Macross - Mecha, Weapons, and Technology

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Urei

I'm guessing you fail to notice the benefits of controlling gravity. As someone else stated, it may very well be used as a g-force damper, in planets atmosphere or in space. I'll add that it's likely the case that compact version of such modules are used in the latest VF designs. It's size and output may limit it's operation capabilities and thus the value to which the g-forces are neutralized. This is only an assumption but considering the output of VF-25 or 27, even earlier designs like 19 and 22, it;s probable that this technology is already implemented.

And that's relevant... how? (Except to say we don't need a giant mecha-ship in addition to the gun to enjoy that advantages of that technology.)

Also, about the materials. We may very well have such an incredible material that would let us advance our technology. This however, does not mean that we are able to put it into good use. Structure, design, composition and for the most part, durability are what determine how good the end product will be.

I agree that complex machines tend to malfunction faster. This however is mostly due to the materials or any fort of coding errors. If we posses the abilities to design something as complex as a transformable fighter, and that includes the materials, we should also have the capability to make it function. You are applying our current potential into a situation when such potential is outdated.

Yeah, and I don't find transforming planes in space that realistic either. Could we do it? Sure, why not? Could we do something that'd work better than a simpler design of equivalent technology? I doubt it.

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.

[Raidiantx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And that's relevant... how? (Except to say we don't need a giant mecha-ship in addition to the gun to enjoy that advantages of that technology.)



Yeah, and I don't find transforming planes in space that realistic either. Could we do it? Sure, why not? Could we do something that'd work better than a simpler design of equivalent technology? I doubt it.

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.

I think you hit a gold point there, the macross designs are not unrealistic, they are just not optimum, but then whats optimum from a scientific point of view, is not what always millitary goes for anyway. You could argue that carriers are probably much less effective they are now, or even obsolete, since advanced antiship missile and torpedoes were invented, however the millitary still upkeeps them.

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.

[SaintessHeart]

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?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Raidiantx

I think you hit a gold point there, the macross designs are not unrealistic, they are just not optimum, but then whats optimum from a scientific point of view, is not what always millitary goes for anyway. You could argue that carriers are probably much less effective they are now, or even obsolete, since advanced antiship missile and torpedoes were invented, however the millitary still upkeeps them.

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.

The advantages of an ABS or even an autoradio are obvious. Those of a transforming ship? Not so much. They make things less flexible, slower, more vulnerable. What should be devoted to more armor or more missiles is instead used on the transformation system.

[Daigo]

Originally Posted by abynormal

Since you've seen it, what happens is the main cannons get blasted off by a Zentradi warship's particle cannon and severely damages the entire vessel. A warship aiming to disable the Macross' main weapon will also incur massive damage to the rest of the ship in doing so. Hence the argument that a modular, detachable weapon not built into the main structure works better.

Possibly. Although it also means the weapon is less protected. I'm not sure which is better. I guess it depends on whether the weapon is prone to exploding in your face or not. I can't imagine that it would though. That's like shooting the barrel of a tank, and then expecting the whole turrent to explode. Why would it? Unless you manage to hit the shells, which are inside the hull, then there won't be any particularly spectacular explosion. The same could be said of a particle weapon, except instead of shells, it uses a reactor(s). And contrary to popular belief, fusion reactors don't suddenly explode like a nuclear explosion if they are hit by enemy fire. Not to mention the reactors should be buried safely inside the hull of the ship.

In any case, a modular, detachable weapon can work on a non-mecha design. There's nothing stopping it from happening.

However I find arguing about the practicality of anything in other than a hard sci-fi universe in real world terms pointless. Everything from Star Wars to Macross run on their own internal logic, so whatever works in that universe makes sense. In the Macross Universe, shape-shifting humanoid battleships work, and that's that. I don't expect it to work in the real world, but it works in Macross and is fun to look at. That's good enough for me

Sort of yes, sort of no. This is a forum after all, and the topic is " Macross Mecha, Weapons, and Technology", so it's relevant. Basically the discussion started as some guy asking "gee what's the point of that goofy mecha transformation for that giant ship?". Then someone tried to rationalize it, but the rationalization didn't make mech sense, hence the discussion that ensued.

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.

You could argue that carriers are probably much less effective they are now, or even obsolete, since advanced antiship missile and torpedoes were invented, however the millitary still upkeeps them.

Eh, it depends. Carriers are good at force projection. Once high powered lasers and orbital weapons are built, carriers will be far less useful, maybe even obsolete, but until then I think they serve a purpose.

[SaintessHeart]

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.

[Anh_Minh]

OK, we're going way off topic, here, but...

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Carriers will always serve as a major tide turner in wars, even if teleportation is use.

That really depends on how teleportation works, doesn't it? If it becomes more convenient than trawling around for months on the open sea, carriers will become useless.

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.

Teleportation's just too weird to be talked about seriously. Well, maybe if we made more precise assumptions on how it'd work... but as is, it's just too broad a term.

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.

[SaintessHeart]

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.

[Anh_Minh]

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.)

[Daigo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

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.

Like Anh_Minh said, it really depends on how the teleporter works. But luckily, they are very far off. Far off enough for us to safely ignore within the time frames we are looking at.

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.

More expensive than carriers? I'm not sure about that one. We don't have them yet, but carriers are insanely expensive even if you ignore its fighter compliment. If you manage to take just one out, you are at a huge advantage. Not to mention they take a long time to build. Around 10 years actually.

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.

[squaresphere]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The advantages of an ABS or even an autoradio are obvious. Those of a transforming ship? Not so much. They make things less flexible, slower, more vulnerable. What should be devoted to more armor or more missiles is instead used on the transformation system.

I think there is a huge point / exception to the whole transforming mecha thing in the macross universe... any guesses... 3... 2 ... 1

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

[ReddyRedWolf]

Originally Posted by squaresphere

I think there is a huge point / exception to the whole transforming mecha thing in the macross universe... any guesses... 3... 2 ... 1

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

I wouldn't trust a fully AI warship.

The Anti-UN already has its own variable gunships and attack ships.

Spoiler for Vandal Class:

Spoiler for Hachet Class Untamed:

[Skane]

Man, those designs look more like they came out from a Slaashnesh Codex than from a Macross World. I keep hearing riffs whenever I see those designs.

Natch.

[ReddyRedWolf]

Originally Posted by Skane

Man, those designs look more like they came out from a Slaashnesh Codex than from a Macross World. I keep hearing riffs whenever I see those designs.

Natch.

They both appeared in Macross VF-X2.

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:

Feios Valkyrie (VFX and VFX-2)


Variable Glaug (M3)

Updated Zentradi Pods

Spoiler for Zentradi battle pods from VFX:

Regult Custom


Stealth Glaug


Stealth Fighter Pod


Stealth Quel-Quallie

Zentradi Battle Suit from Plus

Spoiler for Battle Suit:

[Ithekro]

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.

[Daigo]

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.

[glyph]

Originally Posted by Daigo

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.

The carrier serves as the center of operations for the entire colony defence force in the New Macross Fleets, like a semi-permanent military base attached to the city. Force projection for offensive operations away from the colony is not it's main purpose. It only detaches when the defence lines are weak to reduce the endangerment to the colony island, which is the heart of the fleet, not the carrier.

[Ithekro]

I think he means me. However I have a responce. History time:

In February 1975, Typhoon Gervaise struck the island nation of Mauritius. The USS Enterprise responded to calls for disaster relief from Mauritius, arriving at Port Louis the carrier personnel spent more than 10,000 man-hours rendering such assistance as restoring water, power and telephone systems, clearing roads and debris, and providing helicopter, medical, food and drinkable water support to the stricken area.

While heading toward the Indian Ocean, the ship was diverted to support evacuation operations after Mount Pinatubo erupted on Luzon island in the Philippines. In support of Operation Fiery Vigil, Lincoln led a 23-ship armada that moved over 45,000 people from the Subic Bay Naval Station to the port of Cebu in the Visayas. It was the largest peacetime evacuation of active military personnel and their families in history.

Abraham Lincoln departed for her next voyage on 15 October 2004. The carrier was on a port call in Hong Kong when a 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck southern Asia on 26 December 2004. To help with the international relief effort and assist with search and rescue efforts already underway, the Lincoln deployed to the hard hit western coast of Sumatra to provide humanitarian assistance for Operation Unified Assistance.
In mid-January 2005 the carrier left Indonesia after the Indonesian government refused to allow fighter pilots assigned to Lincoln to conduct air patrols and training flights. By law, US carrier-based pilots must practice at least once every two to three weeks to remain "fit," otherwise they are grounded. Despite the move into international waters, Lincoln continued to provide support to the region until 4 February. During the carrier's 33 days on station, she and her strike group delivered 5.7 million pounds of relief supplies. The 17 helicopters attached to group flew 1,747 relief missions along the western coast of Sumatra. The carrier's departure coincided with the arrival of the hospital ship Mercy.

On 1 September 2005, in response to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Harry S. Truman set sail for the devastated U.S. Gulf Coast. Truman arrived in the Gulf of Mexico on 4 September and served as the flagship for the Naval task force, though in name only. While the ship's strike group (Carrier Strike Group 10) commander, Rear Adm. Joseph Kilkenny, was appointed deputy commander of Joint Task Force (JTF) Gulf Coast (also known as JTF Katrina & Rita), the ship remained anchored in the gulf and provided fresh desalinated water for the relief effort via helicopter. (The actual command hub for the JTF was Iwo Jima (LHD-7). Harry S. Truman returned to home port in October 2005 after five weeks of relief efforts.

The Reagan Carrier Strike Group assisted in rescue and retrieval operations in the Philippines on 24 June 2008 after that country was devastated by Typhoon Fengshen, killing hundreds from the central island regions and the main island of Luzon. The typhoon also capsized the passenger ferry MV Princess of the Stars

[Daigo]

Originally Posted by glyph

The carrier serves as the center of operations for the entire colony defence force in the New Macross Fleets, like a semi-permanent military base attached to the city. Force projection for offensive operations away from the colony is not it's main purpose. It only detaches when the defence lines are weak to reduce the endangerment to the colony island, which is the heart of the fleet, not the carrier.

We are talking about real life carriers on the ocean.


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.

[dahak]

Originally Posted by Daigo

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Daigo

You don't need an aircraft carrier for those things.

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.