AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Macross

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-10-07, 22:24   Link #981
ReddyRedWolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Daigo you're merely trolling for reponses.

Don't tell me you aren't. You're not even debating the point points made by the others.

You even don't understand one bit about naval ship roles.

This isn't Battlestar Galactica where you have a single ship protecting a fleet.

You got a military fleet protecting a colonist fleet. Macross fleet carried over what they learned in Space War 1.

While there are escorts there must be at least one military vessel attached to the civilian ship.

This has been shown in every residence ship in Macross 7. With exception of entertainment Mark Twain and Budokan.

Though it can be argued that those ships could be privately owned.

The New Macross Class role is quite different from the Macross Class.

Comparatively the Macross Class is more well armed than the New Macross Class , having more mass tonnage than the New Macross Class also.

Like comparing a battleship to a carrier. Only in Macross Class case it is a battle carrier.

NMCs like carriers today aren't meant to head straight forth to battle. They leave that to their fighters and escorts.

Carriers are the command centers of their battle group.

NMCs do have their Attacker mode and the gunship if all else fail.

Most of the warships in the Macross universe require fighter screens or else they are helpless.

Which tells me you aren't even watching the show.
ReddyRedWolf is offline  
Old 2008-10-08, 10:55   Link #982
Daigo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahak View Post
Sorry. An Aircraft Carrier like any major combatant is first and foremost an instrument of government policy, domestic and foreign. If you want to rationalize its use, you have to do it in the context of the tools available to the government that owns it.
I forgive you. You can say that about any weapon. We are discussing its utility from a combat point of view. And I'm not trying to rationalize its use. That's what you are trying to do if you think carriers are going to be useful in the future.


Quote:
Much of the time all it has to do to fulfill any military component of its role is exist. Politicians tend to think that is wasteful [especially when looking at the most expensive single item on the military budget], so they find other things it is useful for in between attacking another nations military to help justify the cost.
And if its primary role is no longer useful, then its existence doesn't justify its cost.


Quote:
No. But an Aircraft Carrier is one of the most efficient multipurpose tool currently available to the US Government for those purposes.

Sufficient purpose built ships would cost a significant fraction of the carriers cost to build and man in sufficient quantities to get the same response times and wouldn't be as useful for other purposes like hunting pirates or attacking third world nations.

Hiring Civilian vessels won't get you the disciplined crew or command and control facilities and due to the lesser nead for surviving damage won't have all of the capabilities in a single hull.
Essentially you are trying to justify the role of the carrier by delegating it to a logistical ship. To which I say, just use a logistical ship then. You're wrong about other ships being more expensive. They aren't. An aircraft carrier is by far the most expensive ship in the navy, and that's not even counting its fighter compliment. A standard logistal ship can accomplish logistics at a tiny fraction of the cost that an aircraft carrier can.

An aircraft carrier is a big target asking to be blown up. Putting all your eggs in one basket needs to be justified in meaningful ways. Currently, there is justification because they dominate the seas. They do logistics because they can, with relative safety.

In the future, this is not the case. So yes, for the time being, they are useful tools for logistics, because they are, for most purposes, the most dominant force. Therefore they can afford to be multipurpose. But in the future, they are just big targets, therefore any other roles they can serve are now meaningless because their primary role, a warship, is now obsolete.

Basically I could use your same logic and apply it to a battleship. Just make it larger so it can carry more people and cargo, and put a lot of useless guns on it. Well what's the point of the guns? The battleship is obsolete in combat, it makes more sense to free up space for more people and cargo, and then you just have a logistical ship. You are taking the battleship and replacing the guns with aircraft. But if its primary purpose is now just logistics, what's the point of the aircraft? They just take up space and weight.

As for attacking pirates or 3rd world countries, ethical issues aside, that's what the orbital weapons are for. That's what we've been discussing this whole time. An orbital weapon is more precise (yes it is potentially), deadlier, faster, has greater range, can travel over land or water, and is in a place where the enemy can't reach it.



ReddyRedWolf, I don't appreciate being accused of trolling. We were having a discussion until you rudely interrupted. Therefore, I won't dignify the points you made. If you want to have a discussion, phrase your post in a more civil manner.
Daigo is offline  
Old 2008-10-08, 12:56   Link #983
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Until orbital weapons are legal, the Carrier is still the superior force projector. And orbital weapons are illegal at this time via the United Nations. A Super Carrier has been tested for what it takes to actually sink one. The reports are classifed, but it is know it took two weeks and they still scuttled the vessel rather than having it sunk by the weapons tested in it. (On can assume that a simple sharp explosion under the keel would sink the vessel is the blast is enough to snap the keel...but that in and of itself is diffucult to do).

(Note: and even if there are orbital weapons, we do have the means to shoot them down at present)

As for the utility of the Super Carrier. Her primary function is still very viable, and the United States has about a dozen of them with a few other nations having slightly smaller carriers, the French built carriers can probably do the same tasks as the American carriers. However the multipurpose elements make for nice secondary uses for when one does not have to defend the seaways and airspace of friendly lands, or intercept enemy aircraft, of bomb enemy nations.

An Aircraft Carrier is on the basic level a transport ship. It is optimised to carry and service airplanes and helicopters. It evolved out of being an auxilery ship to being a warship by its own combat record during the Second World War and that some of the early carriers were built out of battlecruisers. With the enlarged size, armor, and striking power of the Aircraft Carrier, it remains one of the most viable means of force projection in the world. While at once time it was thought that the strategic bomber would replace the aircraft carrier, it was proven that the carrier air wing was more versitile than the large bombers.

This may change, but since the nuclear deterrent status does only so much these days, conventional warfare is viable. Until one can create a pinpoint deterrent system, or a means of force projection that can either outdistance the carrier air group or can beat an F/A-18F to the target with supreme accuracy, the carrier will be queen of the seas.

Interstellar force projection in Macross seems to follow the current Naval model with carriers at the center of the battlegroup. Or in most Macross cases, the Colony Fleet's main weapons system is the fighter wings of the fleet's carriers and the Macross flagship.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-08, 13:17   Link #984
Daigo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Orbital weapons are not forbidden in any treaty actually. You might be thinking of the Outer Space Treaty, which only forbids the placement of nuclear weapons in space. But conventional weapons in space are perfectly legal, in fact I mentinoned several posts beforehand that USA is working on a few different projects involving orbital weapons that use tungsten rods as kinetic penetrators.

Ithekro, you are arguing a strawman here. No one is arguing the utility of a carrier in present day. That's not what we have been discussing. We are discussing its role in the future when orbital weapons and high powered lasers are common place.

Quote:
(Note: and even if there are orbital weapons, we do have the means to shoot them down at present)
Against frail, unarmed satelites, yes. Against armored orbital weapons, armed to the teeth with high powered lasers and kinetic weapons? No. Planetary defenses against orbital weapons are at a disadvantage. Using missiles against orbital weapons is easy to defeat. The missile has to fight against the gravity well, and is a very vulnerable target for lasers. Now the ground defenders may have lasers too, but their lasers are attenuated by the atmosphere, while the orbital weapon can just dump a kinetic penetrator on it which isn't significantly affected by the atmosphere at all. Keep in mind, destroying missiles with lasers is far easier than destroying armored orbital weapons or kinetic penetrators with them.

Yes, Macross does use carriers as the centerpiece of the fleet, but that's not very realistic for force projection. Do you recall the point I made earlier about how spacefighters don't make much sense? Nevermind, just read this link, http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#fighters

Probably the best site on the net for a realistic look at space combat.
Daigo is offline  
Old 2008-10-08, 16:13   Link #985
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
I see.

We are talking about two different periods on time. You are taking the far (maybe not as far as I think) future, while I'm talking about the near future and the present.

As for space combat in realistic terms, you are getting into the realm of just how fast can you be going and still accurately target an opponent? How far away can you effectively target and opponent? There may be no horizon, but there is a limit to how far away one can train a weapons accurately against a moving target. How far that is will be a question for military planners and designers.

The "fighter" may still exist in some form or another, if only because of man's desired for personal glory or to be alone with the stars. However they may be reduced to the purpose of manned scout and may be larger than what we would consider a fighter. Just one of many craft on the larger warship that can be detacted when needed. At that point it is either a means for recon in areas your sensors can't function (around rocks, planetary horizons, or in strong electromagnetic fields perhaps), or as a means to gain a numerical advantage over an enemy and perhaps gain some form of tactical advantage by having more mobile weapons coming in from different vectors on the target vessel. That again assumes that a weapon system on a smaller vessel can be used against a larger one to some effect.

Smaller is a relative term. A "figher" that happens to be 50 meters long compared to the warship that is 5,000 meters long, is still a "fighter" if termed as such by the people of the day. We might consider it as something else, but relative size and purpose will denote that day and ages naming conventions.

Of course that is if there is ever such a need for any kind of space warships.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-08, 16:31   Link #986
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Against frail, unarmed satelites, yes. Against armored orbital weapons, armed to the teeth with high powered lasers and kinetic weapons? No. Planetary defenses against orbital weapons are at a disadvantage. Using missiles against orbital weapons is easy to defeat. The missile has to fight against the gravity well, and is a very vulnerable target for lasers. Now the ground defenders may have lasers too, but their lasers are attenuated by the atmosphere, while the orbital weapon can just dump a kinetic penetrator on it which isn't significantly affected by the atmosphere at all. Keep in mind, destroying missiles with lasers is far easier than destroying armored orbital weapons or kinetic penetrators with them.
A ground laser wouldn't have the same energy constraint as an orbital one, though. And while it might not destroy an armored satellite instantaneously, it might mess with it targeting and communication. That may be something where we'll just have to wait and see.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 00:49   Link #987
CrowKenobi
Moderator
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: there... just there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Yes, Macross does use carriers as the centerpiece of the fleet, but that's not very realistic for force projection. Do you recall the point I made earlier about how spacefighters don't make much sense?
If spacefighters don't make sense, why did the Zentreadi use them?

What was the whole point of the Battle of Saturn in SDFM?

How would this translate to other productions such as Star Wars, Space Battleship Yamato, Gundam, or even Martian Successor Nadesico?

__________________



CrowKenobi is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 01:06   Link #988
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
His linked article would translate to the other productions not making much sense in science either, since all are based for one reason or another, on World War II (with some modern) air and naval combat in mind. The articles point is that such thinking shouldn't work in space or theoretical space combat due to the nature of space itself. Taking the analogy of 1880s sci-fi writers using pre-dreadnoughts in the air (tactics wise) for the future of air power and combat (which looks silly to use now), or the concept that dogfighting is a throwback to the age of knight in shining armor (one on one combat for personal glory). The article suggests that space combat will be rather different from what the popular sci-fi series project it to be.

However...one thing about future space combat will be dictacted by sci-fi of the present. A good chunk of designers will have grown up on shows like these and quite possibly try to maintain some of the "coolness" of them. Also we are taking the military rather than the scientist when it comes to ordering hardware. Sure after a few generations of space weaponry you'll get dedicated "space" designed vessels that fit the article. But in the beginning...you'll get throwback designs based on air/naval combat, because that is what the military will know at the time. Just like how the wet navies held on to outdated concepts for a generation or airpower is used like it was for previous war until they figure out they need to adapt, at which time they change tactics and designs...but usually those new designs are what is used for the following conflict...and are "outdated" within the first few months.

Everyone is usually fighting the previous war with whatever they design. The same will be true for space wars...so you can expect the first few generations of warships and planes to be based on a mix of NASA designs and whatever the Military thinks will work from their current forces...meaning...F-35s in space if they could get away with it. Or upgraded SR-71 style designs as it did fly in space (or at least the option was there...it might not have been able to get back, but it could make it)

If the military thought science could design a practical transforming Macross-like mech they'd jump at it for being able to operate in space and yet still be able to take and hold the land once it gets someplace. Because the air force and navy can only fight the wars...they can't hold the ground.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 02:00   Link #989
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
His linked article would translate to the other productions not making much sense in science either, since all are based for one reason or another, on World War II (with some modern) air and naval combat in mind. The articles point is that such thinking shouldn't work in space or theoretical space combat due to the nature of space itself. Taking the analogy of 1880s sci-fi writers using pre-dreadnoughts in the air (tactics wise) for the future of air power and combat (which looks silly to use now), or the concept that dogfighting is a throwback to the age of knight in shining armor (one on one combat for personal glory). The article suggests that space combat will be rather different from what the popular sci-fi series project it to be.

However...one thing about future space combat will be dictacted by sci-fi of the present. A good chunk of designers will have grown up on shows like these and quite possibly try to maintain some of the "coolness" of them. Also we are taking the military rather than the scientist when it comes to ordering hardware. Sure after a few generations of space weaponry you'll get dedicated "space" designed vessels that fit the article. But in the beginning...you'll get throwback designs based on air/naval combat, because that is what the military will know at the time. Just like how the wet navies held on to outdated concepts for a generation or airpower is used like it was for previous war until they figure out they need to adapt, at which time they change tactics and designs...but usually those new designs are what is used for the following conflict...and are "outdated" within the first few months.

Everyone is usually fighting the previous war with whatever they design. The same will be true for space wars...so you can expect the first few generations of warships and planes to be based on a mix of NASA designs and whatever the Military thinks will work from their current forces...meaning...F-35s in space if they could get away with it. Or upgraded SR-71 style designs as it did fly in space (or at least the option was there...it might not have been able to get back, but it could make it)
We're already moving toward unamanned drones. By the time we have to worry about space warfare, that's probably what we'll use (no need for life support, different acceleration constraints).

Quote:
If the military thought science could design a practical transforming Macross-like mech they'd jump at it for being able to operate in space and yet still be able to take and hold the land once it gets someplace. Because the air force and navy can only fight the wars...they can't hold the ground.
A flying tank? Maybe. A transforming mecha? Not a chance. Giant humanoid isn't a good shape to fight on the ground.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 02:17   Link #990
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Question on Macross related topic:

We have the crash of a giant spaceship in 1999 followed by nearly a decade of war as the Earth attempts to unify. During this time various scientists reverse engineer some of the technology as thjey rebuild the spaceship and begin construction of a copy of the spaceship. The reverse engineering ends up using a fighter design that is (now, but not what the anime was designed) nearing retirement age to become a mech designed to fight 40 foot tall humanoids. They also design smaller space warships and dedicated space fighters (I don't recall if they are manned or remotes) along with a series of mechs for the newly rebuilt alien spaceship.

After ten years the spaceship is finished and a group of aliens comes looking for it. The First Space War begins.

Now the question is, what are the leasons of the First Space War? Should the leasons have been different based on the assorted debates on the usefulness of the Macross technology (science fiction) verse what space combat might actually be like (science)? What should have happened if the show followed the scientific/military thoughts (current) rather than the romanticized version of space combat we all know and love (what we saw)?
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 02:43   Link #991
ReddyRedWolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowKenobi View Post
If spacefighters don't make sense, why did the Zentreadi use them?

What was the whole point of the Battle of Saturn in SDFM?

How would this translate to other productions such as Star Wars, Space Battleship Yamato, Gundam, or even Martian Successor Nadesico?

Note when Zentradi deploy they are a couple of thousand of them each engagement.

Real world fighter logistics doesn't do that. Worse millions of ships in the climax.

It's like trying to stave off the Russians in WWII.

A flood of war machines that outnumber the protagonists, it is only luck, restraint and curiosity that saved the Macross.

Daigo is just throwing hypotheticals in a war science-fiction.

He's not even listening to anyones' input if you've noticed.

Heck he doesn't even know real life roles of ships and fighters yet he tries to come off all knowing about space combat.

"NO I'M NOT LISTENING BECAUSE IT IS A PIECE OF FICTION"

It is a piece of fiction with some real life analogies. It is meant for entertainment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Question on Macross related topic:

We have the crash of a giant spaceship in 1999 followed by nearly a decade of war as the Earth attempts to unify. During this time various scientists reverse engineer some of the technology as thjey rebuild the spaceship and begin construction of a copy of the spaceship. The reverse engineering ends up using a fighter design that is (now, but not what the anime was designed) nearing retirement age to become a mech designed to fight 40 foot tall humanoids. They also design smaller space warships and dedicated space fighters (I don't recall if they are manned or remotes) along with a series of mechs for the newly rebuilt alien spaceship.

After ten years the spaceship is finished and a group of aliens comes looking for it. The First Space War begins.

Now the question is, what are the leasons of the First Space War? Should the leasons have been different based on the assorted debates on the usefulness of the Macross technology (science fiction) verse what space combat might actually be like (science)? What should have happened if the show followed the scientific/military thoughts (current) rather than the romanticized version of space combat we all know and love (what we saw)?
Finally out of the thread derailment!

Well they did have Ghosts in SDFM.



Not as smart or agile as the X-9 or its descendants.

As for the lesson. Never deploy an alien technology you barely understand.

I can make a list of what went wrong with the Macross

1. The booby trap

2. The gravity generators

3. The fold engine

Valkyries and Destroids were designed that way because the crew of the ASS-1 had giants.

Fortunately the Zentradi had crappier mecha except the Quadraluun-Rea and perhaps the Gnerl fighter pod, which is the giant version of the BSG Viper in a way.

As for policy the UNG got it right at first. At the event of first contact no hostilities.

Just their luck they are using SA computers which led Space War 1.

Last edited by ReddyRedWolf; 2008-10-09 at 02:59.
ReddyRedWolf is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 08:32   Link #992
Raidiantx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
There is simply more of a rationale for the untransformed macross battle carrier, which is not a bad design. I would say the macross carrier is more of an independent vessel, than the modern carrier, it has way more armour and firepower than its modern equivalent, and also has a fleet destroying particle cannon.

Well I guess shoji is really embarassed about his transforming flagship, otherwise he'd shown it more, and I do think its cool despite how unrealistic it might be lol, (me points at every other space opera there is).

On the topic of carriers, I still think if there was a war say between EU and the US, the US may just find that carriers could be undermined by the various weapons developed between WW2 and now. Anti-ship missiles are way more precise (was it the harpoon by the french?), powerful, and boasts good range. Easily fired from submarines, or a small frigate, and causes severe damage to most large ships.

Ships could be overated, we live in an era dominated by powerful precision weapons, in a war orbintal wepaons could easily be developed in a rush, and like others have discussed these would be the new dominant weapons.

I think carriers are here to stay for a long time, but I just think too many times have people thought that their dominant weapon would never fail. Remember the carrier has only proven itself during WW2, since then there has not been a war, or probably may not ever be one that can prove its disuse, especially since we have nuclear weapons on standby now, until then I am sure it would be useful as a uber expensive rescue ship and symbol of power.
Raidiantx is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 08:52   Link #993
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
If there was a war now, between the big powers, I'm not sure orbital weapons would be developped in a hurry. They'd probably destroy each other's sattellite first, spreading debris everywhere around the Earth, making subsequent launches difficult.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 13:25   Link #994
March
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Question on Macross related topic:

Now the question is, what are the leasons of the First Space War? Should the leasons have been different based on the assorted debates on the usefulness of the Macross technology (science fiction) verse what space combat might actually be like (science)? What should have happened if the show followed the scientific/military thoughts (current) rather than the romanticized version of space combat we all know and love (what we saw)?
That's really hard to say. The technical fiction of Macross changes things greatly and the way things are heading in reality would not be the same direction technology went once OverTechnology was discovered. The discovery of OT really changes everything. It's not that Macross took a "wrong" direction with respect to future history, but that it took "a direction", a direction that was mitigated by the effect OT had on the battle field. Not just weapons were changed by discovering by OT, but electronic warfare was changed, weapons were changed, computers were changed, and so forth. That would have a profound effect upon what kind of weapons would rule the battlefield and those weapons wouldn't necessarily be the same ones we are currently developing.

For example, right now, close range aerial combat seems to be a thing of the past, given the ranges of weapons and the detection technology. But perhaps once OT was discovered, electronic warfare advanced to degree where long range combat was no longer feasible. That's not a "romanticized interpretation" of warfare, that is "a interpretation" of warfare that could very well happen. All it takes is the circumstances of technology to affect warfare and one interpretation is just as valid as another. Especially when we are talking science fiction, the order of battle can be created in any way the creator wishes and it can be valid given the right kind of fictional construct.
March is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 18:43   Link #995
dahak
Utu Class Planetoid
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reading, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
I forgive you. You can say that about any weapon. We are discussing its utility from a combat point of view.
Actually we were discussing why people might build carriers and what capabilities they would build into them. Both currently and in the Macross universe carriers have a valid combat role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Essentially you are trying to justify the role of the carrier by delegating it to a logistical ship. To which I say, just use a logistical ship then.
Did you read what I wrote? Logistics ships can't fight wars. they are thus frequently underprioritised by the people who vote the funds. these people then like finding other uses for the things they paid for, whose main function is existing as a credible threat in being, because they are available. No sane military organization assumes it will only fight main battle engagements.If for no other reason than they are one of the obvious sources of manpower and C3 facilities to help deal with a large or foreign non military emergency.

The military role of an Aircraft carrier requires it to be a logistics center. That is what it does, it provides logistical and C3 support to its aircraft. Those required capabilities and thier required redundancy make it useful in other roles.

In the end the military have to pursuade politicians the ship is worth the cost. Any marginal adaption to improve such abilities compared with a design that considers only main battle engagement is worth while as the more multifunction design is more likely to be constructed due to the conflicting demands of the politicial classes.

This is all basic strategic analysis. What can you get built. What can it be used for when the politicians are looking for budget cuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Basically I could use your same logic and apply it to a battleship.
Historically battleships were used in such roles over a period of a couple of centuries. Currently they don't have much of a valid combat role so no one builds heavy gun combatants. WW2 era ones not as good at emergency relief tasks for example due to not being mobile logistic centers the way carriers are.

You might have noticed my use of the term major combatant rather than carrier on occasions. Any culture less militarized than the Zentradi, has a preference for being able to use their most economically expensive hardware for multiple tasks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
As for attacking pirates or 3rd world countries, ethical issues aside, that's what the orbital weapons are for.
a] No major nation fails to consider ethical issues when designing weapons. A weapon you can't use due to ethical considerations is a costly use of resources. There are two answers to that problem, change your national ethics or design weapons you are willing to use. The second is usually far easier.

b] No Orbital fire support capability exists that can identify and engage Pirates as well as a carrier. None is planned to exist. I doubt any will ever exist that can arrest smugglers or provide low level support to an infantry combat action. Certainly no Orbital weapon is going to be able to evacuate nationals from a foreign country.

If pure combat efficiency were all that mattered the USA would have used nuclear weapons in every conflict it has been involved in since 1945.
dahak is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 21:01   Link #996
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
"Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark."

Great plan.

If you didn't want that planet for anything for a hundred years.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 21:11   Link #997
squaresphere
Macross Lifer!
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
I always find it funny when there's discussions about the Humanoid Carriers blah blah. This is a universe where singing is often more effective than nukes. Trying to apply reality to the macross universe is like trying to take emo out of gundam.
squaresphere is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 21:45   Link #998
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
"Listen to my song" equals psychological warfare. It is quite effective, ranging from disarming the conflict to distracting the enemy.

However if the Minmay Attack/Defense does not defuse the situation, it is up to the Fighters and Captal ships to finish the job.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-09, 21:46   Link #999
Tak
☭ автомат Калашникова ☭
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Neu Herzogtum Zeon
Speaking of psychological warfare, that big Ranka image in Ep24 was perhaps the best attempt at it yet. It was creepy, and beautiful all at the same time.

- Tak
__________________
- Flight to Brazil? $1,500
- FIFA Stadium Ticket? $500
- Witnessing Coach Joachim Lw crack a smile at the World-Cup Final? PRICELESS


There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there is Master Card.


Get strong like ROCK! Not weak like Barack! Putincize now!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Tak is online now  
Old 2008-10-09, 21:51   Link #1000
squaresphere
Macross Lifer!
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Leave it to Grace to use giant holograms in homage to Sharon
squaresphere is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.