[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Originally Posted by MeisterBabylon

"Hmph," the Air Colonel handed the file back to the technician.

"What about it?" Kai grinned.

"I'll pass."

The techcom's jaws dropped. "But Sakamoto-butaichou, the specs are perfect for the needs of Hikari no Ken!"

To that, Mio simply replied, as a YF-27 took off the craft deck below, "Can't transform."

~~~~~~


Actually, that's my only criticism of it.

Add that though, and we are gonna get a Starscream from this distant cousin of the F-22.

"Message in from Satyrntron Systems."

Originally Posted by Satyrntron Chief Engineer

To: Air Colonel Mio
RE: Transforming Fighter Request.

"While it is unfortunate in your decision not to use this fighter, and expressed a dislike in its lack of transformation capability, I would like to inform you as to our decision in the matter.

Because of the high performance envolope of the SF-36, and the stresses involved, we opted to forego the popular 'transformation' feature on a number of practical and technical reasons.

1: Transforming Variable Geometry vehicles have over twenty thousand moving parts. All moving parts require constant maintanance checks and repairs. Maintanance techs have expressed their displeasure at having to nearly 'replace half the fighter' after any major sortie.

2: Transformation Components create a structural weakness in the locations of 'joints'. It would be unfortunate if the vehicle snapped in two during a 100 G high speed turn and form-switch combo. This craft performs accellerations and manuevers consistantly well above the performance envolope of any other system, so structural integrity MUST be preserved.

3: The added components for the transformation systems increase the size and weight of the vehicle. This would impact its agility and apply further stresses to an already weakened spaceframe.

4: Transformed modes offer little to no improvement to the combat performance of the vehicle. The vehicle does not require legs to stand as it can hover without effort, it does not require limbs to manipulate equipment as its weapons are in-built. The ability to 'punch an enemy craft in the face' is completely meaningless when the inbuilt weapons can blast a hole right through it. 360 degree angles of engagement offered by the ability to move limbs around is also meaningless as the vehicle itself is small enough, and agile enough, to turn and engage targets just as quickly.

5: Transformation components would quintuple the vehicle cost. Both in the procurement, as well as over the long term as maintanance and structural integrity issues make themselves known.


As you can see, the inclusion of a transforming structure in this vehicle would not only be costly, but maintanance intensive and a structurally unsound safety issue. As we stress the survivability of our fighters, we chose not to compromise the safety of the pilots for a capability that is limited in its practical function.

I hope you understand our decisions and will review the design further.

Trent Hawkins, PhD.
Satyrntron Systems Engineering Department