|
That's a good point, but like any system the virtue of the pin-point barrier (PPB) system all depends upon comparative gain versus the disavantages. The regenerative, damageless nature of the PPB is an advantage, but design-wise, what is lost in using such a system?
- The pin-point barrier system itself is more weight, which may sacrifice performance of the variable fighter in which it's mounted.
- When building a variable fighter, a location is required to mount the PPB system which may create design compromises one might not otherwise make.
- The PPB system requires power, power that might be utilized more effectively by all kinds of more critical systems like armor, engines, radar, laser/beam weapons, transformation systems, etc.
- Cost; is the pin-point barrier a cost-effective option or is it more worthwhile to build without it
- Effectiveness: is the cost, effort, weight and design compromises worth the protection the system is offering? Or is the defensive gain negligable in comparison to the time, money and resources being put into fighter-carried PPB systems? Is the PPB only protecting the valkyrie against a small margin of attacks, the majority of which are handled well enough by the ECA?
So when the fictional engineers of the Macross world design a valkyire, they are likely asking themselves would I rather have a PPB-equipped valkyrie that's larger, heavier, slower and less maneuverable or a valkyrie without a PPB that's smaller, lighter, faster and more maneuverable, all other factors being equal?
I'm not saying the VF-171 or the VF-25 are built one way or the other. And I've personally always loved the idea of the fighter-carried PPB. But I'm just trying to show why one fighter might have it and another may not. It might not be a catch-all, must-have technology in some respects. There's advantages and disadvantages to everything.
|