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 > Gundam

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-02-11, 04:42   Link #21
ila-chan
ermmm...
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: definitely not here
Think this -

which country have enough money to build A mobilesuit?

which country have THE technology to defy gravity?

As far as I'm concerned, NO country in the world have enough money to even buy scrap metals to build a GUNDAM's frame...

Though I'll be happy to pilot one if such one exists...
__________________
my life revolves only on these things...

my final year project

my beloved akane the laptop

all bishonen guys ever existed in the history of manga




The rest could just go along with me or go to hell
ila-chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 05:03   Link #22
wavehawk
O GALILEO LET ME GO
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperlion View Post
In gundam universe tanks and airplanes are now replaced by mobile suit, now in real life would it work?
- No.

In both U.C. and Seed Gundam, there are reasons why Mobile Suits work. In both cases, it's because something exists that makes sure most 20th-Century weapons systems like ICBMs, Radar, Guided "smart" Missiles and the like do not work. In U.C. it's the Minovsky particle (which also helps power MS, BTW). In Seed, it's the N-Jammers.

In Wing and X, there's little mention as to why MS work, but I think we've both seen that Wing and X don't seem to have much in the way of 20th-century weaponry. In Wing, I think it has to do with the 18th-Century warfare mentality of the whole world (All of this honorable direct combat crap--you don't do that in a real war!), while in X it's simply because the earth had the crap bombed out of it.

The reason MS exist in those worlds is mainly because something (Minovsky Particles, N-Jammer Cancellers, some stupid 18th-Century throwback) makes sure that BVR (Beyond Visual Range) combat is impossible. Radar is not completely reliable. You're forced to fight within visual contact, and MS are designed to reflect that--close-in-combat weapons smaller than ships but tougher than tanks and fighter aircraft, and big enough to carry some really heavy firepower.

Now think about this: If BVR radar and weapons systems existed in Gundam--for example, let's take the (now obsolete) F-14D Tomcat's AWG-9 Radar and AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The F-14 can track and hit 6 different targets with the AWG-9 radar, and that's beyond the pilot's visual range. The AIM-54 is a Mach 4+ missile originally designed to take out Bombers, again, beyond visual range. And at the speed they go, I doubt that an MS pilot will be able to see it, let alone react in time to avoid or shoot it down, whether it be on land or in space.

Now, regardless of whether or not you think an AIM-54 Phoenix can take out a mobile suit or not is not the issue. The issue is, 20th-Century technology (Yes, 20th. The F-14 was built in the 1970's. I believe we're far more advanced now) already has a system that makes MS useless. We're living in the 21st Century now, and unless something like a Minovsky Particle or N-Jammer or some Pierson's Puppeteer seeds the planet with a virus that makes all beyond visual-range weapons systems in the world useless, I'd have to say that MS are going to be more and more impractical in real-life combat, even if the technology to actually build one becomes more and more plausible.

It's not the technology. It's the need. And frankly, we don't need a huge 15-18meter tall mecha. If anything, we want a mecha that's about human size. And that's never going to be as flashy as what you see in Sci-Fi books or anime (look up Us Army Natick, stuff on BLEEX, etc.). Now, I love Gundams and Gunpla, but there's no way in hell I can bring myself to believe they can ever actually work in real life.

Simply put: a Mobile Suit in the real world would be seriously finagled up the behind by some geek fifty miles away with a thumb on a little red button.
__________________
"This is the worst webpage ever. Of all time."

Last edited by wavehawk; 2007-02-11 at 05:17. Reason: Clarification
wavehawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 09:39   Link #23
Terrestrial Dream
勇者
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 24
So far the major problem for mobile suit from reading all of you are sizes, technology are not good enough yet, and there are many better option as for a weapon. I am thinking for size ten meter should be the size for mobile suits, technology in future might make mobile suit work, and as for choice for an weapon, even I know that air combat for mobile suit will never work (maybe if they turned it into something like valkryie from Macroos that might work) so only thing that mobile suit could replace are tank. I seriously think mobile suit could replace tank if mobile suit wasn't one man machine and used by multiple crew and with right technology, someday it might work someday... maybe.
__________________
Terrestrial Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 12:25   Link #24
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Flores
I was also thinking... how would Gundam battleships fare in real life? Like White Base, Albion, Archangel etc.?
If we look at the concept of land-battleships as a weapons concept, they'd be weapons in search of a niche. There's some weapons ideas out there that may be interesting, but that we can't really think of an application for (for example, Metal Storm). In this case, a land-battleship has incredible direct-fire capabilities, but we don't really have a need for such a system, especially if it's inside such large and vulnerable packages. The only real use would be something like a mobile mount to house railway guns like the Paris Gun or Dora. But even here, such weapons have limited application, and have been largely supplanted by either missiles or aerial bombs.

If we were to take the Gundam battleships as they are, then that'd be a different story. The UC battleships can fly at high altitudes, therefore they'd make for awesome bombers. Archangel has a ridiculously powerful main gun, and very good armor to go with it, so it'd make for an excellent spearhead for an armored column. It'd be even better as an amphibious assault landing craft. Against forces with equivalent technology though, they wouldn't be anywhere nearly as effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander 598
They can crouch you know, though that would make it pretty immobile, and the Magella is way too small. I saw model boxart for the Hildolfr that had a Magella at almost crotch level with a Zaku which is about right considering how close one was to the Ez8.
Really? I couldn't find any reliable figures for the size of the Magella, so I decided to give the MSG mecha designers the benefit of the doubt and pegged it at 4m in height. At around 10m tall, it becomes a much worse design.

I think that the best firing position for mecha would be the prone position, just like modern infantry, with most of the armor going to the head and shoulders. The problem remains that, even prone, a mobile suit is still far bigger than a tank, and that it'd be immobile as you pointed out. The issues of weapons size and armor protection remain mostly unchanged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander 598
But my point is that mobile suits are often made out to be outright ludicrous in size and sitting ducks because of it when they can find cover without much trouble.(Igloo Ep 2, and that was open terrain!)
A target that's 7 storeys tall does make for a ludicrous large target. The only way to get cover most of the time is by going to ground like infantry does. You're very unlikely to conveniently find 18m tall cover in the vast majority of battlefields. In general, a mobile suit is a target that a tank gunner would relish getting to shoot at. Heck, it'd even be terribly vulnerable to infantry weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander 598
What's interesting to note is that all the images of the F22 certainly don't make it out to be as big as it actually is...either that or your Abrams is out of scale on that pic.
The reason most pictures of the F-22 don't make it look so big is that most of them are of it in flight. There's nothing to reference it with sizewise, so it's hard to guesstimate. If an F-22 got caught on the ground it'd be nothing more than a target.

My Abrams is about the right size. Most modern MBT are anywhere from 2-3m tall, and the M-1 is at the high end of this at 2.89m. This is about 1/6th the height of a Zaku II, which is what the picture shows. It also shows the reason why a mobile suit is worse off in the size comparison: its largest dimensions (height and width) represents it's most common target profile as well. This isn't true for tanks which generally present their smallest target profile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wavehawk
- No.
I agree on all of wavehawk's points. A more expensive vehicle whose shape is less effective for its environment is useless in air, space and at sea. Only the land exists as anything even resembling a viable battlefield for mecha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperlion
I am thinking for size ten meter should be the size for mobile suits, technology in future might make mobile suit work, and as for choice for an weapon, even I know that air combat for mobile suit will never work (maybe if they turned it into something like valkryie from Macroos that might work) so only thing that mobile suit could replace are tank.
If mecha could transform into a fighter for air combat, then they'd fare better if they were designed as pure fighters to begin with. They'd be far less complicated, and would hence be easier to design, less prone to failures, and cheaper to build to boot.

A 10m mecha would be a big improvement over the 18m ones we commonly see, but it'd still be a big a target as a double-decker bus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperlion
I seriously think mobile suit could replace tank if mobile suit wasn't one man machine and used by multiple crew and with right technology, someday it might work someday... maybe.
This shouldn't be much of a problem. I just threw it out as an issue with how mobile suits are depicted. There's nothing that's keeping one from designing them with multiple crew - this is even commonly seen in Macross.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 13:50   Link #25
Commander 598
Zeonic
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to Commander 598
Quote:
You're very unlikely to conveniently find 18m tall cover in the vast majority of battlefields.
There are seriously a lot of hills and dips in the terrain that would be more than capable of hiding something that big and putting whatever comes over that hill well within MS range, which canonically is about 10km(Magella Cannon, 08th Team).

Quote:
The reason most pictures of the F-22 don't make it look so big is that most of them are of it in flight. There's nothing to reference it with sizewise, so it's hard to guesstimate. If an F-22 got caught on the ground it'd be nothing more than a target.
Actually I normally use the cockpit as a guess and there are a few with mechanics near some part of it. The air intake looks to be over 5ft from bottom to top. The cockpit only looks to be about 8ft long.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-991769b.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/a...90518f2238.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f22-002.jpg

Quote:
Really? I couldn't find any reliable figures for the size of the Magella, so I decided to give the MSG mecha designers the benefit of the doubt and pegged it at 4m in height. At around 10m tall, it becomes a much worse design.
Yes, it's a ludicrous design. Doesn't negate the fact that it's main gun can one shot most targets from 10km away. I have to wonder just what it was truly designed as. Possibly some sort of artillery/tank/tank destroyer hybrid...?

Quote:
A 10m mecha would be a big improvement over the 18m ones we commonly see, but it'd still be a big a target as a double-decker bus.
I've always been quite fond of 13m...

Something I find interesting is that given similar technology, wouldn't a Zaku be capable of having even greater sensors than conventional vehicles? It's definitely not lacking in space nor power supply for them. Is that a shoulder launched Tomahawk I smell...?
Commander 598 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 14:19   Link #26
Demongod86
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
The F-22s size is fairly irrelevant when it goes faster than sound and is completely stealth. And worst to worst, it's about as maneuverable as an Su-37. A zaku? Slow and unmaneuverable.
__________________
Signature stolen by a horde of carnivorous bunnies. It is an unscientifically proven fact that they are attracted to signatures which break the signature rules.
Demongod86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 14:26   Link #27
Skyfall
Lost in my dreams...
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander 598 View Post
There are seriously a lot of hills and dips in the terrain that would be more than capable of hiding something that big and putting whatever comes over that hill well within MS range, which canonically is about 10km(Magella Cannon, 08th Team).
No hill is going to protect that 18m slow, walking tin can from a missile launched from 10 miles away. Unless you insist that the land is covered with 18m high wall-like hills. No way in hell is a guided missile going to miss an immobile target as big as an apartment building. And there goes your milliards of $ you spent building that thing.

Sure - it might be capable of hiding behind apartment buildings... one problem tho - who the heck would build a weapon that utilizes the cover of residential area as it's main(only) means of staying intact ?


Quote:
Something I find interesting is that given similar technology, wouldn't a Zaku be capable of having even greater sensors than conventional vehicles? It's definitely not lacking in space nor power supply for them. Is that a shoulder launched Tomahawk I smell...?
It can have space for 20 Tomahawk launcher for all it's worth - the same missile will still blow it all up to kingdom come. Chances are that such a big pile of junk will be detected on radar much earlier than anything else. A walking bullseye is not a good spot where to mount a large variety of weapons, if you are planning of making use of them before they are turned in to a smoking pile of crap.

Why mount a Tomahawk missile on something like that, where one could, probably, produce 50 normal launchers/tanks/aircrafts for the same cost, and achieve a much greater effect, both in firepower and tactical possibilities, as well as survivability ?

Not to mention the maintenance alone of that thing would kill you. As it stands, building a mecha in real life for general combat purpose is as impractical as it can possibly get. I can't imagine a situation where a squadron of tanks/planes wouldn't be able to out-perform such a thing. Heck, a single plane is capable of out-performing it most likely. Heck, In a 1v1 between an 18m mecha and F-22 i would place my money on the plane in a heartbeat.
__________________
Skyfall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 15:30   Link #28
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander 598
There are seriously a lot of hills and dips in the terrain that would be more than capable of hiding something that big and putting whatever comes over that hill well within MS range, which canonically is about 10km(Magella Cannon, 08th Team).
Where are you going to find 7-storey hills? Any place where you have terrain like that, you'd almost certainly be better off with tanks in hull-down positions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander 598
Actually I normally use the cockpit as a guess and there are a few with mechanics near some part of it. The air intake looks to be over 5ft from bottom to top. The cockpit only looks to be about 8ft long.
You used some really wierd pictures for scaling purposes. Here's something that may be more useful:
http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/f22/f22_4.jpg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander 598
Yes, it's a ludicrous design. Doesn't negate the fact that it's main gun can one shot most targets from 10km away. I have to wonder just what it was truly designed as. Possibly some sort of artillery/tank/tank destroyer hybrid...?
The best in-universe thing I can think of is that the Zeons are spacenoids; hence, they are ignorant of tank design and just designed a really crappy tank. We don't build 10m tanks because the only time they'd see any success is if their enemies end up laughing too hard to be able to shoot at them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander 598
Something I find interesting is that given similar technology, wouldn't a Zaku be capable of having even greater sensors than conventional vehicles? It's definitely not lacking in space nor power supply for them. Is that a shoulder launched Tomahawk I smell...?
Why would you need something like that? Ground vehicles should be either designed for indirect fire or direct fire. If they have direct fire weapons, then they wouldn't need any fancy sensors since their target has to be in LOS. In the real world, tanks have all sorts of passive LOS sensors, but they never mount radar. Indirect fire vehicles would either get firing instructions from a forward observer, map grid fire missions, or the more recent satellite imaging, so they wouldn't need any bulky sensors either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyfall
Not to mention the maintenance alone of that thing would kill you. As it stands, building a mecha in real life for general combat purpose is as impractical as it can possibly get. I can't imagine a situation where a squadron of tanks/planes wouldn't be able to out-perform such a thing. Heck, a single plane is capable of out-performing it most likely. Heck, In a 1v1 between an 18m mecha and F-22 i would place my money on the plane in a heartbeat.
This is a very good assessment. The only place I can think of where a mecha might be more effective than a similarly advanced tank is an environment where the mecha can operate, but the tank cannot. However, for the life of me, I can't imagine any such environment existing.



Off-topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demongod86
The F-22s size is fairly irrelevant when it goes faster than sound and is completely stealth. And worst to worst, it's about as maneuverable as an Su-37.
When it comes to maneuvability, the F-22 would probably fall slightly short of the Su-35. The F-22 has 2D thrust vectoring, but the Su-35 can do the same thing asymmetrically, and has forward canards for better control. The Su-37 has 3D thrust vectoring, and should be much more capable than the F-22. Still this is an example of what 3D thrust vectoring can do:
http://www.crazyaviation.com/movies/CA_SU-30.wmv

The current maneuverability king is the Su-47, with its inverted wing design. Incidentally, this plane looks just like the YF-19 in Macross Plus . For all sorts of reasons, the Macross designs give a better impression of being military vehicles than Gundam ones.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 15:47   Link #29
kiramuro
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Su-47 may win in the subsonic maneuverability area but in the modern theater of air warfare low-speed dog fights aren't that important. In fact it's not expected that the F/A-22 will engage in any dog fights. Stealth, accurate targeting/avionics and speed are much more crucial. Basically you want to get to your target before your enemy does and high-tail out of there after you launched a bunch of missiles.

In a straight up fight between a F/A 22 and the Strike Freedom I don't think the Raptor have enough firepower to put a scratch on the S. Freedom.

Last edited by kiramuro; 2007-02-11 at 16:00.
kiramuro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 16:18   Link #30
anselfir
Style Über Alles
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NYC/Chicago
no. decentralized probes/drones work much better, and low profile, agile systems already work better as a platform than gundams. it is just an anthromorphorization of tanks or ships.
__________________
anselfir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 16:30   Link #31
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I think it all boils down to one thing: whatever technology you can use to make working mechas, you can use to make tanks and planes that'll be cheaper and able to beat up your mecha and steal its lunch money with one hand tied behind their backs.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 20:53   Link #32
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
It appears some issues regarding the possibilities of mobile suits have been addressed. I'll admit not all of them. I'm kind of sensing some Gundam Wing hate from some people, though.

Anyways, I've been reading upon the concerns of armor. I agree with that, though the concept of such a thing isn't that highly impropable. In fact, that theory should be tested out. I'm guessing most of everyone is thinking that if someone was to build a mobile suit, the protective armor would be the strongest and/or lightest possible metal we have in this world. That would also imply titanium or the next strongest metal. Although that thought pattern is understandable and valid, I implore everyone to think outside of the box in terms of science. Afterall, science wouldn't progress if people keep thinking inside the box. So, why not a chemically created alloy like most Gundam series usually suggest? I'm a Gundam Wing fan, so I'll use Gundam Wing as an example. In Gundam Wing, their "Gundanium" alloy isn't a mere new metal they uncovered. In fact, it's chemicals combined in zero gravity to create an alloy, supposedly powerful enough to defend against beam weaponry, heat resistence and of course, bullets. The concept I read up on it was intriguing and convincing enough that maybe it's possible. It was indicated that plasma was one of the chemicals used. Now, having done some research, I found out that plasma has a magnetic quality that may even produce a magnetic field. Plasma also has some heat-resistant qualities. Now, given for the weight problem, considering the theory/concept is dealing with chemicals, the weight of the alloy can possibly lighter than any metal found in Earth. So, the concept is possible. We can't exactly disprove it until we try it. The only problem to this is we'll practically have to be in outer space to try something like this. This means that we'd have to rely on NASA or any other space program, and considering the limited amount of space travel done today, it would be quite difficult to test out.

Another problem is power supply. There's nothing in this world that can power a mobile suit of any form. Sure, we can try the imbelical cord idea from Neon Genesis Evangelion, but that's not really a good idea in a combat situation. So, we'll have to resort to other ideas. Nuclear powered like Freedom/Strike Freedom and Justice/Infinite Justice? A bit risky if it leaks, but that's one idea. We're getting there. Slowly, but surely. Another concept idea is the fusion reactor. In practicality, harnessing a the power of the sun. It's possible, requiring several hydrogen attoms and a laser, but we'd need a container that can take such a punishment. So, I'd say the armor concept I spoke about would have to be invented first. The reason I say this is because of the magnetic field it would produce. With an armor emitting a magnetic field (which is pretty much like an i-field) all around the power source like a ball, the reaction would be forced to remain at the center. Once that's resolved, another problem would be somehow drawing the power from such a thing...and of course, the same problem as a nuke. A leak can be deadly and the theory for what could happen is endless. Maybe the sudden expansion would cause the reaction to disappate or we've just created another sun. Scary, isn't it?

And of course, the argument about giant bi-pedal robots that a lot of people use. If a robot falls to the ground, it's screwed. Actually, I don't believe that. It shouldn't have any problems getting up just like any other human being. They just need to immitate the movement. Given the type of mechanical and technological advancements we have today, I'd say mobile suits wouldn't be moving slowly as people claim. At the beginning, during the creation of a mobile suit, I'd believe that they would be moving slowly, but if a creation of a mobile suit ever came to be, the builders would have no problem thinking up ways to improve their mobility and reaction time. And if you some people are thinking about all that work the pilot has to do to make a robot move, that's not true. It's the same idea as driving a car. You move the steering wheel, work the pedals and the shift knob. The rest tends to be mechanically automatic. You don't exactly wind up the engine of the car anymore, do you? With today's advancements, it's possible to make the controls pilot friendly where-in most of the actions of a robot is quite automatic with a single flip of a switch or a turn of a joystick. It's all a matter of how you want it to work.

As for size, I believe 15-16 meters is a good enough size for the mechanics to fit. That's not too big. In fact, the foot of a mobile suit that size would be about the same size as a economy car, which isn't that huge.

In conclusion, I agree that the need for a mobile suit isn't there for the world to be forced to create such things. I believe the possibility of mobile suits are there, though we're lacking a few things to make it work completely. I believe that with that in mind, the possibilities does not simply lie in the Gundam series, but in other animes as well. For example, the "fakes" in Gasaraki or the M9s in Full Metal Panic... minus the cloaking technology. Nearly all the requirements to make a mobile suit is there, we just now need the will to create such a thing.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 21:27   Link #33
SoldierOfDarkness
The Dark Knight
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think?
Age: 28
Whatever the argument, Anh_Minh's got it pat down.

Whatever you can make for giant robots, you can do the same for fighters and tanks at a better price.

Seriously people, the only thing giant robots would be good for is psychological (AT-ATs).

And for those people who don't realize having such a massive machine operating with two legs, there's a reason why the heaviest creatures are found in the ocean and not on land. You would need powerful hydraulics to ease the stress on the machine itself and even then, that still leaves it vulnerable.

Besides, weren't the idea of mechs taken from the powered armors from Starship troopers and then "super-sized?"

I find the armor from starship troopers to be the most realistic in combat.
SoldierOfDarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 21:35   Link #34
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness View Post
Whatever the argument, Anh_Minh's got it pat down.

Whatever you can make for giant robots, you can do the same for fighters and tanks at a better price.

Seriously people, the only thing giant robots would be good for is psychological (AT-ATs).

And for those people who don't realize having such a massive machine operating with two legs, there's a reason why the heaviest creatures are found in the ocean and not on land. You would need powerful hydraulics to ease the stress on the machine itself and even then, that still leaves it vulnerable.

Besides, weren't the idea of mechs taken from the powered armors from Starship troopers and then "super-sized?"

I find the armor from starship troopers to be the most realistic in combat.
True, but that's still thinking inside the box. There's a concept of artificial muscles that was brought up. It's actually a concept that was thought up a long time ago. The way I figure, it's going to consist of hydraulics and a system that resembles a chinese finger trap. It helps reinforce the strength of the hydraulics without "super-sizing" them to the point that the legs have fat calves.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 22:55   Link #35
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiramuro
In a straight up fight between a F/A 22 and the Strike Freedom I don't think the Raptor have enough firepower to put a scratch on the S. Freedom.
No. But then again, Strike Freedom is much more advanced than the F-22 is. Also, anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to defeat armor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
It appears some issues regarding the possibilities of mobile suits have been addressed. I'll admit not all of them. I'm kind of sensing some Gundam Wing hate from some people, though.
I'm not sure why you seem to have that impression. I don't think that anyone's brought up Gundam Wing in this thread. Moreover, we haven't even restricted our arguments to Gundam mecha at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Anyways, I've been reading upon the concerns of armor. I agree with that, though the concept of such a thing isn't that highly impropable. In fact, that theory should be tested out. I'm guessing most of everyone is thinking that if someone was to build a mobile suit, the protective armor would be the strongest and/or lightest possible metal we have in this world. That would also imply titanium or the next strongest metal.
Any advanced armor used to equip mecha can be applied more efficiently on a tank. The composition of the armor doesn't make any difference; as long as the tank has a smaller target profile than the mecha, it will always have superior protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Another problem is power supply. There's nothing in this world that can power a mobile suit of any form. Sure, we can try the imbelical cord idea from Neon Genesis Evangelion, but that's not really a good idea in a combat situation. So, we'll have to resort to other ideas.
Actually, we don't. For a rudimentary legged drivetrain, one only needs around a megawatt of power (depending on the mass of the mecha). This kind of power can be readily found on modern tanks and the like. If this is insufficient power, aircraft engines can be adapted for use - these are generally capable of much greater output than their land equivalents. The main problems that we have with building mecha (beside their practicality) is with the drivetrain and control systems; these are some of the same issues that we have with building human-form robots as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
And of course, the argument about giant bi-pedal robots that a lot of people use. If a robot falls to the ground, it's screwed.
Nobody in this thread has used this argument yet because it's a fairly minor one compared to the other challenges that mecha have to overcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness
Whatever the argument, Anh_Minh's got it pat down.

Whatever you can make for giant robots, you can do the same for fighters and tanks at a better price.

Seriously people, the only thing giant robots would be good for is psychological (AT-ATs).
That's absolutely correct. Moreover, the psychological thing will only work if you already enjoy a massive material and/or technological advantage over you enemies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness
Besides, weren't the idea of mechs taken from the powered armors from Starship troopers and then "super-sized?"

I find the armor from starship troopers to be the most realistic in combat.
As far as I can tell, the mobile infantry armor of Starship Troopers is the precursor for just about all human-form war machines, in both Japan and the West. They are very cool conceptually, but I don't think that there's anything realistic about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
True, but that's still thinking inside the box. There's a concept of artificial muscles that was brought up. It's actually a concept that was thought up a long time ago. The way I figure, it's going to consist of hydraulics and a system that resembles a chinese finger trap. It helps reinforce the strength of the hydraulics without "super-sizing" them to the point that the legs have fat calves.
I'm not sure why "inside the box" is supposed to be a bad thing. If there were only one or two weakness inherent in humanoid mecha, or if they held some sort of key role that no other equipment could fulfill then there may be cause in thinking that it's a technology worth exploring. However, mecha are fraught with problems while bringing no foreseeable advantages.


Offtopic
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiramuro
Su-47 may win in the subsonic maneuverability area but in the modern theater of air warfare low-speed dog fights aren't that important. In fact it's not expected that the F/A-22 will engage in any dog fights. Stealth, accurate targeting/avionics and speed are much more crucial. Basically you want to get to your target before your enemy does and high-tail out of there after you launched a bunch of missiles.
Currently, that's the way American fighter theory posits. However, this is hardly a universally agreed upon idea, and plenty of militaries train their pilots on more dogfighting than the Americans do (the Indian Air Force springs to mind). Historically, BVR combat hasn't been that decisive, and the vast majority of aerial combat encounters either resulted in one side breaking off combat, or in dogfighting. Partially, this is due to the inaccuracy of BVR missiles, and partially due to restrictive RoEs, but the effect is the same.

Sure, the F-22 isn't expected to ever engage in dogfighting (even though it's equipped for it), but it's going to be combat that'll tell us if it plays out the way USAF theorists think it will. The last times that they designed fighters with such sweeping theories in mind, they didn't put a gun on the F-4, and they thought that the F-14 would engage most of its targets with the AIM-54. The end result was that they ended up having to install gunpods on their F-4s, and AIM-54s ended up almost never getting used (except for the Iranians, but that's a different topic).

As a side note, you don't have call it the F/A-22 any more. Even the USAF has given up on trying to claim that a pure fighter with no ground attack capabilities as a fighter-bomber.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 23:02   Link #36
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
My, my, 4tran. You're nit-picking through what I wrote. I was being quite neutral about what I wrote while throwing out possible solutions and ideas along with the problems of what creating mobile suits would intale.

For one, you rebuted me regarding practicality and usage of mobile suits, when I, myself, stated that unless we, as human beings, choose to create them for whatever reason other than practicality and usage, I don't see why would people choose to build them. There has to be a means to an end. So far, I've stated the concept and possibility is there.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 23:18   Link #37
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
My, my, 4tran. You're nit-picking through what I wrote. I was being quite neutral about what I wrote while throwing out possible solutions and ideas along with the problems of what creating mobile suits would intale.
That's incorrect. A nitpick is to contest a minor detail that has no impact upon the impetus of an argument. Thus, pointing out the difference between F-22 and F/A-22 designations to the exclusion of addressing a point would be a nitpick. To point out the weaknesses of your argument is therefore not a nitpick. Heck, I even passed up on commenting on a few seemingly ludicrous things that you brought up, like how a mobile suit with a foot the size of a car somehow isn't huge.

If you have any problems with any of my comments on your arguments, then feel free to bring them up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
For one, you rebuted me regarding practicality and usage of mobile suits, when I, myself, stated that unless we, as human beings, choose to create them for whatever reason other than practicality and usage, I don't see why would people choose to build them. There has to be a means to an end. So far, I've stated the concept and possibility is there.
The practicality problems inherent to mecha are different from the ones that you brought up. You're mostly addressing points that aren't very important.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 23:50   Link #38
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Do you like to be offensive or something? Or is it that you just like talking down to other people?

You nitpicked. There's no going around it as much as you try to use excuses. Instead of responding to the entire paragraphs I wrote as a whole, you decided to respond to certain portions of what I wrote. Clips and phrases as they say.

Besides, what's not important to you doesn't mean it isn't important to others.

So, I'll ask nicely; Please, please, get off your high horse. This is a discussion, not an argument over who has the bigger balls. (Or brain and/or validity.) And since this is a discussion, I would rather -discuss- about the subject matter without the intent of trying to piss each other off on both sides.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-11, 23:57   Link #39
Chimaera
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Finland
Ok,i saw this topic and decided to throw some of my own ideas to the discussion,english isnt my native language,so prepare for spelling errors.

In my honest opinion,Mobile Suit in its classic RX-78 Gundam-form wouldnt work in a battlefield.Why? Well,it lacks protection,firepower and maneuverability.That one sidearm + 2 headmounted vulcans just arent enough for a hulk of metal that large.
BUT,it might be successful,IF;

- it has extremely efficient Active Protection System (like the US "Iron Fist" or Russian "Arena" and "Konkurs",check wiki for those if interested)
- same tactics as armored forces or armored cavalry
- airborne operation capability
- somesort AT-missile carrying capability and really advanced Firecontrol System for those.(or more firepower otherwise)

Although it would be still too expensive,too big and a bit clumsy for modern battlefield.
I think that smaller mechas (Like the RPI-11 Knightmare Frame from Code Pizza Hutt)would be succesful in armored recon-companies or similar tasks.

Anyway,interesting thread
Chimaera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 05:10   Link #40
Skyfall
Lost in my dreams...
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
Do you like to be offensive or something? Or is it that you just like talking down to other people?

You nitpicked. There's no going around it as much as you try to use excuses. Instead of responding to the entire paragraphs I wrote as a whole, you decided to respond to certain portions of what I wrote. Clips and phrases as they say.

Besides, what's not important to you doesn't mean it isn't important to others.

So, I'll ask nicely; Please, please, get off your high horse. This is a discussion, not an argument over who has the bigger balls. (Or brain and/or validity.) And since this is a discussion, I would rather -discuss- about the subject matter without the intent of trying to piss each other off on both sides.
Correct - this is a discussion, and he was not nitpicking. He was pointing out parts of your pots that were not true at all. (Like the mentioning of Gundam Wing for example). I fail to see how pointing out the false facts in one's arguments is nitpicking. His stance is fairly neutral and matter-of-factish... from the way he is phrasing his arguments i wouldn't be surprised if he has been/is taking debate classes ...

There is a reason why people quote lines instead of whole paragraphs - it keeps the thing organized and easy to follow. If i am responding to one sentence of a paragraph, why should i quote the whole thing? Especially paragraphs that consist of 15 lines and are a pain to read. *hint* *hint*

When responding to long posts and/or paragraphs that contain many different arguments, breaking them up and responding to each argument with the respective answer is a common practice in this forum. Hang around for a while longer and you will notice it ...along with specific member specific writing style/quirks

Quote:
This is a discussion, not an argument over who has the bigger balls. (Or brain and/or validity.)
So, a discussion is not used to conclude which side's arguments hold more validity ? So...what is the use of a discussion in the first place then ? If you discuss something you have an opinion on the matter. If you have an opinion, you, most likely, want to make it sound/look reasonable and correct (You want to prove you are right). And you do that by backing your opinion up with valid(logical) arguments... or am i wrong on this one?
__________________
Skyfall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:53.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.