Macross - Mecha, Weapons, and Technology

[Urei]

Originally Posted by Tak

Speaking of psychological warfare, that big Ranka image in Ep24 was perhaps the best attempt at it yet. It was creepy, and beautiful all at the same time.

- Tak

Combining it with Ai Oboete Imasuka with Ranka's appearance, the drama of the fight, beam barrage and genocide it delivered quite an impact. One of the best battle scenes in Frontier, one of the most memorable scenes in all of Macross as well.

[Tak]

Originally Posted by Urei

On the best battle scenes in Frontier in my opinion, one of the most memorable in all of Macross.

Actually, that for me was the best, most energetic, epic battle scene I have ever witnessed on any media, surpassing all those that came before it and won't be topped for years to come.

And that damn battle ballade... that was OMGAWESOME!

Not even Star Wars come close, sorry.

- Tak

[Urei]

Originally Posted by Tak

Actually, that for me was the best, most energetic, epic battle scene I have ever witnessed on any media, surpassing all those that came before it and won't be topped for years to come.

And that damn battle ballade... that was OMGAWESOME!

Not even Star Wars come close, sorry.

- Tak

I can understand that. It was very powerful. What I missed in that scene was actually Alto keeping his promise from episode 23

[stormy001_M1A2]

I do wonder how the Colonial Fleet supply fresh water and sea water at the same time. Anyone knows how they do it?

[Daigo]

Reddywolf,

He's not even listening to anyones' input if you've noticed.

No reddywolf, I'm just not listening to YOUR input, because you are a rude little child. Everyone else knows how to behave, I suggest you follow their example.

However...one thing about future space combat will be dictacted by sci-fi of the present. A good chunk of designers will have grown up on shows like these and quite possibly try to maintain some of the "coolness" of them.

Not a chance. Not in a million years. No one will design a weapon of war just because they think it's "cool". If they do, a much smarter country will develop practical weapons, and eliminate the foolish country who thought flashy cool weapons were a good idea.

Originally Posted by dahak

Actually we were discussing why people might build carriers and what capabilities they would build into them. Both currently and in the Macross universe carriers have a valid combat role.

People build carriers for combat purposes first and foremost. That's what we are discussing.

Did you read what I wrote? Logistics ships can't fight wars. they are thus frequently underprioritised by the people who vote the funds. these people then like finding other uses for the things they paid for, whose main function is existing as a credible threat in being, because they are available. No sane military organization assumes it will only fight main battle engagements.If for no other reason than they are one of the obvious sources of manpower and C3 facilities to help deal with a large or foreign non military emergency.

You were the one who was arguing for carriers being useful for their logistical purposes, without addressing how they would be useful in combat. You haven't said how they are superior to orbital weapons. You have to prove that first if you are going to argue that they can fight wars. I've already listed several reasons why they would be obsolete in combat.

The military role of an Aircraft carrier requires it to be a logistics center. That is what it does, it provides logistical and C3 support to its aircraft. Those required capabilities and thier required redundancy make it useful in other roles.

Just use a logistical ship then. The aircraft take up unneccessary space and weight.

Historically battleships were used in such roles over a period of a couple of centuries. Currently they don't have much of a valid combat role so no one builds heavy gun combatants.

Congrats! You figured out the analogy, but you didn't put the two pieces together. If battleships' combat role is obsolete, using it as a logistical ship makes absolutely no sense. Therefore if a carrier's combat role is obsolete, then using it as a logistical ship also makes no sense.

a] No major nation fails to consider ethical issues when designing weapons. A weapon you can't use due to ethical considerations is a costly use of resources. There are two answers to that problem, change your national ethics or design weapons you are willing to use. The second is usually far easier.

b] No Orbital fire support capability exists that can identify and engage Pirates as well as a carrier. None is planned to exist. I doubt any will ever exist that can arrest smugglers or provide low level support to an infantry combat action. Certainly no Orbital weapon is going to be able to evacuate nationals from a foreign country.

If pure combat efficiency were all that mattered the USA would have used nuclear weapons in every conflict it has been involved in since 1945.

No, you didn't understand what I meant by ethical issues. By ethical issues I meant attacking 3rd world countries in the first place. Attacking 3rd world countries isn't very ethical IMO. It had nothing to do with orbital weapons being too powerful to the point of where it's as unethical as nukes. Orbitals aren't any more unethical than an aircraft carrier.

[Anh_Minh]

Well, the thing about carriers is, they're mobile airfields. The question is, how useful would that be?

I mean, even if orbital weaponry makes canons and bombers superfluous, you may still need to do some reckon from closer to the ground. And transport people and materiel where a ship won't go. But does that justify building a whole carrier?

[Daigo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Well, the thing about carriers is, they're mobile airfields. The question is, how useful would that be?

I mean, even if orbital weaponry makes canons and bombers superfluous, you may still need to do some reckon from closer to the ground. And transport people and materiel where a ship won't go. But does that justify building a whole carrier?

I tend to agree with this. I did postulate that carriers may be useful. In fact this whole discussion started when someone said carriers will be obsolete in the future, and I questioned it.

I can say this much, if carriers can move underwater, and even better, launch aircraft while underwater, then large super carriers will definitely be useful. Orbital weapons can't track units that are hidden underwater, and even if they could, attacking one from orbit could be challenging (although not impossible).

If they can't, then they might still be useful, but just not in the same form we see them today. Super carriers would be too vulnerable, but I think smaller carriers might still see some use. In other words, if aircraft still serve a useful purpose on the battlefield in the future, then we'll still have carriers. If they don't, then I don't see the point of giant carriers. Just something to be blown up IMO.

But honestly, I don't see anything stopping a carrier from moving underwater, other than the sheer technological difficulty in making such a machine. The Japanese made some large submarines that were capable of launching a single aircraft. It's a far cry from a purpose built super carrier, but I think it demonstrates that it's possible. If anything, it's a hell of a lot easier to build than a carrier that can transform into a giant robot, and it would be infinitely more useful.

[Ithekro]

Just use a logistical ship then. The aircraft take up unneccessary space and weight.

I'm trying to fathom just which point was missed here.

An aircraft carrier is designed to carry and support its air wing. To do this effectively it has been realized that it will need protection form other ships. So the design has become such as that it can handle the command and control aspects for its air wing and its supporting and escorting vessels. The logistical needs to support this on the carrier have been designed into it from the start for the Super Carriers used today. Thus while its primary fuction is the transport and operate aircraft across the oceans, it has the ability to perform many other tasks just by the nature of its design.

It is a convinient command and control vessel for operations off hostile lands (or even friendly lands that don't want your soldiers on their territory). The large flat surface provides ample room for evacuated peoples to be airlifted in or out of in relative safety. The logistical capabilities it was designed with to support its own crew and the attached air wing can be used for disaster relief efforts when needed.

The arguement of "well just use a logistical ship" does not work here. We are talking a multipurpose warship that can be used in many different tasks at present from combat to relief efforts. A logistal ship maybe spending more time not doing any given job and thus costing money with less return on the investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While an orbital battery might be able to take out and aircraft carrier, the question then becomes how does one hold territory with an orbital battery? Since there is effectively only one country that operates Super Carriers in any number, we get into an intersting situation. Who's orbital batteries are targeting the carriers? Why? How does one respond to this threat? Why even target the carriers if you can lance the population centers just as quickly and knock out command and control? Wouldn't the technology on the carriers also be advancing with the advancements in orbital weaponry? Would there even be carriers in service by the time advanced orbital batteries become a real issue?

Note that the expected life span of a Super Carrier is 50 years. The first one (U.S.S Enterprise) is due for retirement within the next seven years or so. Depending on the state of her reactor materials and her replacement carrier. U.S.S. Nimitz would be due for replacement about ten years after Enterprise leaves service and the remaining Nimitz-class carriers replacements would be at roughly four to six year intervals after that. By that time either there will have been some advancements or the Ford-class will need a replacement carrier design as they age out in and after the 2060s. If the technology advances enough to start making the carriers obsolete and eventually pointless, then the construction of them will stop (as the need for a 11 carrier fleet will be dropped by Congress and the U.S. Navy), at which time they will either allow the remaining carriers to just age out to fulfill they expense, or they will be mothballed and eventually scrapped (or likely scuttled to form reefs). The Battleships went out in about the same way. After it was deturmined that they were not as useful anymore, the older ones where scrapped, or mothballed, with the newer vessels being slowly palced into the reserves. Thses were activated several times in the next fifty years, still proving they had uses, until they finally aged out. They are now on display rather than being scrapped.

However it is the pace of technology and warfare that will deturming when or if the aircraft carrier will be obsolete in the near future. They have a life until the 2060s for now and probably until 2100 If they don't come up with something by 2050. If they manage to come up with something that radically alters the nature of warfare sooner, then the carriers will soldier on until they can be effectly placed into the reserve or mothballs (as it standard policy). That is unless the change is so dramatic (and sudden) that they new order of warfare just starts cutting the carriers in half while they are at sea on the first day. If that is the case...you have a much greater problem than just having obsolete warships as whatever just took out your carriers will probably be aimed at your cities next.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now submersible aircraft carriers on the other hand is something I can get behind (and was hoping the next class of carriers would be actually). You would still need a fairly large vessel, just not as large of an air wing. You don't need the CAP fighters for fleet defense at that point (or not many, just when performing take offs and landings...if the aircraft cannot launch and be recovered under water). So the carrier would have mostly strike aircraft and air superiority aircraft to be used to make sure the strike aircraft can do their duty safely. The other fleet defense units such as the anti-submarine planes, and probably the command and control types (or radar dome types) would not be carried if they can get all that information from a satelite. ANti-sub duties would be the venue of the attack submarines...or perhaps smaller defensive high speed submarines attached to the carrier air wing.

[Daigo]

Ithekro, I will grant you that super carriers will be useful if they can travel underwater. But if they can't, then they are just giant targets as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter how useful they are. If they are vulnerable, then they are vulnerable.

Btw, carriers don't hold land. Land units hold land. You might say, well carriers carry land units. Maybe a few carry some, but they are designed to carry aircraft, which don't hold land.

Also I believe the lifespan of a super carrier is about 10-15 years. 50 years doesn't make much sense. In 50 years, the model would be obsolete anyway.

[Ithekro]

Well U.S.S. Kitty Hawk,the last of the conventionally powered American super carriers, was built in the late 1950s and entered service in 1961 is being retired at the beginning of next year. Enterprise is about the same age and will soldier on until somewhere between 2012 and 2015.

50 years seems to be the expected hull life of the super carriers. They do receive refits and refuelings every 15 years or so.

[squaresphere]

Just to add to the carrier discussion. The new macross class carriers are really a hybrid of battleship and carrier.

However, the NUNs fleets do have stand alone carriers that are probably at lot cheaper.

The smaller Guantanamo class
http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/ma...guantanamo.htm

and the much larger Uraga class
http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/macross7/uraga.htm

[ReddyRedWolf]

Not to mention Super Carriers are a major investment.

Do you throw away tax dollars for a ship that breaks in a decade or two?

No you don't.

Just to add to the carrier discussion. The new macross class carriers are really a hybrid of battleship and carrier.

Indeed they are. Though the Macross Class does outclass it terms of number of armaments.

Macross Class even has more craft than NMCs.

[Ithekro]

THe New Macross class is basically a centerpiece for any Colonial Fleet. Generally towing (at being pushed by) the largest population center in the fleet.

The smaller carriers seem to be attached to the other populations centers of the fleet. Likely because they too many need rapid fighter cover or may be left alone if the Macross-class vessel is needed someplace else.

But then in Macross, the fighter/mech is still the basic means on defense and attack for most races involved. While the capital ships have vastly more firepower, a smaller craft can usually get inside one and make an general mess of things from actually destroying the capital ship, to more than likely just delaying its combat abilities with another capital ship long enough for the friendly vessel to get the heavy weapons on target.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Daigo

I tend to agree with this.

Note: I'm on the fence on that one.

I did postulate that carriers may be useful. In fact this whole discussion started when someone said carriers will be obsolete in the future, and I questioned it.

The exact question is: if orbital weaponry becomes accurate and cheap enough to replace canons, missiles, and bombers... Do we still have a use for aircraft carriers?

I can say this much, if carriers can move underwater, and even better, launch aircraft while underwater, then large super carriers will definitely be useful. Orbital weapons can't track units that are hidden underwater, and even if they could, attacking one from orbit could be challenging (although not impossible).

A submarine carrier launching flying submarines... That'd be such a different animal, I'm not sure it's covered by the question.

Also, the point of submarine is that they're stealthy. I have trouble imagining a stealthy super carrier. But then, fifty years ago, the internet as it is now was also unimaginable.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I'm trying to fathom just which point was missed here.

Well, the framework is this: imagine orbital weaponry have replaced almost every other form of weaponry. We don't need bombers, we don't need fighters anymore. If we want something blown up, we just send a command to a satellite and do it from space. Do the remaining uses of carriers justify their construction? Can't we replace them with something cheaper? If the only remaining task of carriers is as logistic ships, then... use logistic ships.

My position is that the answer depends on how much we need a sea going airfield. Maybe in the Future(tm), instead of having carriers, we'll use helicopters and hydroplanes instead to fly people and materiel to the fleets.

[Daigo]

The exact question is: if orbital weaponry becomes accurate and cheap enough to replace canons, missiles, and bombers... Do we still have a use for aircraft carriers?

Maybe yes, maybe no. If there's a use for attack or fighter aircraft, then yes.

A submarine carrier launching flying submarines... That'd be such a different animal, I'm not sure it's covered by the question.

Also, the point of submarine is that they're stealthy. I have trouble imagining a stealthy super carrier. But then, fifty years ago, the internet as it is now was also unimaginable.

I prefer to call it a submersible carrier. By moving underwater, it would remove the inherent vulnerability a carrier would have against an orbital weapon. Radar is useless against objects that travel underwater. For that, you need to use sonar, which is short ranged, and unreliable. Not to mention there's no way for an orbital weapon to use sonar unless it has friendly units in the water, feeding it information. Also being under water would protect it from most weapons that could normally be used against a surface ship.

My position is that the answer depends on how much we need a sea going airfield. Maybe in the Future(tm), instead of having carriers, we'll use helicopters and hydroplanes instead to fly people and materiel to the fleets.

This is possible. The other possibility is thermonuclear powered aircraft. Such aircraft only need to be resupplied with weapons, but their range is global, so they don't need to be refueled (at least not within time spans worth worrying about). And if they are unmanned, that makes things even easier.

[ReddyRedWolf]

http://www1.atwiki.jp/macrossaf/pages/12.html

According to the Ace Frontier game the VF-27 is called Lucifer while the VF-171 is called Nightmare Plus.

VF-25 Messiah vs VF-27 Lucifer?

What does that make the YF-24 Evolution?

[Ithekro]

Fleet travel time question. I probably missed it at some point, but how often does the fleet fold while moving deeper and deeper into space? They can't be moving out at sublight speeds at all times...because they'd never get anywhere....even for a multi-generational ship.

[dahak]

Originally Posted by Daigo

. By moving underwater, it would remove the inherent vulnerability a carrier would have against an orbital weapon.

Since the only possible orbital weapon currently concievable that could mission kill a carrier is a kinetic weapon drop moving is all the carrier needs to remove any vulnerability it has against an orbital weapon. That 30-45 minutes from firing to impact makes OKW useless against moving targets thanks to the plasma shroud preventing terminal guidance.

That assumes a complete lack of effectiveness among some of the point defense systems that the USN is currently experimenting with. ASAT missiles are going to be cheaper than OKW.

OKW favours the existence of carriers since it can probably take out static bases. Ones not hardened against Nuclear strikes that is. But then Mirved Ballistic Missiles with nuclear warheads are more cost effective solution to most big blame requirements. Nuclear weapons haven't make carriers obsolete.

Beam weapons Powerful enough to be used as OW mean the carrier can kill the weapon with its own larger and more numerous beam weapons [Which will be cheaper due to not having to be shipped to orbit along with a sufficiently power supply and installed as point defense] and giant ocean heatsink before taking sufficient damage to be nonserviceable.

Orbital Beam weapons imply a return to big gun and armour [Pycrete for example] Battleships with expendable recon drones as manned aircraft may be too soft skinned to survive.

The tech and resources for Orbital weapons to get to the point they could seriously threaten a competently designed and handled major surface combatant built with similar technology are so far in the future that one might as well talk about the influence of Pixies on warfare. By then we might have to worry about them.

[Ithekro]

Hmmm.

If we are talking fission reactors (present day reactors), then the American Aircraft carriers could power a beam weapon...assuming that the weapon system is small enough to be mounted and not interfere with air operations. Since each carrier has two reactors and "can" operate on one, they in theory could use one just to power the beam weapon when needed. The orbital battery would need to have enough power to focus a shot on a moving target at sea (33+ knots if the carrier is really moving), or it would need to be huge to redirect solar energy to a pinpoint of destruction capable of doing serious damage through the atmosphere. The carrier would need to be able to hit a target probably moving at several times the speed of sound and increadible distances...if the weapon isn't is a stationary orbit.

If we are taking fusion reactors (not presently viable), then it remains to be seen just how large the obital satelite or station would need to be to power the weapon, and if the power output would be greater than that possible from current model carrier fission reactors. If the needs of the weapon are greater than the carrier can put out, then it cannot play the return fire game with anything other than fighter lauched anti-orbital missiles.

It would be an odd sort of battle....but it would depend entirely on how the orbital weapons were placed in orbit, and what kind of weapons they were. If they were placed in orbit without an enemies knowledge, they would have the advantage. If they beam weapon technolgy was developed without outside knowledge and placed in orbit, they would have a clear advantage. If the pace of orbital battery development and ground/naval counters kept pace, it would be a potental standoff...depending on the destructive power and who pulled the trigger first.

Railgun might be viable as a non-nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Mass and velocity.

[Daigo]

Originally Posted by dahak

Since the only possible orbital weapon currently concievable that could mission kill a carrier is a kinetic weapon drop moving is all the carrier needs to remove any vulnerability it has against an orbital weapon. That 30-45 minutes from firing to impact makes OKW useless against moving targets thanks to the plasma shroud preventing terminal guidance.

That assumes a complete lack of effectiveness among some of the point defense systems that the USN is currently experimenting with. ASAT missiles are going to be cheaper than OKW.

OKW favours the existence of carriers since it can probably take out static bases. Ones not hardened against Nuclear strikes that is. But then Mirved Ballistic Missiles with nuclear warheads are more cost effective solution to most big blame requirements. Nuclear weapons haven't make carriers obsolete.

Beam weapons Powerful enough to be used as OW mean the carrier can kill the weapon with its own larger and more numerous beam weapons [Which will be cheaper due to not having to be shipped to orbit along with a sufficiently power supply and installed as point defense] and giant ocean heatsink before taking sufficient damage to be nonserviceable.

Orbital Beam weapons imply a return to big gun and armour [Pycrete for example] Battleships with expendable recon drones as manned aircraft may be too soft skinned to survive.

The tech and resources for Orbital weapons to get to the point they could seriously threaten a competently designed and handled major surface combatant built with similar technology are so far in the future that one might as well talk about the influence of Pixies on warfare. By then we might have to worry about them.

No, your comments are mostly wrong. There's guided missiles and lasers in addition to KWs. Yes lasers do less damage (ATM), but potentially they can do weapons grade damage, while hitting at the speed of light (in an atmosphere). Kinetic weapons can also be guided, even from orbital drop. I question your estimate of 30-45 minutes. What are you basing this on? Just a freefall drop? Or a kinetic penetrator fired from a railgun? If the OW has railguns, then no, the time to impact is much faster.

KWs are always cheaper than missiles. Always. A cruise missile costs over $500,000. A 3kg tungsten slug fired from a railgun costs a few thousand at most, but probably less, while doing the same or more damage, and reaches the target in less time.

Beam weapons won't work at all actually. You should know this already, but they are attenuated by the atmosphere. I find it funny that you mention a giant ocean heatsink. An OW has a giant space heatsink.

Ah yes maybe. But then they wouldn't be carriers anymore. You've been arguing how the carrier could somehow survive the onslaught of a OW, but you never bothered to address what the heck could a carrier do to an OW. Let see umm... absolutely nothing.

And finally as for your ridiculous analogy, pixies don't exist, while OWs, lasers, missiles, and KWs do. So yes, their impact on the future of warfare is more than reasonable.