground jamming, and AA-protected airzones, maybe. Maybe.

3/10 for persistence, /k/ is that way.

>>13611497

>stealth
All VFs have active stealth.

>sniping
VFs can equip long-range missiles. They can use reaction weaponry too.

>sensor ranges
Their sensors can detect their enemies before they show up in visual range.

>datalinking
There are EW and AEW/C variants of the VF-1.

>>13611497
>The AIM-120D variant has a range of 180 km. That's far beyond the horizon. Raptors can sit comfortably far enough and be untouchable.

Macross' AIM-120D is enhanced with overtechnology, making it superior. In fact, all the real-world missiles are enhanced that way in Macross.

File: missile-rms1reaction-dyrl.gif (50KB, 1000x477px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1000x477px

Are these reaction missiles common in the Macross universe?

Are they "clean" nukes? Meaning, do they give off harmful radiation after detonating?

File: mmm.jpg (51KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x540px

>implying a 5th gen can escape an Itano Circus.

>>13611849
>Are these reaction missiles common in the Macross universe?
They are. They can equip their entire fleet of VFs with them if they want to.
Macross has godly mass-production facilities.

>Are they "clean" nukes? Meaning, do they give off harmful radiation after detonating?
No idea. Some sources say they are anti-matter nukes.

File: 49205831_p0.jpg (405KB, 828x1200px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 828x1200px

>>13611849
Reaction missiles are standard equipment for all VFs and no there's no radiation since they technically aren't "nukes". They're anti-matter missiles.

File: RIMG3252.jpg (105KB, 1000x692px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1000x692px

>>13611849

>>13611867
>>13611864

That puts real world aircraft at a huge disadvantage then.

>>13611815
>AA

>AA-protected airzones

Destroids (plus VA-3s and VB-6s, if we include post-2015 mecha) to the rescue.

>>13611867
>>13611870
You know, I was wondering.
What if we pitted someone on the tier of Mobius 1 and Blaze against reaction warhead-equipped VF-4s? I mean, Mobius 1 and his short-range missile skills could do something about the reaction warheads, you know?

>>13611922
The reaction missiles aren't exactly for anti-fighter purposes.

They use them to nuke ships or clear out hordes of enemies.

>>13611932
Precisely. Imagine if the entire Emmerian Air Force, led by Talisman, took on a reaction warhead-equipped VF-4. Vid related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG3YR8TxAug

>>13611932

Unless a LOT of fighters are deployed.

>>13611938
Hence "clear out hordes of enemies".

>>13610083
What if the Black Widow II went into production? If we consider that its design specs designate it as a pure BVR fighter (as opposed to the Raptor that can dogfight thanks to TVN), can it have an advantage on VFs, specially when it can swarm the skies with AMRAAMs?

>>13611946

>pure BVR fighter

All VFs can function as both BVR and WVR. VF combat doctrine is usually to fire the medium/long-range missiles first then if there are any enemies left, close in to use the short-range and/or micro missiles.


>specially when it can swarm the skies with AMRAAMs

How many can it load? Even then, a VF can dodge them and/or shoot them down.

>>13612038
I had to look up the Widow again, and I hate to admit that I stand corrected. Even in full production form, the Widow can only carry four AMRAAMs/Sparrows and a couple of sidewinders, and that's fewer than the production-run Raptor's six AMRAAMs-two Sidewinders loadout.
Looking back at it, the only thing the Widow has going for it is stealth, and even then, it can't do much at short range because of its terrible handling characteristics (at least when compared to the Raptor).

>>13611943
I forget, does a reaction missile need a minimum range for when it fully arms up?

The VF-1 (and some other VFs) can use FAST packs in the atmosphere. However they will slow down and lower the VF's maneuverability, except for those that use FAST packs that are made for atmospheric use.

Even when hampered so, a VF-1 gains a tremendous advantage in missile count.

>>13612049

It can be remotely detonated if the pilot chooses.

>>13611864
>anti-matter
I always thought that the real anti-matter weapons were the mini-dimension eater warheads from frontier, and the reaction missiles were standard fission warheads.

File: jchh.png (92KB, 444x440px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 444x440px

While looking up info on Macross missiles, I found out that the RMS series (reaction missiles) can be used in an Itano Circus when fired from a warship.

>>13612058
Sounds like an exploit that the Chair Force can use, if you ask me.

>>13612056
When you think about it, arming a VF with the cannon-type FAST pack opens up some interesting possibilities in a dogfight.

>>13612059

reaction - exploding anti-matter

MDE - imploding anti-matter

>>13612068
Hmmm, that clears things up nicely. Thanks anon.

>>13612063
>yfw a flight IIA Arleigh has 96 Mk41 VLS cells
>yfw you can load two RMS missiles per cell
>yfw implications

File: VF-25 reaction missiles.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>13611922
I didn't know air-to-air missiles could shoot down other air-to-air missiles.

>>13612195
Think about it. Reaction warheads can still fit under the size of a small cruise missile, I think.

>>13611737
Our missiles fly far, far more faster than their missiles.

>>13611846
Quantify what this "overtechnology" implies and its demonstrable effects in-universe.

File: YF-29 vs VF-27.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>13614842
No they don't.

>>13611922
Ribbon was a hack, did you even play 04?

The Yellows were only beatable because they were incapable of keeping their planes sufficiently maintained during the war. You didn't beat them; they jobbed, badly.

>>13614842

You only think that because you don't grasp the scale that VFs are fighting at due to their insane speed. VF's 'dogfight' across a battlefield whose area is larger than the circumfrance of the Earth. It takes them mere minutes to cross distances such as from the Earth to its moon. The only reason the pilots inside the VFs are not killed by the G Forces of normal accelerations is superscience inertial dampeners that exist to keep them alive at those speeds.

>>13614916
An F-22 is invisible to a Macross missiles. Game, set, match.

>>13614980

We moving on to throwing personal headcanon around now?

>>13614980
Macross missiles use fold detection waves instead of IR detection or radar. Checkmate.

>>13614980
>implying missiles are a VF's only weapons
We have seen VFs shooting down missiles that are smaller, most probably faster, more intelligent, and in larger numbers.
Missiles are fucking nothing to a VF pilot that knows his shit. A good pilot uses his gunpod as well, flying lead can't be shot down, yet.

And even if that is true(F-22 is invisible to a VF) a VF can shoot down the F-22's missiles, then close in with their superior speed, then circle strafe the shit out of the F-22 no matter how hard the F-22 maneuvers.

>>13610492
>>13610497
AIM-200 is listed as VF-0 armament. Pretty sure VF-1 and the rest have far better missile than that or current AIM-120
>thinking launching one or few missile beyond visual range is enough
Heh. If Fokker can shoot down swarm of micro missiles with gunpod and head laser what few slow AIM-120 can do?

>>13612059
Aren't those Fold Bombs?

I remember there being Fold Bombs at one point in Frontier.

>>13614980

active stealth (all VFs) >>> passive stealth (F-22)

>>13616914

The way Macross' active stealth works is that it's useful against vehicle-mounted radar and missiles but doesn't deceive large radars (ground, ship-mounted, AEW discs) effectively.

VF-1 radar
370 km search range; 280 km lock-on range
120 degree field of view

F-22 radar
193 km search range; upgrade rumored to go up to 400 km
120 degree field of view

The F-22 with upgraded radar may lock-on first but the VF-1 will evade or shoot down the missile/s easily.

The VF-1's 1st generation active stealth system, which warps/bends radar waves in its immediate vicinity, reduces the effectiveness of fighter-mounted radar by about 50%.

The F-22's main air-to-air missile, the AIM-120 AMRAAM, has a top speed of Mach 4 and an operational range of 180 km (AIM-120D). However, only one target can be illuminated by the launching F-22 at a time (a disadvantage of a semiactive radar guided missile). Also, the launching F-22 must remain pointed in the direction of the target (within 120 degrees), which would be difficult or dangerous in air-to-air combat.

The VF-1's standard air-to-air missile (in missions emphasizing close range dogfighting), the AMM-1 is much slower (Mach 1.8) and has a smaller operational range (60 km) but once launched, its combined sensor (radar, IR, AI, etc.) will find the target on its own. It is also highly maneuverable due to its multiple vernier thrusters.

>>13617075
>AMRAAM
>semiactive

Maybe I'm missing some detail here, but uwot

>>13610083
>How would they fare against the current real-world jet fighters?

Re-entry-capable, transforming multirole space fighters that can lock and track enough vehicles to take down a whole batallion in single missile salvo?

The US airforce brass would die from exploding boners and that'd be it.

>>13617167
No, they don't. They've said before they'd prefer Rods from God or some orbital bunker buster instead.

>>13617075

Proof right here that AIM-120s are too fast for VFs to dodge and hit, and the VF-1 would be pasted because the F-22 will get a lock on first.

Game, set, match.

>>13617075
>F-22
>AIM-120D
>one at a time
You're thinking of the fucking Sparrow m8. F-22s can ripple off 120s, ESPECIALLY 120D, like its going out of style.

You don't understand AESA radar well, do you

>>13617304
>too fast
"Going fast" does not exist in a VF's dictionary.
Only "Push the throttle forward".

And if they can shoot micro-missiles, our missiles are easy mode.

>>13617304
Only mach 4? Anything that isn't light speed can be dodged by a VF. You have no idea what they're capable of.
And speaking of light speed, all VF had laser turret(s) . As fast as you think AIM-120 is, surely with they big dumb size they're flying straight, easy picking for the turrets.
This "we win if we can lock and launch the missiles first" doctrine is stupid. What if the target is an aircraft powered by thermonuclear jet engine that can dodge, shoot down the missiles, or just shrugging it off with its energy reinforced armor?
And once an F-22 ran out of its puny supply of missiles, all they can do is scurrying back to base (surely that 20mm vulcan can't do anythng). And if the VF its facing also ran out ouf ammo, well, let's just say that no way composite body of F-22 can stand against a Battroid punch. Or kick.

Game, set, match.

>>13618542
>a Battroid punch. Or kick.

Or knife. Those are pretty much standard armaments on VFs, aren't they?