2008-10-04, 03:17 | Link #961 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for materials... Stuff breaks. Especially stuff that's used in wars and shot at. If a direct hit can destroy the ship, a graze can damage it. A simpler design means less stuff to break, fewer points of failure. None of that is changed by having materials stronger than what we've got now. |
||
2008-10-04, 08:39 | Link #962 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Quote:
Yes older cars, televisions, radios were more reliable because they were simpler, like a cap on a bottle or a paper clip will never fail, but technology is always getting more and more sohpisticated and complicated. Mobiles phones are not getting more simpler, cars are not getting more simpler, jet fighters are not getting more simpler, if anything else our millitary, and weaponary, are getting more sophisticated by the minute. Yes there will be more things that can break, which is why a device or car built today is much prone to failure then something built 40 years ago, yet the benefits of advanced technology outweight the faults. Yes we can stick to simple designs, but if we want an edge in the battlefield, we need superior flexibility, firepower and options. you pointed out that we can't feasibly imagine now with our concepts of technology, we can't possibly design something better than a simple design, however all our simple designs now, like the oudated F-14s were once advanced, impossible, unrealistic feats of engineering without specific technological advancements. You have no idea how technology would have developed with the addition of advanced alience technology, how this would affect engineering. for example take the space shuttle, in a world of rockets, it probably looks like the most unlikely design, but its the best spacecraft there is, however complicated of unconventional it may have seemed at the time. Now I am not saying that a floating space carrier, that transform into a humanoid form sounds like the best idea there is. I am saying it could simply be the best design they ended up with given the technology they have, or the millitary may have just romanced the idea of their flagships looking like the original SDF-1, just like how the world war two general romances the idea of an all powerful albeit actually useless battleship. Last edited by Raidiantx; 2008-10-04 at 09:08. |
|
2008-10-04, 11:48 | Link #963 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
The name of the VF's manufacturer is Northrom, probably a hint at real-life aircraft manufacturer Northrop (one of the participating builders in the Black Project).
Actually Radiant you have a point there about romantic relations between modern battleship and their predecessors, but I think that there may be uses to transformable battleships. One example I can think of is the three-dimensional battlespace up in the skies and space. If a battleship is fired from the top by an array of beams/dumb missiles, it could reduce the chances or areas of the ship being damaged by transforming, giving it a smaller top area and thus reducing damage. Also I believe mobility is more important than speed in three-dimensional battles, having legs allow the Macross ship to move around much easier as the main thrusters seem to be situated at the bottom of its legs. Who cares about streamline in space anyway when there is no air turbulence and Newton's Third Law works almost ideally? |
2008-10-04, 12:14 | Link #964 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-10-04, 13:58 | Link #965 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Quote:
In any case, a modular, detachable weapon can work on a non-mecha design. There's nothing stopping it from happening. Quote:
Anyway, the real reason is just because it looks cool (arguably). Personally I think a more realistic design (an cylindrical or spherical design) would be just as cool honestly. Quote:
|
|||
2008-10-04, 14:10 | Link #966 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Carriers will always serve as a major tide turner in wars, even if teleportation is use.
They serve as a mobile base for smaller units to attack from, and a very good projector of forces in wars of attrition, even if teleportation is available. When armed with a superweapon like a particle cannon or a superbomb launcher like Damocles from Code Geass, it can be a real force to be reckoned with, given its sheer firepower, battlespace capabilities and flexibility of combat. Physical wars are always fought with weapons and projectiles. But of course, it is always the smartest that wins, not the strongest. |
2008-10-04, 15:29 | Link #967 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
OK, we're going way off topic, here, but...
Quote:
Quote:
However, with orbital weaponry... Let's say you can destroy small vehicles or large city at will, from space, with the push of a button. What's the use of carriers, then? You'd need troop transports and that'd be it. |
||
2008-10-04, 15:39 | Link #968 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Orbital weapons are more expensive than carriers, and it is difficult to fire it in 3D battlespaces (unless it is Requiem from GS). Besides they have don't have a rapid attack rate, given the fact that it is nearly impossible to measure out rate of fire with insane firepower at the same time due to limitations of resources.
Besides there is also the idea of overkilling and excessive wastage of war resources. Before you destroy a city with a orbital weapon, you have to take into considerations the casualties and repercussions, as well as many other factors such as cleanup, which would be considerably more difficult (see WWII Eastern Front). Building a fleet of carriers filled with unmanned vehicles is a more versatile option than building a orbital weapon, thus the use of carriers will ALWAYS exist in one way or another. An orbital weapon will be considered as a superweapon because of its capability to hit hard from a place which it can't be hit. Building it to destroy tactical targets is just plain stupid. |
2008-10-04, 16:06 | Link #969 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Orbital weapons don't exist. There is precious little we can say about them.
Also, note, in my previous post, I talked about destroying "a small vehicle" as well as a city. Obviously, city destroying isn't the answer to everything. But if orbital weapons can destroy a dozen carriers without running out of ammo while a thousand carriers can't scratch an weapon that's in space, guess which one will be considered "better"? (Actually, the carrier may still come out ahead. Who knows if there aren't ground based satellite killers capable of taking care of the orbital weapon? But it's all airy assumptions. Next we'll be comparing the advantage of planes against sleds dragged by the offspring of Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer.) |
2008-10-04, 18:30 | Link #970 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Quote:
Quote:
Rate of attack? Uhh, that's a little premature to comment on. If the orbital weapon just launches swarms of missiles, then it's rate of fire would be pretty high. I see nothing stopping it from happening. An orbital weapon can easily be used to destroy tactical targets. They don't have to launch nukes you know. They can use kinetic bombardment. See the following, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Thor#Project_Thor Then there's beam weapons which have pinpoint accuracy, and hit at the speed of light. Yes, you can kill something as small as personal with orbital weapons without killing your own troops that are near by, it's entirely possible. Orbital support would be quicker, deadlier, have greater range, greater line of sight, greater accuracy, and more flexibility than air support could ever dream to be. Orbital weapons have a little less than half the global hemisphere to aim at targets. Not to mention orbital weapons have a clear shot at any and all airplanes the enemy might have too. In the open skies, there's no where to hide. Orbital weapons aren't hindered by landmasses, or bad weather while carriers can only travel over water, and their fighters have limited range. Needless to say, there's an overwhelming amount of advantages. I'm not saying carriers would be completely useless, there might be some use to them. In particular if they were capable of moving underwater, and even better, could launch fighters while underwater. |
||
2008-10-04, 21:36 | Link #971 | |
Macross Lifer!
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
Quote:
The GHOST drones. They're simple in design, no transforming parts, and were designed around not having fleshy pilots If Grace and her ilk are still alive. I wouldn't put it past them to construct a GHOST capital ship. Maybe it'll house GHOST drones and have some sort of macross cannon but you can bet your bottom dollar that it wouldn't transformable. They'd go for a design that combat multiple macross ships at once (the fielding of a main New Macross ship and a Quarter class Macross, was extremely successful), stream line the design for a smaller target profile, and maybe actually be able to split apart if it needs to engage multiple cap ships. Now that's a scary thought |
|
2008-10-04, 22:50 | Link #972 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Quote:
The Anti-UN already has its own variable gunships and attack ships. Spoiler for Vandal Class:
Spoiler for Hachet Class Untamed:
|
|
2008-10-05, 00:06 | Link #974 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Quote:
Not really big compared to a Macross but good enough for an insurrectionist or terrorist's budget. Well usually Anti-UN does buy from smugglers or steal Valkyries. But they developed their own mecha. Spoiler for Annabella Lasiodora:
Spoiler for Gjagravan-Va:
Cultured rogue Zentradi aren't far behind either. Spoiler for Zentradi Variable Mecha:
Updated Zentradi Pods Spoiler for Zentradi battle pods from VFX:
Zentradi Battle Suit from Plus Spoiler for Battle Suit:
Last edited by ReddyRedWolf; 2008-10-05 at 00:17. |
|
2008-10-05, 12:20 | Link #975 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
A modern super Carrier does have some other uses aside from military that may make them useful for a very long time. Relief vessels. Nuclear powered can supply power for a whole city. Water purification systems that can turn salt water to fresh water in large quanties. Meal service for well over 5,000 people. Conviniante landing area (for supplys or rescue operations). Onboard hospital. Rapid deployment (33+ knots is still fast for that much capability).
The original Macross was used in the similar fashion to carry, support, and feed 75,000 civilians. The newer Macross class vessels can likely do the same, if not better because they would have been designed for that possibility, even with the City or Island vessels in tow. As mentioned, symbolism seems to be important to the Macross Humanoids. The giant transforming warship as the centerpiece of there fleet can basically be seen as symbolism from the first Macross. They've improved the design to make it more combat worthy and less jury-ridged than the original. One can probably assume that the flagships are overbuilt to handle the transformation systems. The Fighters on the other hand...there orignal purpose seems to be air superiority and line infantry battle suit against 40 foot tall humanoid soldiers and whatever mechs that enemy possesed. I suppose one rational would be to require less troops to operated the military forces (force reduction is a goal in the miltary today. Run as much stuff as possible with fewer people). Thus instead of two craft...a high tech fighter and a high tech ground mech, they made it a two in one. Might not be as good as if they had done one of each, but a two in one would be something that would sell to Congress and the Generals.
__________________
|
2008-10-07, 10:28 | Link #976 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
I don't see what you need a carrier for those things. A freight ship would also be just as good, for less money. I never heard of any city hooking themselves up to a nuclear powered carrier before. I don't know if it's possible, but again, that's not the purpose of a carrier. We are talking about purpose driven carriers. Ones that carry airplanes for the purpose of force projection.
|
2008-10-07, 12:48 | Link #977 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-10-07, 13:42 | Link #978 | |||||
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
I think he means me. However I have a responce. History time:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
2008-10-07, 18:46 | Link #979 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Quote:
Ithekro, again, my original point stands. You don't need an aircraft carrier for those things. An aircraft carrier is first and foremost a warship. If you want to rationalize its use, you have to do it in the context of a fighting machine. A lot of aspects about the carrier can change, or are unnecessary if we regulate it to merely a support vessel. |
|
2008-10-07, 22:17 | Link #980 | |
Utu Class Planetoid
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reading, UK
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|