Actual mobile suits in the future [Archive]

HitokiriShadow

July 19th, 2005, 10:21 PM

Eventually, humans may have the technology to make it possible. However, there are still some problems.

1) You have to admit, the heads are rather pointless. They look cool, but serve no real purpose. Sometimes, they have the main cameras there which is impractical and stupid ("Let's stick the cameras on the highest part of the suit where it is unprotected and easy to hit!"). The cameras should be on the body right in front of the cockpit, and the head should be replaced with another gun or with nothing.

2) The legs really aren't practical, even with the technology. In space, they are useless. The only purpose they can possible serve is to kick the enemy. Anything else can be done with thrusters. They would be more useful on earth, but it wouldn't be as useful as just making it a flying/hovering machine to begin with (like the Aries in Gundam Wing).

3) There is still the cost efficiency issue.

Jinto117

July 19th, 2005, 10:31 PM

Yeah money has always been an obstacle hasn't it, lol. Mobile Suits would be more practicle on land as you said though.

MagicianCamille

July 19th, 2005, 10:33 PM

More practical on land than in space, yes, but still not very practical overall.

Jinto117

July 19th, 2005, 10:37 PM

What do you propose Camille?

CrossboneGundam

July 20th, 2005, 01:16 AM

What do you propose Camille?

Since you've obviously never seen a real Gundam show before, Mobile Suits in proper UC Gundam are justified by the fictional Minovsky Particles which make radar ineffective, thus preventing long-range combat from taking place (unlike a second-rate show like Wing.)

In the real world, we have these things called cruise missiles and ICBMs, not to mention artillery and fighters and bombers. A prohibitively expensive giant robot isn't going to stand a chance when a a single bomber can drop bombs on it from 50,000 feet, much less a ship launching cruise missiles from 300 miles away, or a missile silo launching an ICBM from 2000 miles away. Hell, a single person with access to explosives could take out a MS, realistically. Giant robots are completely unrealistic.

You want us to explain stuff that's obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80 (the borderline for retardation, if I'm not mistaken,) but you still haven't even come up with any argument for your obvious point of view. You don't have any right to demand an explanation when all you've done so far is say a guy put a robot on ebay.

Sharp-kun

July 20th, 2005, 05:13 AM

darth_maldo

July 20th, 2005, 07:04 AM

The only other place where you will see giant bidepal robots is Metal Gear series.

master terrence

July 20th, 2005, 08:27 AM

I understand what the two of you are saying but things can happen like you wouldn't believe. For example, have you heared of the guy who made this mech and is now selling it on Ebay. It's people or pioneers like him that make things happen for the future. He is no different from the Wright Brothers.

It could be done, there was alot of speculation in it and it would be more effincient than a regular tank... less gas.. less size.. one man control unit.. easier to repair.. cheaper to reproduce (I read it from some article a long time ago). If they do make "mobile suites" it won't look much like a Gundam ya know.

And what actual use does his mech have?

Quick reasons mechs don't work:

1) Centre of Gravity

2) Weight distribution

3) Cost compared to things like tanks

4) Recoil (combine this with point 1)

that can be changed if the actual design is changed.. so it won't really look lik e a traditional anime mobile suit, more like a smaller tank.

Smith

July 20th, 2005, 09:10 AM

We will see Gundam VR before we ever, if ever, see actual Mobile Suits. I myself cannot wait for a VR Gundam, and have epic battles and re-enact the One Year War and more. There is an old thread in this Gundam forum discussing the same topic, and it went a few pages, if I recall.

darth_maldo

July 20th, 2005, 09:22 AM

More than Suits, I think they would produce Mobile Armors.

Death's Realm

July 20th, 2005, 09:49 AM

If mobile suits/mechs are eventually used by the military, I'd imagine them using something like the mechs in the Animatrix-2nd Rennisance.

jedisolo

July 20th, 2005, 10:15 AM

Using mechs like in Earth Seige or Mech Warrior series. But a Mech wouldn't be feasible in todays combat because a Fighter Jet like the F22 is faster and more Manuverable. Maybe it'll be feasible in like 500 or 600 years from now.
-Andrew

Ctholhic

July 20th, 2005, 10:28 AM

Strength or power output of a muscular system is determined by the cross-sectional area of the muscle, this is a square rule.

Volume, and hence mass, is a cube rule. The strength works against mass to produce the movement, because of the discrepancy caused by size, giant robots are not practical. Smaller robots are, however, very practical.

In almost every situation a mecha based on conventional designs will dominate an equivalent value humanoid mecha because it has numerous advantages.

Gaizokubanou

July 20th, 2005, 12:29 PM

Humanoid mechs will never be feasible, because our body's shape/form aren't designed to take advantage of various modern/future technology.

Expecting great efficiency out of a direct port, in this case from human limbs to war machine, is just plain out foolish.

Another reason, specializing > multirole.

Edit: Before someone intelligent flames me for my generalization, or blanket statement, yes, I know that some ports work great with minimum adjustments (F-15 for example... designed as air superiority fighter, and works great as a bomber too).

Techrobo

July 20th, 2005, 01:01 PM

Volume, and hence mass, is a cube rule. The strength works against mass to produce the movement, because of the discrepancy caused by size, giant robots are not practical. Smaller robots are, however, very practical.

I agree that smaller robots may become feasable in the future. Gasaraki showed us that if applied properly they could be succesful as manueverable urban tank hunters, however I do believe they would be vulnerable to other infantry with current armor technology. Their value as a space fighter is also questionable, but since we have never truly endeavoured to create a space fighter, I am reluctant to pass judgement on humanoid models. However, giant military robots in the future could serve on political purpose much better than conventional forces; as an occupational force, they would inspire more fear up close than most other weapons, and could be used effectively in a limited manner. Lastly, I am also reluctant to say that they would be totally impractical for combat in the future. They may not be practical now, but history shows us that advances and changes have a great effect on such matters. Cavalry has slipped in and out of military favour for thousands of years, and has been used very effectively at times, and inefficiently at others. It all depends on advances, regressions, and trends in the future. Lastly, I would not put too much stock in fighter planes; I love them - though I am not a pilot near that level - and their speed/range will always be an asset, but I place little faith in technologies like stealth or satelite guidance for the future.

Gaizokubanou

July 20th, 2005, 02:01 PM

However, giant military robots in the future could serve on political purpose much better than conventional forces; as an occupational force, they would inspire more fear up close than most other weapons, and could be used effectively in a limited manner.

Bad idea. That's the last thing you want to do as occupational force. You want to convince the population that you are there for good purpose, not to install fear into their mind.

I still don't understand how some people think humanoid mech will have any advantage in design over other weapons. We have lot of limbs in our body that are just not needed for good weapon design.

Simple concept for good weapon design is that the weapon will allows you to destory the enemy while your enemy can't even hit you. Few easy ways to achieve that concept is through superior range, impenetratable defense, or by using suprise. Giant humanoid mechs don't offer any advantage for any of those methods. In fact, Giant humanoid mechs will destroy any chance for suprise.

Mechs for military purposes? Maybe. Humanoid mechs for military purposes? No.

Jinto117

July 20th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Since you've obviously never seen a real Gundam show before, Mobile Suits in proper UC Gundam are justified by the fictional Minovsky Particles which make radar ineffective, thus preventing long-range combat from taking place (unlike a second-rate show like Wing.)

In the real world, we have these things called cruise missiles and ICBMs, not to mention artillery and fighters and bombers. A prohibitively expensive giant robot isn't going to stand a chance when a a single bomber can drop bombs on it from 50,000 feet, much less a ship launching cruise missiles from 300 miles away, or a missile silo launching an ICBM from 2000 miles away. Hell, a single person with access to explosives could take out a MS, realistically. Giant robots are completely unrealistic.

You want us to explain stuff that's obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80 (the borderline for retardation, if I'm not mistaken,) but you still haven't even come up with any argument for your obvious point of view. You don't have any right to demand an explanation when all you've done so far is say a guy put a robot on ebay.

You sound like one of those typical people who doubt scientific achievment. I simply asked for your damn opinion, I didn't ask for you to ridicule me. Are you going to burn me on a stake just because I believe that one day mechanoid machines or even mobile suits might someday be possible. What the hell do you know and why do you even watch Gundam to begin with.

jedisolo

July 20th, 2005, 05:35 PM

In Seed Destiny, the Destiny Gundam destroyed 2 Destroy Gundams and these Destroy Gundams were very big and not very manuverable. The reason why the Destiny Gundam could destroy 2 Destroy Gundams was because of the size of Destiny and it being very fast, very manuverable (spelling) and very powerful. Why do you think a small person can take down a fat person because a small person can gain enough speed and momentum and knock them down.
-Andrew

Magami No ER

July 20th, 2005, 05:57 PM

^Yeah, but that's a bit obvious, no offense. -_-;
And no one should ridicule anyone unless they specialize in the field of current and future technologies, be them for war or not. I'm not claiming to at all(laughable. ^^; ), so no flaming teh n00b. Please. I can only give my insight and inferences.
In any stories I make up, there's never a truly humanoid mecha(if there is one to begin with in said story. -_-; ) I'd like them to be realistic. Laws must apply, for the most part. So, if it has "limbs", it's small in size and stature. Centers of gravity, something(quite vague, sorry -_-; )will hold it(the main body) in place, yet allow it to move. And, no legs, but something similar to that of a tank(wheels? eh..) Or, I just ditch all laws and make the mecha a part of some wacky CG world where nothing can make sense. The mecha's purpose? Not of typical war, so that doesn't really apply to modern day terms. I can't really say. Sometimes, a bit of artistic license is needed. (shock shock)

Anyway, I'm not really into visciously debating whether or not it'd be posible for something like Gundam(save for the distinctive samurai head.) to come to be.
People can both doubt(like did we ever really go to the moon), and people can certainly dream. And sometimes, we can make them come true. And stuff.

Jinto117

July 20th, 2005, 06:14 PM

I'm just saying it doesn't have to be a mobile suit/Gundam. Something along the lines of mechanoid tanks from Metal Gear or one of the mechs from the Armored Core series. A mechanoid tank that can fire nuclear weapons using coil gun technology is vastly superior to todays firing systems.

Prons

July 20th, 2005, 06:15 PM

The future of war is stealth and long range combat with large missiles and sniper rifles with a distance of 1 + mile.

MagicianCamille

July 20th, 2005, 06:16 PM

Mechs would be cooler though.

Animematt55

July 20th, 2005, 06:21 PM

i think someone said soemthign liek this before but...
instead of a mecha, it could be more like a normal suit. Just a bit taller than a normal man. basically allows the wearing to be completely protected, and carry and fire high artilary shells and such. Like armor basically

darth_maldo

July 20th, 2005, 06:36 PM

Yeah, like the armor-thingy from Aliens 2.

CrossboneGundam

July 20th, 2005, 06:41 PM

You sound like one of those typical people who doubt scientific achievment. I simply asked for your damn opinion, I didn't ask for you to ridicule me. Are you going to burn me on a stake just because I believe that one day mechanoid machines or even mobile suits might someday be possible. What the hell do you know and why do you even watch Gundam to begin with.

I don't doubt scientific achievements that are actually real, unlike whatever it is you're not citing to prove your "points." The basis for what I say is based on the fact that I actually know about real military technology, robotics and the basic laws of physics, which you apparently do not.

A mechanoid tank that can fire nuclear weapons using coil gun technology is vastly superior to todays firing systems.

Metal Gear was supposed to have a Rail Gun, which uses electromagnetism to propel projectiles. Real Rail Guns are costly, consume huge amounts of electricity, and are completely impractical for actual military purposes now.

Of course, again, you're citing works of fiction as legitimate evidence of potential technological achievements in reality without consulting any sources remotely related to the real areas these fall under.
People who cite Metal Gear Solid and vague references to something that may or may not have once happened on ebay as proof of scientific "achievements" tend to be looking for, and deserving of, sharp criticism.

Try learning some things:
http://hrl.harvard.edu/
http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/
http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/

In reference to posts about the thing in Aliens, the US Government's "Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration," or "DARPA" has been toying with the concept of a powered exo-skeleton for a number of years now. The project was featured in Time magazine a while back, but it seems to have stalled.

darth_maldo

July 20th, 2005, 06:50 PM

In reference to posts about the thing in Aliens, the US Government's "Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration," or "DARPA" has been toying with the concept of a powered exo-skeleton for a number of years now. The project was featured in Time magazine a while back, but it seems to have stalled.
That would be cool to watch ^_^ .

Caine

July 20th, 2005, 06:58 PM

I can think of a few benefits to full sized mechs

1) fear, if "conventional" armies are used, a mech would certainly inspire fear in enemy troops
2) non humanoid shaped mechs could become a new type of tank
3) If they had variable parts, a group of mechs with extra parts could concievably be as efficient as mltiple, less variable units

smaller sized powered armor suits seem much more likely, especially in the immediate future. anywho, with technology changing, maybe they will become more practical, or maybe a completely different direction. who knows

Hitroshimite

July 20th, 2005, 07:14 PM

Mechs the size of those in Gundam are very impractical in the modern world. However, smaller mechs, maybe 8ft tall might be practical. Given the current political situation, it seems that most fighting done in the near future won't be between large superpowers but smaller, more difficult resistance groups. That said, smaller mechs might be able to operate in urban environments where tanks would be more or less sitting ducks, and would be able to serve as both anti-personal weapons as well as being effective against armored targets, such as tanks.

Techrobo

July 20th, 2005, 07:55 PM

Bad idea. That's the last thing you want to do as occupational force. You want to convince the population that you are there for good purpose, not to install fear into their mind.

I still don't understand how some people think humanoid mech will have any advantage in design over other weapons. We have lot of limbs in our body that are just not needed for good weapon design.

Simple concept for good weapon design is that the weapon will allows you to destory the enemy while your enemy can't even hit you. Few easy ways to achieve that concept is through superior range, impenetratable defense, or by using suprise. Giant humanoid mechs don't offer any advantage for any of those methods. In fact, Giant humanoid mechs will destroy any chance for suprise.

Mechs for military purposes? Maybe. Humanoid mechs for military purposes? No.

All of those are very valid points, and I do agree that at this time humanoid mecha would be impractical, but far stranger weapons have existed. The yo-yo was a weapon at one point, and that doesn't even scratch the surface of weird designs. I will not rule out the possibility simply on principle of it being possible, but I will admit it would be very improbable humanoid mecha would ever see action. As for their occupational value, I disagree with you assertion. In many cases it is much easier and more effective, both in the strong and short term to control a populace through fear than it is to attempt to convert them to your cause. Some very sucessful civilizations controlled vast empires through use of fear of retribution, and many religious systems of control are based on the same idea. It is sad, but quite often it is easier to control people through fear than through love. I'll end with a quote from a fellow - and far superior - philosophical cynic;

"If you cannot make the people love you, make them fear you in such a way that they respect you"
~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Mechs the size of those in Gundam are very impractical in the modern world. However, smaller mechs, maybe 8ft tall might be practical. Given the current political situation, it seems that most fighting done in the near future won't be between large superpowers but smaller, more difficult resistance groups. That said, smaller mechs might be able to operate in urban environments where tanks would be more or less sitting ducks, and would be able to serve as both anti-personal weapons as well as being effective against armored targets, such as tanks.
If you like that idea, you should really watch Gasaraki. They did a very interesting take on small mecha designed for urban warfare; though much of the conflict does not occur in that intended location...

Jinto117

July 20th, 2005, 08:18 PM

I don't doubt scientific achievements that are actually real, unlike whatever it is you're not citing to prove your "points." The basis for what I say is based on the fact that I actually know about real military technology, robotics and the basic laws of physics, which you apparently do not.

Metal Gear was supposed to have a Rail Gun, which uses electromagnetism to propel projectiles. Real Rail Guns are costly, consume huge amounts of electricity, and are completely impractical for actual military purposes now.

Of course, again, you're citing works of fiction as legitimate evidence of potential technological achievements in reality without consulting any sources remotely related to the real areas these fall under.
People who cite Metal Gear Solid and vague references to something that may or may not have once happened on ebay as proof of scientific "achievements" tend to be looking for, and deserving of, sharp criticism.

Try learning some things:
http://hrl.harvard.edu/
http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/
http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/

In reference to posts about the thing in Aliens, the US Government's "Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration," or "DARPA" has been toying with the concept of a powered exo-skeleton for a number of years now. The project was featured in Time magazine a while back, but it seems to have stalled.

So are you saying something along the lines of mechanoid suits are possible? For example the armored suits in the Ghost in the Shell series. Yes of course rail guns are costly. Everything that is in it's early stages are costly. Are you saying that rail gun technology will never come to be? Or is it that we simply need another war to test these kind of weapons out, because it has always been war that scientific breakthroughs are common due to the situation.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_TankGun,,00.html

Gaizokubanou

July 21st, 2005, 05:55 AM

So are you saying something along the lines of mechanoid suits are possible? For example the armored suits in the Ghost in the Shell series. Yes of course rail guns are costly. Everything that is in it's early stages are costly. Are you saying that rail gun technology will never come to be? Or is it that we simply need another war to test these kind of weapons out, because it has always been war that scientific breakthroughs are common due to the situation.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_TankGun,,00.html

Yes those smaller size powersuits are definitely more viable, as they will act as souped up infantry with insane firepower and lot more armor. They can excel in urban combat since urban combat plagues large upstanding military forces (full force with tanks, artillery, etc.) with possibility of ambush from smaller, more easily disguisible weapons (guerillas with rpg, lone snipers hiding, etc.). And such power suits can still help overcome light arms fire to counter infantry, while still being small and manueverable enough to take the advantage of the terrain.

In open ground tanks/attack helis will destroy them.

Railgun tech is very real, but railguns don't gain any benefits from being on a mech. Metal Gear had them on a mech just to be cool, nothing else. If they can develope cooling technology and more space efficient powersource, they can just put those guns in modern tanks, ships, or just larger version of those and that'll be more pratical.

Techrobo, of course I won't deny the raw "possibility" of it being practical. After all, I'm also only a human and my thoughts and forms are far from perfect, prone to errors. However I still think the chance of humanoid mechs being practical is just too low for it to be a very safe bet to say that it won't happen.

And yes, fear works... for short term. Nazi created an "empire" for couple years based on fear and raw power, but that's how long it lasted. Genghis Kahn created the largest empire ever know to human kind but that thing fell apart so fast nobody really cares. Empires that truly lasted over decades all showed superior culture/technology over their neighbors. Everyone knows about the Roman empire (yes, it was violent but not compared to its neighbors at its time and it showed far more organized society then its neighbors at its time). One possible exception to this being the western power, since they took over the world only with superior metal making skills, gunpowder, and sailing knowledge over the empires they took over... but hey, they had superior technology. Besides, I doubt current western world will support such a violent method being ever used again in such great extent.

Again, I'm not saying those great empires ruled without fear, but that wasn't their most reliable tool for them to have lasted as long as they have.

Fear would work greatly during open combat, but not for occupation. Purpose of occupation in today's world is to convert while being humane, and fear sort of ruins that plan.

KaijuIris

July 21st, 2005, 11:48 AM

Even if they wouldn't work as military weapons, what do you think the chances are of seeing something like the Hobby Hi-Zack? ("sport-model" Hi-Zack redesigned for civillian recreational use).

Techrobo

July 21st, 2005, 11:54 AM

Even if they wouldn't work as military weapons, what do you think the chances are of seeing something like the Hobby Hi-Zack? ("sport-model" Hi-Zack redesigned for civillian recreational use).
I'd buy one, but it would certainly be marketing to a niche market. Popularity of the idea would have to be solid, but it need not necessarilly be a large base, much like the recreational glider aircraft industry. However the cost of such a thing as leisure craft would be phenominal; putting even civilian competition aircraft to shame in its excess. It would be cool, but I doubt it would ever happen, unless there was a huge boom in the popularity of the mecha genra, and there was a great degree of economic prosperity. Both are highly unlikely in the near future. The idea of the Hobby Hi-Zack makes much more sense in the context of the UC universe. The Hobby Hi-Zack is sort of like the many restored WW2 aircraft popular with pilots and historians; only for gundam. I don't think that idea would be as succesful without it being military technology, or at least having an antiquated technology to it.

darth_maldo

July 21st, 2005, 11:58 AM

Maybe armors like the ones from Bubblegum Crisis Tokio 2040. (Finally they aired something better than inuyasha and pokemon)

Prons

July 21st, 2005, 12:03 PM

Maybe armors like the ones from Bubblegum Crisis Tokio 2040. (Finally they aired something better than inuyasha and pokemon)

Wait, they're airing Bubblegum Crisis on TV?!?!?!?!

Yeah, I think there's more of a chance of seeing combat suits, except for some flaws:
- Cost
- Mobility
- The person dying from heat stroke
- Finding someone who can actually walk-run-crawl-jump with a huge metal suit on.

Techrobo

July 21st, 2005, 12:15 PM

Yeah, I think there's more of a chance of seeing combat suits, except for some flaws:
- Cost
- Mobility
- The person dying from heat stroke
- Finding someone who can actually walk-run-crawl-jump with a huge metal suit on.
The suits would have to have some sort of self propulsion and cooling, and the pilot would likely be hooked up to a multitude of "chemical enhancements" for this to work.

Jinto117

July 21st, 2005, 12:24 PM

Do any of you plan on seeing that new "Stealth" movie coming out? Those new military jets look pretty awsome. :thumbsup: That is something that most of us should see in our life times.

Prons

July 21st, 2005, 12:48 PM

Do any of you plan on seeing that new "Stealth" movie coming out? Those new military jets look pretty awsome. :thumbsup: That is something that most of us should see in our life times.

Maybe. It sounds a LOT like Macross Plus to me.

The suits would have to have some sort of self propulsion and cooling, and the pilot would likely be hooked up to a multitude of "chemical enhancements" for this to work.

Yeah, but that'd cost a lot of money, time, and effort to make.

And beside, I still think the days of close range combat are over\ending. Soon war will be a big game of battleship.

Sharp-kun

July 21st, 2005, 01:37 PM

Maybe. It sounds a LOT like Macross Plus to me.
Hardly.

The Ghost X9 in Macross Plus was a tiny suibplot stuck on at the end, not a major part of the show. Plus the "New Military AI Weapon goes Out of Control" idea had been around for years before Macross Plus.

UberDirector

July 21st, 2005, 04:46 PM

Sorry guys, no mecha in the future of warfare.

Why?

Big mecha: Ground pressure.

Feet are a horrible design. They focus too much weigh into too small an area. Common soldiers sink up to their knees in soft terrain, a large mecha would become bogged in almost anything. If you examine modern armored vehicles you will notice that the vast majority of them use catapillar type propulsion systems that distribute their wiegh over a very large portion of ground to allow them to traverse soft terrain. Perhaps a centipede mecha could offset the ground pressure problem... but then the complexity of a system employing large number of legs would become a problem in itself.

Small mecha: Propulsion.

What are you going to use to power it? Batteries won't work. You would need a very high amp battery with a long use time. Sorry, that's like asking for a car with amazing acceleration and good gas mileage. :) You can either have high power output or long endurence with a battery.. unless of course you make a battery of sufficient size that what you would consider to be high output for your armor suit is actually low output for the battery... but then you would need an extreamly vulnerable evangelion like cord since the battery would be the size of a building. Gas turbine and piston engines?... not unless you want a big mecha.

...and then there is the issue of armor. Want enough to take a hit from a less complex fighting vehicle? That's going to weigh alot. As in forty to sixty tons alot. Want to avoid hits ala gasaraki? Pipe dream. Just like athletes do, mecha would blow joints if they attempted high speed direction reversals.

Let's not forget toppling. When a modern fighting vehicle takes a surviveable hit, it gets rung like a bell. Not a plesant experience at all, that involves much flailing around of the not belted in and much rocking of the vehicle. However, do to the fact that modern fighting vehicles have very broad stances and low CG's they generally stay upright. Any bi/quad mecha would have a much higher CG and would be extreamly vulnerable to toppling if hit in the high quarters. Don't believe for a second that a toppling mecha won't take just as much damage from a fall as it would from a hostile projectile.

And lastly silhouette. By the nature of legs and their function, mecha are much taller then conventionally motive fighting vehicles. Being taller is NOT an advantage on the battlefield. Notice soldiers laying dowing alot?

The future of armored warefare probably lays in smaller fighting vehicles with shorter, more angular hulls with external weapon turrets minimized to keep a crew of only driver and gunner inside the vehicle hull. Think of an M1 on a crash diet.

Caine

July 21st, 2005, 05:13 PM

Feet are a horrible design. They focus too much weigh into too small an area. Common soldiers sink up to their knees in soft terrain, a large mecha would become bogged in almost anything. If you examine modern armored vehicles you will notice that the vast majority of them use catapillar type propulsion systems that distribute their wiegh over a very large portion of ground to allow them to traverse soft terrain. Perhaps a centipede mecha could offset the ground pressure problem... but then the complexity of a system employing large number of legs would become a problem in itself.

Let's not forget toppling. When a modern fighting vehicle takes a surviveable hit, it gets rung like a bell. Not a plesant experience at all, that involves much flailing around of the not belted in and much rocking of the vehicle. However, do to the fact that modern fighting vehicles have very broad stances and low CG's they generally stay upright. Any bi/quad mecha would have a much higher CG and would be extreamly vulnerable to toppling if hit in the high quarters. Don't believe for a second that a toppling mecha won't take just as much damage from a fall as it would from a hostile projectile.

As you say, this is beatable through a different way of distributing weight

And lastly silhouette. By the nature of legs and their function, mecha are much taller then conventionally motive fighting vehicles. Being taller is NOT an advantage on the battlefield. Notice soldiers laying dowing alot?

if you had great range, height could have a small value.

also, if you have good armor and firepower in one large vehicle, couldn't it have value in large scale battles?

UberDirector

July 21st, 2005, 06:34 PM

As you say, this is beatable through a different way of distributing weight

Inventive ways of distributing weight mean complexity.

Complexity is bad on the battlefield. It means more thing to break at the wrong time, and more things for the enemy to break for you.

By neccessity, a combat mecha would be a frontline weapon. It would have to endure field conditions for extended periods of time. Employing complex systems just for locomotion would be a severe hinderance to any field endurance, not to mention battle damage. Make a system more complex the less field deployable it becomes... much less any question of combat survivability.

if you had great range, height could have a small value.Exactly the opposite.

Height is a complete liability.

Beign tall means presenting more target area to aim at. The mecha being big and lumbering, and it's killer being small and crafty (likely a single soldier with a manpad weapon) the killer is likely to get the first, and only neccessary shot... being as how line of sight goes both ways.

also, if you have good armor and firepower in one large vehicle, couldn't it have value in large scale battles?During WWII the germans developed a super tank called the mouse. It was literally as big as a house. It's armor was supposed to be inpenetrable and it's main armorment of a type used by naval vessels. Weighing in at 207 tons it would have been the most massive ground combat vehicle even to this day. The germans abandoned the program when the realized a simple truth of ground combat. The bigger you are, the more you get shot at. The more you get shot at, the deader you are.

A vehicle armor need not be penetrated to kill the vehicle. Hit it hard enough and all the soft stuff inside the armor breaks first. Electronics, engines... people..

Techrobo

July 21st, 2005, 08:21 PM

Do any of you plan on seeing that new "Stealth" movie coming out? Those new military jets look pretty awsome. :thumbsup: That is something that most of us should see in our life times.
I'll see it, but I'll critisize everything. Its hard for a pilot to sit through movies like that. The US already has a prototype interceptor that flies itself and makes tactical decisions. I hate the idea of autonomous decision making by machines. The idiots funding that stuff obviously don't see any of the dangers of taking the human element out of war. If we feel no loss, there will be no reluctance to start wars; eventually allowing the more technologically advanced states to slaughter the others. Pisses me off everytime I talk about it. Back to the movie; the coolest part for me is that in the previews I saw that they were dogfighting a rescent Su series aircraft. I love Sukhoi planes, and at least I'll have someone to cheer for now - I hope their Su-37s! So I will be seeing it, but I am doubtful I'll enjoy it.

And beside, I still think the days of close range combat are over\ending. Soon war will be a big game of battleship.
That is the accepted view but don't count on it. As long range targeting advances, jamming advances just as much. I am a firm believer that stealth technology will be useless simply as a result of long range jamming, and strategic strikes against satelites. It might not happen quite soon but we will bounce back to fighting close up again. Bellona is a fickle mistress, and the condition of warfare constantly changes; sometimes not moving in the direction seen as progress by the majority. As I stated earlier, I think we need to be up close in wars, experiencing the hell that they are. If wars are not horrible, we will not seek to stop them. I think a fine first step towards restoring idealism and nobility in mankind would be the re-humanizing of warfare for the West.

Gaizokubanou

July 21st, 2005, 10:26 PM

A vehicle armor need not be penetrated to kill the vehicle. Hit it hard enough and all the soft stuff inside the armor breaks first. Electronics, engines... people..

Very good point indeed... we see this in our everyday lives yet many of us forget about this.

Automobile industry can make commercial cars much more duable, but they want their cars to break during crash. Why? So the breaking parts will absorb more of the force, rather then the driver/passengers inside.

Another pointer is that with technological advances, its easier to destroy rather than to protect. So as the firepower/armor balance shifts in favor of firepower, smaller weapons are probably much better for future then larger weapons, because larger weapons cost more(unless we are talking about micro size vs conventional size) and will still gets destroyed as easily as the smaller counterparts... I read about a military simulation about super carriers somewhere that it only took small amount of forces composed of small vessles and aircrafts to take down one of those larger carriers down. With VTOL tech being on one of the newest aircrafts today, I think it would make sense to see more smaller sized carriers to replace the larger ones soon.

Techrobo, yeah I see your point and you are probably right about change in military tatics, but for such thing to happen it'll probably take a dramatic scientific discovery. I just can't put my finger on what kind of achievement it will be, nor how it will change the direction of military tech.

Also I remember reading something about the first person to promote the idea of aircraft carrier in USA was demoted from general to colonel... anyone know anything about this?

I just hope I didn't rant something awfully incorrect about military stuff in front of UberDirector -_-;

Edit: I think small mechs would make a GREAT addition to moving companies around the world.

Jinto117

July 21st, 2005, 11:35 PM

Yeah the whole thing with A.I. controlled aircrafts is ridiculous. Although I don't want anyone to die in combat(especially our own troops), we fight wars to force the enemy to see things our way. Like Techrobo said, "If we feel no loss, there will be no reluctance to start wars; eventually allowing the more technologically advanced states to slaughter the others." This situation in the movie is similar to that of the one in Gundam Wing, where they used mobile dolls to fight their battles. Besides, havn't we learnded anything from the Matrix?

MagicianCamille

July 21st, 2005, 11:43 PM

Besides, havn't we learnded anything from the Matrix?

Yeah: Don't give a decent movie crappy sequels just because the first one sells well.

SSR

July 22nd, 2005, 01:14 AM

Check out this badboy: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001436.html

Gaizokubanou

July 22nd, 2005, 04:23 AM

Check out this badboy: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001436.html

I knew it mechs are for constructions! :)

darth_maldo

July 22nd, 2005, 10:00 AM

Wait, they're airing Bubblegum Crisis on TV?!?!?!?!

Yeah, I think there's more of a chance of seeing combat suits, except for some flaws:
- Cost
- Mobility
- The person dying from heat stroke
- Finding someone who can actually walk-run-crawl-jump with a huge metal suit on.
They did...in Chile where I live.

Caine

July 22nd, 2005, 10:06 AM

Inventive ways of distributing weight mean complexity.

Complexity is bad on the battlefield. It means more thing to break at the wrong time, and more things for the enemy to break for you.

By neccessity, a combat mecha would be a frontline weapon. It would have to endure field conditions for extended periods of time. Employing complex systems just for locomotion would be a severe hinderance to any field endurance, not to mention battle damage. Make a system more complex the less field deployable it becomes... much less any question of combat survivability.

I never said inventive, I said different. Also large and complex are not synonymous. A large base, which would distribute weight, need not be overly complex.

Exactly the opposite.

Height is a complete liability.

Beign tall means presenting more target area to aim at. The mecha being big and lumbering, and it's killer being small and crafty (likely a single soldier with a manpad weapon) the killer is likely to get the first, and only neccessary shot... being as how line of sight goes both ways.

That's why I included the bit about range. IF it had better range than the other guy, wouldn't it have a much better chance of shooting him first? Does it matter if I can be seen, as long as you can't do anything from where you are?
As i said, it wouldn't be a lot, but wouldn't it be there?

During WWII the germans developed a super tank called the mouse. It was literally as big as a house. It's armor was supposed to be inpenetrable and it's main armorment of a type used by naval vessels. Weighing in at 207 tons it would have been the most massive ground combat vehicle even to this day. The germans abandoned the program when the realized a simple truth of ground combat. The bigger you are, the more you get shot at. The more you get shot at, the deader you are.

A vehicle armor need not be penetrated to kill the vehicle. Hit it hard enough and all the soft stuff inside the armor breaks first. Electronics, engines... people..

simple rule of limited opposition resources- the more I get shot at, the less my ally does. Of course this only applies if
I can take those shots

yes vehicle armor has flaws, but are those flaws insurmountable?

SSR

July 22nd, 2005, 04:42 PM

I never said inventive, I said different. Also large and complex are not synonymous. A large base, which would distribute weight, need not be overly complex.

That's why I included the bit about range. IF it had better range than the other guy, wouldn't it have a much better chance of shooting him first? Does it matter if I can be seen, as long as you can't do anything from where you are?
As i said, it wouldn't be a lot, but wouldn't it be there?

Unless you've invented a new, unlimited source of power that can drive machinery better than an internal combustion engine, you don't get one without the other. A large base needs a large power plant in order to move, increasing the complexity and logistics of the operation. The aforementioned Mouse (and it's relation the Dora railway gun) could only crawl at an incredibly slow speed. It doesn't matter how many guns you mount on the thing or the range of the weaponry, what you've got is one giant, immobile target. If a ballistic missile or bomb doesn't get it, a special forces team would simply move in and blow it up.

simple rule of limited opposition resources- the more I get shot at, the less my ally does. Of course this only applies if I can take those shots

yes vehicle armor has flaws, but are those flaws insurmountable?

No good if you can't take the hits though. I'm not sure you understand the sheer power of modern artillery, tank shells and even handheld anti-armour launchers. To withstand everything the enemy could throw at you would require armour so thick it would be a joke, or some kind of force-field (which is the realm of science fiction.) Of the few tank losses incurred by British and American forces in the Iraq war, one was from a new type of RPG using a shaped charge. It blasted a hole about the size of a pencil (if I remember correctly) through the armour of an Abrams MBT and completely disabled the tank, the crew were saved because the fire-fighting equipment contained the blaze it started. They didn't know anything until the thing hit them, and that could have been just a two-man team. The Abrams is considered to have the best armour available in the world along with the Chobham of the British Challenger 2.
As far as I'm aware, there's not any armour in the world that can protect against a well-aimed anti-tank weapon, let alone anything they may come up with in the future. Rail and coil guns fire a small projectile that theoretically moves so fast it would melt the armour of a tank and incinerate anyone caught inside.

shinjenkin star

July 22nd, 2005, 04:47 PM

i was checkin ou anime insider and it turns out some japanese guy made his own mobile suit. it cant fir rockets or anything like that but it can move in any direction. just check out anime insider issue 23

UberDirector

July 22nd, 2005, 05:18 PM

I never said inventive, I said different. Also large and complex are not synonymous. A large base, which would distribute weight, need not be overly complex.Have you ever seen a scuba diver attempt to walk on land while weariing his flippers?

The motions of walking dictate that a foot be of a size restricted in scale to the length of the leg it is on. Make the foot too large and you limit to motion of the knee and ankle during the legs traverse, requireing more up and down motion in the walking process then forward and backward.

Watch footage of men on snow shoes walking. The result in an entertaining shuffle at a very limited pace.

The only way to overcome the loss of mobility associated with increasing the size of the foot beyond the required proportion would be to make the foot flexible so that the leg can maintain it's proper movement arc while the foot is still in contact with the ground. In essence, you would need to give the foot toes. Immediatly the complexity issue comes up. Your toes must be stong enough to support the mass of dozens of tons of armor and weapons on the move and they must be heavily armored enough themsleves that they won't be blown off by simple mines.

It's not a simple question of makeing something bigger when you consider the forces involved with a multi ton combat machine running. And yes, it would need to run to be survivable.

That's why I included the bit about range. IF it had better range than the other guy, wouldn't it have a much better chance of shooting him first? Does it matter if I can be seen, as long as you can't do anything from where you are?
As i said, it wouldn't be a lot, but wouldn't it be there?There are already man portable weapons in service that can reach and kill anything within the horizon.

Assumeing that a larger vehicle can outrange a single soldier is fallacy. The only haven from infantry weapons right now is the vertical. Technology has yet to enable single men to hit targets above ten thousand feet. (damn gravity).

simple rule of limited opposition resources- the more I get shot at, the less my ally does. Of course this only applies if
I can take those shotsThis also assumes that the enemy has a very limited number of arms or will take more then one salvo to destroy a target. It doesn't matter if you drew all the fire on the battle field if you only drew it for one second.

yes vehicle armor has flaws, but are those flaws insurmountable?Show me a vehicle that can suck a JDAM and I'll drop a Bunker Buster on it. Show me a vehicle that can absord a APFDS round and I'll hit it with a HESH round. Better yet, I'll send a 1 million dollar unmanned drone to take out your hundred million dollar walking leviathan.

Land combat has progressed to the point that anything that can be seen, can be killed (assumeing two well equipped forces are fighting). Current pofficiency drills for crews on tanks measure how long it takes from spotting a target until it is hit by the round. The test isn't to see if it can be hit, the assumption is that it will be hit by the first round fired. On average, engagements last fewer then five seconds from the time a target is spotted until it is serviced, even with the fireing platform moveing at 40 mph cross country and the target on a moveing sled. A taller walking combat vehicle would be hit just the same as the sqaut tanks would. Only they would be vastly less surviveable.

Unless there is a radical advancement in armor technology, the current generation of tank weaponry is more then enough to put paid to a walking fighting platform. Especially with skilled gunners being able to pick where on their targets the round will hit. Of course, if there is an advancement in technology, tanks could employ it too... at a far cheaper cost.

Caine

July 22nd, 2005, 06:33 PM

First of all, let me point out that we are dealing with possibilities in the future. This means that "what if's" must be used in some amount

Unless you've invented a new, unlimited source of power that can drive machinery better than an internal combustion engine, you don't get one without the other. A large base needs a large power plant in order to move, increasing the complexity and logistics of the operation. The aforementioned Mouse (and it's relation the Dora railway gun) could only crawl at an incredibly slow speed. It doesn't matter how many guns you mount on the thing or the range of the weaponry, what you've got is one giant, immobile target. If a ballistic missile or bomb doesn't get it, a special forces team would simply move in and blow it up.

How long has the internal combustion engine been around? Technology continues to go progress. I would not be surprised if I saw a new way of powering vehicles replace the internal combusion engine in my lifetime.

No good if you can't take the hits though. I'm not sure you understand the sheer power of modern artillery, tank shells and even handheld anti-armour launchers. To withstand everything the enemy could throw at you would require armour so thick it would be a joke, or some kind of force-field (which is the realm of science fiction.) Of the few tank losses incurred by British and American forces in the Iraq war, one was from a new type of RPG using a shaped charge. It blasted a hole about the size of a pencil (if I remember correctly) through the armour of an Abrams MBT and completely disabled the tank, the crew were saved because the fire-fighting equipment contained the blaze it started. They didn't know anything until the thing hit them, and that could have been just a two-man team. The Abrams is considered to have the best armour available in the world along with the Chobham of the British Challenger 2.
As far as I'm aware, there's not any armour in the world that can protect against a well-aimed anti-tank weapon, let alone anything they may come up with in the future. Rail and coil guns fire a small projectile that theoretically moves so fast it would melt the armour of a tank and incinerate anyone caught inside.

firstly, I pointed out that this is no good if I can't take the hits and I realize that modern armor can't stop modern weaponry.

If you bring up future weapons, please at least consider future defenses as well.

There are already man portable weapons in service that can reach and kill anything within the horizon.

I stand corrected

Unless there is a radical advancement in armor technology, the current generation of tank weaponry is more then enough to put paid to a walking fighting platform. Especially with skilled gunners being able to pick where on their targets the round will hit. Of course, if there is an advancement in technology, tanks could employ it too... at a far cheaper cost.

you see trends in history. sometimes offensive technology gets far ahead of defensive technology, but defensive technology tends to get back into the picture. I am basing my ideas partially on this. Also, it is possible that new defensive technology could be more effective on larger vehicles, so I wouldn't say that it would have to be better used on a tank

SSR

July 22nd, 2005, 06:50 PM

Except that the current trend for armoured vehicles is moving away from the larger fighting platforms. MBTs rule the battlefield when you can see for miles around, but take one into an urban area and it's a whole different story. The Bradley has lighter armour but is quicker and can carry troops. No use trundling around Bagdhad in your Abrams if a couple guys can sneak up behind and take you out with an RPG.

Developing a workable and safe mecha would require several massive leaps in technology. Not only would we need to devise a new method of propulsion (preferably one that doesn't use petrol) but we'd need armour that was tougher and lighter than that currently found and material that would be able to withstand the stresses placed upon it by a machine that would have to move incredibly quickly just to survive more than ten seconds. Even then, a machine that had several legs and a low centre of gravity, such as the John Deere thing I posted, would be a better solution. You might be able to stop a round that hits you, but a bipedal mecha is just going to fall over from the force of the impact.

An armoured vehicle that uses limbs offers no advantage over one that is tracked, unless you happen to be in an environment with a large amount of ground debris, like trees or rocks. But that's not too far removed from urban combat since ground troops would easily be capable of getting behind your lumbering mecha as it attempts to walk over a fallen tree.

If you bring up future weapons, please at least consider future defenses as well.

There's no material we know of right now (unless it's top secret...) that would be able to stop a round fired from a rail or coil gun, even the next gen reactive armour. Not to mention the various 'ray gun' technologies they're developing. I believe they're attempting to develop microwave weapons that would be able to cook the crew of a tank.

Sushikins

July 22nd, 2005, 06:57 PM

So basicly, it seems we're more likely to see a Guntank rather than a normal MS if we ever get there.

SSR

July 22nd, 2005, 07:09 PM

What do you mean by Guntank?

As mentioned, it wouldn't be surprising to see powered armour or exoskeletons used before long.

Like this:
http://sanlab.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/HAL/indexE.html

The Japanese are planning to give these to the elderly to help them lift heavy items and move around. They respond to your movements, augmenting your strength.
Assume it's made smaller and armoured and they find a power source that allows several hours of continous use. It's not completely unlikely something like this could find it's way into combat, perhaps for medics or supply at first.
Go into the future and the armour is better, power source much improved and they're fitted with all kinds of navigation and sensor equipment. There's your Appleseed Landmates, right there. :)

master terrence

July 22nd, 2005, 07:11 PM

Its not going to have poseable thumbs.... or a light saber... or legs for that fact.. if they were to make one it would look like R2D2 from starwars except bigger

Sushikins

July 22nd, 2005, 07:14 PM

What do you mean by Guntank?

This is the Guntank, from Mobile Suit Gundam
http://img73.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rx7548ev.jpg

SSR

July 23rd, 2005, 02:32 AM

This is the Guntank, from Mobile Suit Gundam
http://img73.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rx7548ev.jpg

So it's a tank with two large artillery pieces and a completely unnecessary body and arms? Again, it would make too much of a target and nobody is going to put cannons of that size on a tank, the Germans tried and failed several times. It's just not practical.

Ctholhic

July 23rd, 2005, 02:32 AM

Not to mention the various 'ray gun' technologies they're developing. I believe they're attempting to develop microwave weapons that would be able to cook the crew of a tank.

Actually, they've already developed the technology to enable them to focus Microwaves into a coherent beam (it was done before they invented LASERs, in fact), they just need a powerful enough power source, the same problem they have with the military application of lasers right now.

And, firing a maser at tanks would most likely cause an area blast that would kill troops around the tank without damaging the tank itself nor the crew inside the tank. Metal deflects Microwaves, hence why your microwave oven has a metal grille over the front and a metal interior. If it were powerful enough it could possibly melt the armour (as it absorbs some energy from the microwaves), but it'd likely slag the electronics inside and kill nearby infantry first.

Gaizokubanou

July 23rd, 2005, 10:43 AM

First of all, let me point out that we are dealing with possibilities in the future. This means that "what if's" must be used in some amount

Nobody said they can't be used, but don't expect to convince anyone with "if"s.

Besides, the concept of firepower > armor has been around... ever since firearms were introduced to combat. You can't expect to just say "if new armor types were to outperform any conventional weapons..." and to make convincing argument out of it, just as I can't argue against physicists about Earth's rotational path by saying "well the gravity of Sun can change in next few years dramatically...".

Anything is possible, but that does NOT mean probable.

And when you are arguing AGAINST UberDirector about military concepts around here.... that means you should double check what you are saying because UD knows the stuff.

And I hoped I didn't have to say this but... battlefield isn't a place for idealistic thoughts and fantasies, its a place where people risk their lives to take someone else's. Expecting ideas from work of fiction (especially work that's not even created by someone who's well versed in war and science) to work in real battlefield is just... being way too naive.

SSR

July 23rd, 2005, 03:16 PM

Lt. Mustang

July 23rd, 2005, 03:35 PM

Ahh techno robo, I was wondering when you'd show up..

Techrobo

July 24th, 2005, 08:51 AM

Actually, they've already developed the technology to enable them to focus Microwaves into a coherent beam (it was done before they invented LASERs, in fact), they just need a powerful enough power source, the same problem they have with the military application of lasers right now.

And, firing a maser at tanks would most likely cause an area blast that would kill troops around the tank without damaging the tank itself nor the crew inside the tank. Metal deflects Microwaves, hence why your microwave oven has a metal grille over the front and a metal interior. If it were powerful enough it could possibly melt the armour (as it absorbs some energy from the microwaves), but it'd likely slag the electronics inside and kill nearby infantry first.
Microwave weaponry and lasers for that matter are not currently being considered for anti-tank warfare. As you said, they both take too much energy and would have trouble with mobility, even if they did turn out to be effective. I am a firm believer that rail guns will be the future of anti-tank warfare, and will be much more practical in space warfare than lasers. The US is still experimenting with lasers, but their rail gun program is producing much better results, and Russia has been pursuing rail gun technology since the 80s - they actually have a working model at the cosmodrome in Kazakhstan with anti-satelite capabilities! I see rail guns are the predominant projectile weapon of the future, though lasers will undoubtedly have a role as well.

Jinto117

July 24th, 2005, 01:16 PM

Yeah I agree with you. Hopfully we will see something by the time we are all old and before we are dead.

Gaizokubanou

July 25th, 2005, 06:14 AM

Railgun tech can also created efficient space traveling mathod (would sort of look like the mass driver in Gundam universe).

That's something that you guys should be looking forward to :) , not another deadly weapon to kill more efficiently :(

Anyway if railgun does enter the world of conventional weapons, that could change AA concepts in military doctrine a lot as well, so techrobo you better watch out :P

Edit: BTW, I'm planning to build a mini mech in rl soon with help from my father who's pro with electirc equipments... I guess that's sort of on topic. Wish me luck :)

Techrobo

July 25th, 2005, 07:23 AM

Anyway if railgun does enter the world of conventional weapons, that could change AA concepts in military doctrine a lot as well, so techrobo you better watch out :P
Thanks for the concern, but I must restate; No one is going to attack Canada! We're just too nice. We don't even really need a military, but thoughts like that are just another thing that'll take away my second job. Its still the missiles that worry us the most, and my Serbian friend has shown me why, but rail technology has given the airforce something else to worry about. In anycase, by the time they would see service, I'll be over military flying age, and yet again: who is going to bother Canada?

Anyway, space exploration is a passive interest of mine, and I'd love to see anyone start using electro-magnetic launch systems. It would certainly be more efficient than the current US system. With the rescent launch of the first joint Russia/Kazakhstan Angara launch vehicle, the former Soviets have actually built a more economically feasible launch system, with superior lift capabilities, that doesn't damage the environment. I am continually amazed by the post 1991 technology coming out of the Republics, and am amazed that the US was losing the considerable lead in space technology they gained in the 1970s. Sergei Korolov would be proud. Still, the strait lift HLVs of th Republics will not be enough for space colonization, and an electromagnetic launch system may be the answer.

And now I'm entirely off topic...

darth_maldo

July 26th, 2005, 02:11 PM

CrossboneGundam

July 26th, 2005, 03:50 PM

It would be way too efficient to build a mass driver to launch things into space, and therefore, unamerican. Remember Bush's plan to build a "moon base" to launch a manned mission to mars?

At any rate, I'd just like to point out that mass drivers are something that various scientific institutions are actually trying to achieve, it's not something thought up by Gundam staff.

Gaizokubanou

July 26th, 2005, 04:15 PM

At any rate, I'd just like to point out that mass drivers are something that various scientific institutions are actually trying to achieve, it's not something thought up by Gundam staff.

Since Crossbone already pointed this out, I might as well as make a point about the gundam colonies as well. They were not originally designed by Tomino. I forgot who thought of the idea of cylinder with huge glasses with 3 mirrors with farms circling around it, but it was designed by someone else.

Magami No ER

July 26th, 2005, 04:48 PM

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder & for the ones in Gundam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Colony_(Gundam)
I read all about them just before I decided to get into Gundam.

Jinto117

July 27th, 2005, 09:09 PM

I was wondering what kind of launch system the Gundams use in the Seed series. It kind of looks like some rail gun catapult technology. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Alexei

July 28th, 2005, 06:21 AM

Screw Gundams. Give me an Aestivalis!

But... /sigh I don't think we'll ever get such advanced nanomachine technology anytime in our lives. T.T

CrossboneGundam

July 28th, 2005, 03:09 PM

Screw Gundams. Give me an Aestivalis!

But... /sigh I don't think we'll ever get such advanced nanomachine technology anytime in our lives. T.T

I don't recall Aestevalises using nanotechnology... Or are those two sentences unrelated in subject?

But on a similar note, Alstromeria would totally own any MS, save a psycoframe equipped MS piloted by a powerful newtype.

Alexei

July 28th, 2005, 03:17 PM

I don't recall Aestevalises using nanotechnology... Or are those two sentences unrelated in subject?

But on a similar note, Alstromeria would totally own any MS, save a psycoframe equipped MS piloted by a powerful newtype.

http://www.absoluteanime.com/nadesico/akito.htm

Aestivalis pilots subject themselves to the nano treatment to provide an interface between brain and machine

And on a side note, yes, The Alstromeria would rape any MS in any Gundam series save for Newtype Weapons.

The Black Selena, however... haha, I would love to see even the Hi-Nu teamed up with the Nightingale take that sucker down.

CrossboneGundam

July 28th, 2005, 03:19 PM

http://www.absoluteanime.com/nadesico/akito.htm
Ohhhhhh, I completely forgot that. I just remembered that episode where what's his face who liked Yurika got nanomachines like it was some sort of life altering "you can't turn back" ultra-decision... :D

At any rate, Alstromeria is still cool.

Gaizokubanou

July 28th, 2005, 06:36 PM

I was wondering what kind of launch system the Gundams use in the Seed series. It kind of looks like some rail gun catapult technology. Can anyone shed some light on this?

It looks like it but Gundam SEED isn't the most consistent universe on details... so who knows lol.

I swear on fan sub I read it somewhere that phase-shift systems can redirect/deflect/absorb all kinetic energy harmlessly and that's practically the only thing they did, and later in the series phase-shift provides gundams with anti beam feature as well... and later phase-shift equiped MS were being damaged by kinetic energy based weapons...

I love how most of science fictions totally neglect human's fragile nature when it comes to acceleration... they start accelerating everything at light speed and somehow with magic everyone inside the vehicles are safe. sigh. If Gundam SEED is indeed launching MS with railgun tech, it just might add onto the already impressive collection of another invincible-humans-against-the-law-of-physics lol

Ctholhic

July 28th, 2005, 07:27 PM

Come on, it's a fictional work. Waldfeld, Sting, Mwu and Kira all get blown up and their units totalled and still somehow manage to survive, for example. If you want to go more indepth, it has the exploding/electrocuting consoles disease shared by Star Trek series. It has magical gravity generators on ships, a seemingly infinite number of resources, amazing technicians to make use of these infinite resources on every individual ship (they'd have to be amazing to fix those suits in such a short time) most of which are indeed shared with Sci Fi, grunts are obviously cloned, because they come in such huge numbers and all act exactly the same, too!

Btw, it's referred in some cases as a Linear catapult and the Valiants are listed as Linear cannons, so I'm guessing it is indeed a magnetic accelerator (or railgun).

UberDirector

July 28th, 2005, 07:31 PM

Electromagnetic mass drivers need not use their full potential.

Useing the technology to launch a MS with a human occupant would be entirely feasable as long as the output was maintained low enough to ensure a reasonable rate of acceleration. Of course... doing so would completely negate the advantages of useing a rail gun type system instead of a more conventional system.

...which of course brings us to the burning question that's been around since Macross... why use any launch system at all in space?

Ctholhic

July 28th, 2005, 07:44 PM

To save the limited maneuver jet fuel reserves, of course! (Well, that would be the real life reason)

And because it looks cool, okay? (This is likely the real reason for including it)

Edit: Okay, I just noticed this whilst rewatching Destiny Phase 39 (to confirm my suspicions, actually). Why would the Eternal have the same style catapult as the Archangel? It doesn't seem to be an atmospheric craft, which would require the footlocks. Could it possibly be an attack of lazy animators?

Jinto117

July 28th, 2005, 08:34 PM

I guess it doesn't really matter as long as they get food on the table, lol.

Techrobo

July 29th, 2005, 09:16 AM

Since Crossbone already pointed this out, I might as well as make a point about the gundam colonies as well. They were not originally designed by Tomino. I forgot who thought of the idea of cylinder with huge glasses with 3 mirrors with farms circling around it, but it was designed by someone else.
Most of the stuff in gundam is based on the works of scientists and futurists from the 1970s. I do not recall the man who origionally designed the "Island" series colonies, but it is easiest to blames the designs on NASA (http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/70sArt/art.html), which had a passing interest in the ideas at the time. In any case, rotation-based colony designs are not restricted to Gundam even in the real of fiction; recalling a certain amazing Stanley Kubrick film...

Electromagnetic mass drivers need not use their full potential.

Useing the technology to launch a MS with a human occupant would be entirely feasable as long as the output was maintained low enough to ensure a reasonable rate of acceleration. Of course... doing so would completely negate the advantages of useing a rail gun type system instead of a more conventional system.

...which of course brings us to the burning question that's been around since Macross... why use any launch system at all in space?
One of the main advantages of an electromagnetic launch system is that it can be run off electricity. Electrical carrier catapults have been designed, but they are not the best models. It would simply be inefficient for an electrically run vehicle, with surplus electrical power at its disposal, to instead opt to use steam or rocket assisted launch systems. In addition we must realize that when it is used to lanch humans it would not be able to accelerate fully, but these catapult systems could also be used as a means of unmanned, unpowered tranport of resources and goods from one shipt to another, ect, ect. As for the validity of a launch system in space, that is a bit trickier, especially when the need for fuel or battery power is removed.

UberDirector

July 29th, 2005, 09:52 AM

One of the main advantages of an electromagnetic launch system is that it can be run off electricity. Electrical carrier catapults have been designed, but they are not the best models. It would simply be inefficient for an electrically run vehicle, with surplus electrical power at its disposal, to instead opt to use steam or rocket assisted launch systems. That brings up an interesting quirk of modern ship design. The current generation of super carriers have if anything, vast reserves of electrical energy to call upon from their generators. Of course, due to the design of coolant systems for the plants, they also happen to have plenty of steam on hand too.

Guess it's just easier to continue employing old technology then to adopt new.

In addition we must realize that when it is used to lanch humans it would not be able to accelerate fully, but these catapult systems could also be used as a means of unmanned, unpowered tranport of resources and goods from one shipt to another, ect, ect. I've always considered an adjustable acceleration curve to be one of the key advantages to a linear magnetic system. In a traditional gun system, the heavy acceleration is at the initial point with a tapering as the gasses reach maximum expansion. With a magnetic acceleration system, you could reverse it, so that it is a build of acceleration to a peak at the release point. Aeronautical studies have shown that pilots will almost always suffer a black out from a sudden mass G onset, but when build from 1G gradually, then can withstand up to 11G's. In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Heilein aptly describes the use of an electromagnetic mass accelerator as it could be used to transport humans through space. He does conceed though, that is was intended for the transport of mineing product.

Of course, being a G sensative payload myself, I don't want to be "fired" out of anything.

Ctholhic

July 29th, 2005, 10:08 AM

They could potentially be used as an ad-hoc large munitions launcher in combat, too.

Heh, just loading the launch tube with all manner of metallic junk would be an effective weapon, considering that it would also jam the RADAR, confound heat detectors with all the reflection and obscure vision quite a bit, too.

On uses in space, accelerating your fighters to high speed makes sense in a combat situation because they would then be less likely to be hit as they launch, also to save their fuel somewhat.

Of course, this is how it owuld be rationalised in real life. I think it's used just because it looks cool.

Techrobo

July 29th, 2005, 04:21 PM

That brings up an interesting quirk of modern ship design. The current generation of super carriers have if anything, vast reserves of electrical energy to call upon from their generators. Of course, due to the design of coolant systems for the plants, they also happen to have plenty of steam on hand too.

Guess it's just easier to continue employing old technology then to adopt new.
Ships like super carriers and nuclear submarines also have fairly unlimited access to water, which helps in the cooling process. In space however, it would seem much more practical to me to use a vacuum cooling system. In this process there would be no waste of water or production of excess steam, which makes more sense for a large space vehicle to me. I can understand the don't fix something that isn't broken mentality, but technology by it's very nature is progressive, and even marginally superior radical new designs - if produced and employed efficiently - can give an edge. Of course if they are managed inefficiently, then it'll just be a repeat of Nazi Germany's weapon's development programs, which were years ahead of anyone, and had almost unlimited potential, but were produced and employed poorly.

I've always considered an adjustable acceleration curve to be one of the key advantages to a linear magnetic system. In a traditional gun system, the heavy acceleration is at the initial point with a tapering as the gasses reach maximum expansion. With a magnetic acceleration system, you could reverse it, so that it is a build of acceleration to a peak at the release point. Aeronautical studies have shown that pilots will almost always suffer a black out from a sudden mass G onset, but when build from 1G gradually, then can withstand up to 11G's. In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Heilein aptly describes the use of an electromagnetic mass accelerator as it could be used to transport humans through space. He does conceed though, that is was intended for the transport of mineing product.

Of course, being a G sensative payload myself, I don't want to be "fired" out of anything.
Yeah being fired out of anything doesn't sound like a good way to start the day. What worries me about some linear acceleration technology is it's electromagnetic nature in and of itself. Certain highpower varients of this technology set release an Electro Magnetic Pulse upon discharge. How useful is a launch method/weapon that adverselly affects one's own power system every time it is used. Of course EMP hardening is becoming easier and easier - Russia's Topol-M ICBM is impervious to the US government's proposed ABM System's EMP missile-interception system - but hardening everything seems inefficient. Of course the EMP discharge would limit the amount acceleration capable in certain models, but EMPs themselves have also proven to be a valuable weapon and interception system, which if used properly could confere a great advantage.

They could potentially be used as an ad-hoc large munitions launcher in combat, too.

Heh, just loading the launch tube with all manner of metallic junk would be an effective weapon, considering that it would also jam the RADAR, confound heat detectors with all the reflection and obscure vision quite a bit, too.
That is a very interesting idea that I had heard mentioned before. Such tactics could be used effectively in a manner akin to guerilla warfare, giving smaller powers a means to put themselves on the same footing as numerically and technologically superior foes. I am a firm believer that sephisticated jamming will be playing a more and more important role in warfare in the future, but fairly primative jamming methods such as this have as much if not more potential. I will look into this idea.

On uses in space, accelerating your fighters to high speed makes sense in a combat situation because they would then be less likely to be hit as they launch, also to save their fuel somewhat.

Of course, this is how it owuld be rationalised in real life. I think it's used just because it looks cool.
Firstly, yes, it does look really cool, and there is a nostalgic feeling about having space vehicles go through a launch process akin to modern carrier launching. However as you pointed out it could serve several rational purposes. My one point against yours is the fuel consuption; as I believe as technology increases the problem of propelant depletion through use will become less and less of a problem. Fusion is going to change everything...

Ctholhic

July 30th, 2005, 05:49 AM

Techrobo

July 30th, 2005, 10:05 AM

That is true, however it also the fact that every little helps, anything that could enable the fighters to last a little longer would be useful. After all, if you're still hanging around when the enemy has to retreat you've got a tactical advantage.

It's also possible that in some cases the power output of the units propulsion might be less than the launch system, so using the system would be a more time-efficient method of accelerating them to combat speeds.
I'll agree that acceleration will be a factor in the decision to use linear launchers. However, I am confident that in the relatively near future - with the advent of more advanced power plants and propulsion systems - space fighter and attacker units will only be limited in opperation time by the endurance of the pilot. In any case, once such technology is developed it will only be a matter of time before a level of excelleration near end of the envelope of a pilot's tolerance can be reached. MiG-29A Fulcrums can accelerate faster than a pilots body can adapt to the acceleration in certain conditions, and it would be relatively simple for space fighters, having no friction to deal with, to do the same.

Gaizokubanou

July 30th, 2005, 11:44 AM

Another reason why flight designed AI is the key to the future Muhahahahaha

Or they can develope awsome training programs and pilot suits to allow humans to handle such acceleration, which will be even better :)

What's the deal with solar wind btw? Maybe that will come into huge play when we get into space environment even more.

Ctholhic

July 30th, 2005, 02:17 PM

Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps the linear launcher might accelerate a bit beyond natural endurance initially, as the power is supplied and controlled from outside the unit being launched they require no user input and could potentially deal with a short blackout as long as the pilot awakes before the end of the launch track.

So initially the acceleration could be great, but later it would fall as the unit reaches the launch systems max speed. This initially period of intense acceleration would severely affect normal humans temporarily but as the accelerative force decreases they would recover in time to take control of the unit as it leaves the launcher.

Techrobo

July 31st, 2005, 04:08 PM

What's the deal with solar wind btw? Maybe that will come into huge play when we get into space environment even more.
I don't know if it will become a huge factor until we get to the interplanetary stage. Still, it would be cool to see long range inter-planetary ships using Solar Sails for propulsion. I would make my dream of becoming a 1700s-esque style space pirate a little bit easier to accomplish, though the entire idea is absurd...

pizza!

July 31st, 2005, 04:23 PM

Techrobo

July 31st, 2005, 05:33 PM

well one thing for sure they ceartainly wont zip around like gundams it would take millions upon millions of pounds of thrust to even loft a gundam let alone make it fast
maybe in space but i just dont see a reason for moble suits
In space it would take relatively little thrust, and in the UC in particular they have a novel idea involving limb movements that would negate the need for thrusters for small manuevers. In the atmosphere you are entirely right. Their purpose would still be up in the air. I still like the idea of simply using them as a terror weapon...

Gaizokubanou

August 1st, 2005, 10:47 AM

I think fear based on history of the weapon would be more effective rather then just visual effect... since enemies with decent equipments will figure out that giant robots are no big deal. And having a weapon that's as vulnerable as giant robots to act as an icon can work against you, since when you enemy takes one down, their morale will likely to skyrocket.

Or better yet, why even let them notice that you are there? Just hit them hard and fast and get out before they even know what the hell happened :) Not knowing what the hell is going on can be amazing source of fear.

Another simple problem is when vehicles get that big, think about braking while moving on decent speed... imagine how much of a jerk you will have while you are piloting the damn thing :P

The limb idea in space does work... but it does not need to be humanoid. I'm so positive that there are much more efficient designs with limbs for space (vector thrusting, anyone?).

pizza!

August 1st, 2005, 02:21 PM

thats why we have f-117A's http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/4420/dvic2415qw.jpg

Techrobo

August 1st, 2005, 04:11 PM

I think fear based on history of the weapon would be more effective rather then just visual effect... since enemies with decent equipments will figure out that giant robots are no big deal. And having a weapon that's as vulnerable as giant robots to act as an icon can work against you, since when you enemy takes one down, their morale will likely to skyrocket.

Or better yet, why even let them notice that you are there? Just hit them hard and fast and get out before they even know what the hell happened :) Not knowing what the hell is going on can be amazing source of fear.
Fear in general is not an effective means of controlling enemy soldiers, and I would not dream of using mecha as such. It is as an occupational weapon inspiring fear in ignorrant civilian populations that I see it at its most valuable. Imagine occupying an area populated by a small, indiginous group. The Vietnam War opperations conducted by the MACV SOG showed that soldiers are of little use in controlling such populations, though a common enemy can mobilize them in your favour. I just think a "giant" would create a desired fear in indigenous populations, and even in more modern areas.

Techrobo

August 1st, 2005, 04:16 PM

thats why we have f-117A's
Nighthawks do serve a purpose but they are becoming somewhat antiquated and their actual stealth abilities are not as effective as first predicted. Serbians using 1970s era Soviet missile systems shot several down from the ground. I place little value on stealth technology, because jamming technology which puts stealth aircraft on a level playing field with conventional aircraft does exist, is constantly improving, and will quickly reach the battlefield in comming global conflicts. I have a lot of admiration for the USAF, I just firmly believe they are wasting a lot of money on the wrong projects. Of course my own Air Command isn't exactly doing what I'd like either, though they did buy us those Super Hornet upgrades, which is an improvement.

pizza!

August 1st, 2005, 07:55 PM

pizza!

August 1st, 2005, 07:57 PM

Nighthawks do serve a purpose but they are becoming somewhat antiquated and their actual stealth abilities are not as effective as first predicted. Serbians using 1970s era Soviet missile systems shot several down from the ground. I place little value on stealth technology, because jamming technology which puts stealth aircraft on a level playing field with conventional aircraft does exist, is constantly improving, and will quickly reach the battlefield in comming global conflicts. I have a lot of admiration for the USAF, I just firmly believe they are wasting a lot of money on the wrong projects. Of course my own Air Command isn't exactly doing what I'd like either, though they did buy us those Super Hornet upgrades, which is an improvement.

also under the f-22 the f-117A is the most advanced wepons delivery platform we have in service at current

what is the dif in the super hornets i thought it was just power
but then again i dont fly one

UberDirector

August 1st, 2005, 10:09 PM

ive only heard of one f-117A being shot down by enimy fire
You would in fact be correct.

Only one F117 has ever been lost to enemy fire. And that one only because of piss poor mission repetition dictated by officers who should have been shot. Flying missions at the same time, altitude and heading negates the effectiveness of stealth. A barge ballon could have brought down that aircraft.

As for the weapon system that conducted the intercept being 70's technology, so is the 117.

pizza!, The E and F model hornets are almost a completely different aircraft from previous models. They have new engines, avionics, wings, and mostly new airframes. There have been improvements in range, payload, thrust, and agility, while lowering the overall RCS.

As for jamming vs stealth.... stealth will always be superior, if stealth is being used in the role that it is most suited for: Opening of surprise engagements. Stealth and jamming work on opposite ends of the air defense denial spectrum. Jamming is extreamly effective at dening target tracking, but everyone and their dog knows you are there because of the massive amount of electronic noise being put out. Stealth is supposed to keep them from knowing you are there by minimizeing the target against a vast backdrop. However, much like Where's Waldo, once they know you are there, they will eventaully find you. In the Serbian case, only arrogance on the part of Airforce officials allowed them to believe that while flying the same mission tracks night after night they could remain unnoticed. The mission tracks should have been changed, or jamming support sent along.

Jinto117

August 1st, 2005, 10:24 PM

What was the fate of the Airforce officials?

Gaizokubanou

August 1st, 2005, 11:29 PM

Imagine occupying an area populated by a small, indiginous group. The Vietnam War opperations conducted by the MACV SOG showed that soldiers are of little use in controlling such populations, though a common enemy can mobilize them in your favour. I just think a "giant" would create a desired fear in indigenous populations, and even in more modern areas.

But are they really indiginous if they have the means to take out a MBT? For truly indiginous population, just the sight of a moving MBT can play effective roll as fear weapon. But I don't know why we would bring armed forces for occupation in those areas in the first place.

I think a sight of MBT in real life to most civilians is deadful enough... at least if its not on their side lol.

And again, controlling native population with fear is just unproductive method for nations that can afford giant humanoid mechs. Unless the obejctive is to destroy the civilian population, scaring them is just not a wise choice. If you think fear is a valid and effective way to gain control of occupied area (why am I using this term? "occupation"? wtf?)... wait nevermind, fear is good for occupation, but why would you want to effectively occupy other nations?

Sterilizing few people as a demonstration should create even more fear than a giant mech anyway lol

pizza!

August 2nd, 2005, 08:29 AM

You would in fact be correct.

Only one F117 has ever been lost to enemy fire. And that one only because of piss poor mission repetition dictated by officers who should have been shot. Flying missions at the same time, altitude and heading negates the effectiveness of stealth. A barge ballon could have brought down that aircraft.

As for the weapon system that conducted the intercept being 70's technology, so is the 117.

pizza!, The E and F model hornets are almost a completely different aircraft from previous models. They have new engines, avionics, wings, and mostly new airframes. There have been improvements in range, payload, thrust, and agility, while lowering the overall RCS.

As for jamming vs stealth.... stealth will always be superior, if stealth is being used in the role that it is most suited for: Opening of surprise engagements. Stealth and jamming work on opposite ends of the air defense denial spectrum. Jamming is extreamly effective at dening target tracking, but everyone and their dog knows you are there because of the massive amount of electronic noise being put out. Stealth is supposed to keep them from knowing you are there by minimizeing the target against a vast backdrop. However, much like Where's Waldo, once they know you are there, they will eventaully find you. In the Serbian case, only arrogance on the part of Airforce officials allowed them to believe that while flying the same mission tracks night after night they could remain unnoticed. The mission tracks should have been changed, or jamming support sent along.

hmmmi didnt know that the improvements were that extensive

are you an airforce technition or do you fly one
or do you just have a liking of aeronautics?
my uncle flew yf-16's back in the day but unfortunetly i wont be able to fly
(20/20 in my right eye and 20/35 in my left)

Techrobo

August 2nd, 2005, 10:03 AM

ive only heard of one f-117A being shot down by enimy fire

also i wouldnt worry about it we still have f-22's

also it seems all the non comunist countrys fly either american brittish or french planes(majority american)
and the commies fly russian flying tanks<_<
First off, don't refer to them as "commies", they deserve your respect, especially their military. Secondly, there are no Soviet style communists anymore, and there truly never were any real communist states. Some people here are sympathetic with true communism, and do not like the use of derrogatory terms like "commie".Yes, most states fly Americans aircraft, but that is changing - especially in Europe with formation of multi-national corporations like Panavia and Eurofighter Consortium - and the US military aircraft market is losing a lot to other states. It is also worth noting that Isreal, India, China, and Taiwan all have indigenous fighters. Russia, whos aircraft you refered to as "flying tanks" is one of the leaders of this trend. Russias aircraft in WW2, like the famed Il-2 Sturmovic, were indeed flying tanks, but few of their modern fighters are. Indeed some of the most advanced and capable fighters in the world are Russian, with Sukhoi Aviation being an especially sucessful organization in recent times. The standard Sukhoi Su-27 "Flanker" is a far superior aircraft to the F-15 Eagle, and have a much lower price tag. In many fields the Russians are gaining a considerable advantage over the Americans, to the point that American corporations have stolen some of their ideas. Anyway, I guess my point is that Russian aircraft should be respected, and Americans should not feel comfortable in their aircraft's superiority. I have considerable knowledge of American built fighter aircraft, especially the Canadian CF-18, and I have little confidence in how they would perform against latest generation Russian fighters. I am a pilot, though not a fighter pilot yet, and I personally would feel much more comfortable in an Su-27 series aircraft than most American fighters. Of course that is all a question of fighting style.

... wait nevermind, fear is good for occupation, but why would you want to effectively occupy other nations?

I am not liable to answer that at this time without compromising my current or future situation....

Just kidding...

Gaizokubanou

August 2nd, 2005, 01:14 PM

pizza!

August 2nd, 2005, 02:29 PM

pointing out that that the us copied some of russias ideas is bunk when the mig 29 was desighned from the ground up using the f-15eagle as reference also wether you want to admit it or not american fighters are on par or way ahead of the rest of the world also although those countries may have indigionous fighters they are adaptations of other countries planes one forien plane that i have alot of respect for though is the mig 29(not just because it was desighned off of the f-15) but because of its performance but as far as air suppiriority nothing in the world(that the publick knows about )can touch the f-22 raptor

also i can see this turning into an arguement about countries and canadians are just as arogant as americans in this regard so drop it

pizza!

August 2nd, 2005, 02:41 PM

jesus why cant the rest of the world and america just
America :huggles: rest of the world

Techrobo

August 2nd, 2005, 04:59 PM

I'm not a pilot in rl or anything, but as I mentioned before my close friend is, and I played this air combat simulator (Lock On: Modern Air Combat) which my friend thought was very good simulator...

and from playing that I pretty much agree with Techrobo. The odd thing is that the Russian fighters had radar/missile system which made a lot more sense to me, so the it was lot easier to get used to. Because I was educated in USA I thought USA's fighters' interface would be more natural to me, but it was just complete opposite. I saw a documentary about future aircrafts and it mentioned how F-22s were suppose to have far simpler and easier interface then conventional fighters so that pilots can concentrate more on the mission and his overall situation rather then trying to process what the hardwares were telling him. But I'm pretty sure most of the important details on F-22s are not released on public so who knows how convineant that is.
As you mentioned, one of the main advantages of Russian aircraft is their apparent simplicity. In many instances pilots have to do a lot more physical work using Russian vehicles, which until fairly recently were working against the fly-by-wire trend in the west, which increased some of the mental load on pilots. Which method is superior is arguable, but a compromise seems to be the best method.

I quite agree with Pizza that the Mig-29 Fulcrum series are remarkable aircraft, and the extensively upgraded German versions (MiG-29 OVT) have gone a long way to reconcile Russian and American aircraft equipment. In the process of the upgrade the Germans quite sucessfully combined the superior airframe, control, and basic targeting systems of the Russians, with the advanced computer systems and long range munitions of the Americans. They also did a decidedly German thing and added an extra autocannon. I also heard something about a vectoring addition, but I have not confirmed it. I think designs like this, combining both schools of thought will be the superior fighters of the future, and Sukhoi's Su-37A Terminator - and the slightly wackier Su-47 Berkut - have gone a long way to achieveing this. I'd also like to point out that though I agree an F-22 is almost untouchable, the international panel at the Paris Airshow still holds the Su-37 to be superior.

jesus why cant the rest of the world and america just
America :huggles: rest of the world
HAH, that would be nice, but most people don't want be near, let alone hug the older, bigger kid in the schoolyard who has a history of beating up on smaller kids for percieved but oft unfounded reasons. Having said that and escalated an arguement I will bow out of it, saying that I may well be arrogant, but not in the name of my country, for nationalism is foolish.

And we are now once again entirely off topic...

pizza!

August 2nd, 2005, 05:06 PM

the german's may have a similar computer systems but not the same look at the japanese f-16(cant remember its actual moniker)
it essentialy the exact same aircraft as the f-16 but the flight controll systems are completely different japanese components because the us gov would not relinquish information on the f-16 operating system

pizza!

August 2nd, 2005, 05:12 PM

japanese f-16 (fs-x)
found some info on it
weither or not the american systems or forieghn systems are better is irrelevent
because i garauntee that any flight system you expirienced in a civilian simulator was not acurate even the military simulators that they open to the publick have seperate systems for civilian eyes

The FS-X's origins can be traced back to the early 1980's and the highly secretive Laboratory Three division of Japan's Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI). There, studies were being carried out to investigate the options for an indigenous design, combining long range with maneuverability, to meet the particular requirements of the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF).

It became clear that the pursuit of a completely indigenous design was unrealistic, and help was to be sought abroad. In October of 1987, the Japanese government announced that it was going to develop a derivative version of the F-16C known as the FS-X, to replace the JASDF's Mitsubishi F-1 support fighters, which were to be phased out of active service in the second half of the 1990's.

The program was launched in November 1988 with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the governments of Japan and the United States, and marked the first joint fighter development program between Japan and the United States. The fighter was to be used exclusively by the Japan Air Self Defense Force and therefore development was completely funded by Japan. Primary missions of the new aircraft were be sea lane protection, beach defense and anti-invasion.

The FS-X (Fighter Support Experimental) is being developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as prime contractor with Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems, Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Fuji Heavy Industries as principal subcontractors. Development workload has been split approximately 60/40, with the Japanese partners responsible for the larger share.
Overall, the FS-X is substantially larger than the F-16, resulting in a maximum take-off weight of 49,000lb, compared to the F-16C's 42,000lb, although both are powered by the same 129kN (29,000lb)-thrust General Electric F110-129 turbofan engine. Other FSX structural-design changes include radar-absorbent material (RAM) applied to the aircraft's nose, wing leading-edges and engine inlet, the use of titanium in the tail and fuselage, the addition of a braking parachute and a two-piece canopy reinforced against large bird strikes.

The primary difference, although less conspicuous than the structural modifications, between the FS-X and the F-16 is in the use of Japanese domestic technology for much of the avionics, including:

a new Mitsubishi Electric (Melco)-designed active phased-array radar comprising 800 3W gallium-arsenide transmit/receive modules;
Yokogawa LCD multi-function display (MFD);
Shimadzu holographic head-up display (HUD);
internal Mitsubishi Electric integrated electronic warfare system;
Japan Aviation Electronics laser inertial-navigation system backed-up with four conventional gyros;
Japan has also been forced to develop its own fly-by-wire software by the US Government's refusal to release the F-16s computer source codes. The FS-X's software is based on MHI's control-configured vehicle (CCV) research program flown in the early 1980's using a modified Mitsubishi T-2 trainer.

pizza!

August 2nd, 2005, 05:20 PM

in regard to the Su-37
the only reasons why i could see them thinking it superior to the f-22
would be 1more firepower
2its not american you mentioned the paris airshow
france= even if the f-22 was invisble and flew at a steady safe mach 16 they would still hold the non american compeditor superior

France :huggles: hating on America

nuff said

Gaizokubanou

August 2nd, 2005, 05:58 PM

UberDirector

August 2nd, 2005, 09:29 PM

....

I just lost a lot of respect reading those last few replies.

Techrobo, whatever chip you have on your shoulder against American designed fighters, loose it. You're being blindly biased for unknown reasons and it's killing your credibility in the issue.

There is publicly available footage of F-18's demonstrateing an ability to aggressivly nose track targets as low as 80 KIAS. If you doubt the ability of CF18s to stand up to the modern generation of soviet designed aircraft it is only because of your bias. Low speed nose tracking is vastly more valuable to fighters then off boresight missile shots (which are only useful against paralleling targets) or the vaunted but silly cobra manuver.

As for Eagles. Recently the USAF sent a detachment of F-15C's from Elmendorf to India and had a head to head match with their SU-30MKI's. Without support of GCI, AWACS, or even useing BVR weaponry, the Eagles came out on top. The USAF has since cordially invited India to send units to Nellis to sharped their skills. If india accepts, they would be joining units from Japan, Germany, Australia, the UK, and Canada.... most of whom will be flying newer generation aircraft then their American hosts.

...oddly enough, the current kill ratio champion at Nellis... the venerable Hog.. A shameful experience indeed for a fighter pilot to get hog stomped.

The MIG-29.. where to start. It's a piece of crap. It has too high a wing loading, bleeds speed like a pig, and is severly underpowered. It uses an engine that is a reverse engineered version of the engine that used to power early model Phantoms.... not exactly awe inspireing. On top of that, it has a very weak radar and can only carry a very small payload... over a very short range. The MIG29 is most direclty compareable to A model Hornets, which were also underarmed, underpowered and underranged. It's no wonder re-unified Germany ditched their 29's as fast as possible to make more room for Tornados. Strangley enough, the US has a squadron of 29's that they bought from Russia to keep them from selling them to Iran. They also have a handful of SU-27's (same source) some MI24's, MI8's, MIG21's, MIG23's and even a MIG31 thought to have come from Egypt

If anything, Foreign built fighters are now catching where American built fighters were twenty years ago in terms of airframe and avionics capability. Technology has now reached the pointed where the physical stress load of manuevering limits the aircraft, not the airframe. Even the re-engined D model tomcats could hold a 9g circle before being retired, despite the reputation of early A model aircraft as being poor turners. Future victories in air combat will be because of pilot skill and superior C&C... regions America and her allies still hold a firm grasp on.

pizza! the fsx program reached fruition as the F2 fighter, now a frontline weapon in the JASDF

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_photos_album36.html

pizza!

August 2nd, 2005, 10:44 PM

you sir are an aviation GOD!

Kazekage

August 2nd, 2005, 10:53 PM

i respect you-Your the first person who has known alot about jets that I"ve met in a long time

Elpeo Ple

August 2nd, 2005, 10:56 PM

^^^ UD, I have a question.... What was the NAVAL Sukhoi's Designation number?

Kazekage

August 2nd, 2005, 11:04 PM

i think yall are also forgetting,Technology cna advance to were there pratical

Gaizokubanou

August 3rd, 2005, 09:02 AM

i think yall are also forgetting,Technology cna advance to were there pratical

Well if you've read points UD and few other people made before... It's not just about not having technology to do it... hell, I'm sure we can make a humanoid mech for war now if we wanted to!

The problem is that humanoid shape offers only disadvantage in modern battlefield.

Techrobo

August 3rd, 2005, 10:34 AM

Why hasn't this thread imploded yet?

pizza!

August 3rd, 2005, 04:10 PM

seems like your backing out

Gaizokubanou

August 3rd, 2005, 04:54 PM

Why hasn't this thread imploded yet?

Because people don't like to read all the posts so they mention stuff that are already answered and dealt with...

And we went off topic for couple pages talking about aircrafts lol.

Techrobo

August 3rd, 2005, 04:56 PM

And we went off topic for couple pages talking about aircrafts lol.
And launch systems and several other things...

Jinto117

August 3rd, 2005, 05:23 PM

Seeing as how I started this thread I guess I'll put it to rest. It looks like the verdict here is that Mobile suits will never be possible let alone not even necessary due to all sorts of complications. On the other hand we just about all agreed that certain technologys will be possible and necessary. One such example is the "Rail Gun" system. Although it requires a lot of energy and other things it's safe to say we should all see it in our lifetimes. Let's just hope we seriously never have to use it, I think we all like peace right?

Techrobo

August 3rd, 2005, 07:35 PM

Let's just hope we seriously never have to use it, I think we all like peace right?
Peace is worth dying for, but sadly a major war is almost inevitable in our lifetimes...

Ctholhic

August 3rd, 2005, 08:53 PM

Wars, however terrible also have some benefits associated with them such as technological growth, nationalistic pride it inspires generally, economic spin off from military demands, aggressive resource gathering, influence expansion and so on.

You should also remember that life in all forms on our planet is never at peace. There will always be violence and conflict, it's the nature of life to be competitive.

Perfect peace is nice, but too idealistic to become reality any time soon.

Gaizokubanou

August 3rd, 2005, 10:48 PM

Doesn't have to be perfect, as long as we can move foward in peace department I would consider it a success.

And I don't see how nationalistic pride is a benefit since that sort of thing is what fuels wars even more... not saying people should be ashamed of the nation they live in, but nationalism just isn't a good thing for international society.

However this is seriously off topic... if you disagree then ok you win.

Ctholhic

August 4th, 2005, 07:46 AM

If you look at war from the perspective of people who would seek to engineer these wars (as they have the decision and will be swayed by the positives and negatives), then nationalism is indeed a good thing for them because it results in a greater support from the population.

Even if you do this via proxy, a greater support for your proxy will allow you to pass through more beneficial measures using them.

Gaizokubanou

August 4th, 2005, 10:34 AM

I think you misunderstood me lol

I acknowledged that nationalistic pride is a benefit to wars, but that's where I don't think that it is beneficial in general since wars shouldn't be considered as a good thing in general.

Ctholhic

August 4th, 2005, 12:16 PM

No, you misunderstand me. Nationalism is beneficial to the people who engineer wars and not just to a war itself. For example, if you're fighting against a foreign power your citizens are more likely to support the governments measures no matter what they are - even if they violate basic civil rights - so that they can be the victor in the war. This doesn't always work but in many cases it does.

Techrobo

August 4th, 2005, 12:42 PM

In any case, we can all agree that nationalism is dangerous, and is the root cause of many conflicts. Also, nationalism is one of the primary background and immediate causes of all genocide and many other mass killings - with obvious exceptions like the politically fueled Cambodian case. If any one thing has made wars in the 20th Century much more terrible than wars in the 18th and 19th centuries, it is the growing effect war has on civilians, who in many cases - with genocides being the most extreme example - have become targets.

Wars do have benefits for the victorious states, and in certain cases even the defeated ones. However, the loss of even one human life is a high price to pay for economic prosperity and social order. In many cases I support wars of defense and freedp,, and in some cases even ideological conflicts, but never as ethnic/national conflicts, or for economic gain. In any case war should only be used as a last resort, and should only be pursued agressively when there is no other choice.

Conflict is a necessity in our world. Freidrich Neitze summed up this idea quite well, but however true it is it should not be used as an excuse to condone or start wars (as Hitler himself used it in some of his speaches and in Mien Kamph). However, I believe that conflict can be lessened through understanding and knowledge. I am a firm believer that if we had the right people in power, armed conflict would be much less of an issue. Sadly there is little chance of such people coming to power, and indeed the intelligensia for the most part wishes to have nothing to do with governing or ruling states. Power can corrupt even them, and most of them seek to avoid that eventuality. In short, I do not believe that true peace could ever be achieved but with the proper education among the masses, and the right people in charge, something much better than our current state of existence could be achieved.

"True peace can only exist when kings are philosophers or philosophers are made kings" ~ Aristotle

Gaizokubanou

August 4th, 2005, 05:39 PM

For example, if you're fighting against a foreign power your citizens are more likely to support the governments measures no matter what they are - even if they violate basic civil rights - so that they can be the victor in the war.

I don't see how that is a good thing but ok, whatever you say.

Magami No ER

August 4th, 2005, 06:34 PM

War is like the natural "predator" for humans, both terrible, yet inevitable. We needed(not wanted) something to fill that role I guess, and it can't be helped that's it's in our on nature to make it. It's can't be compared really to even what sort of "evil" chimps can commit, it's higher up.
Yeah...no idea why I posted that, just a thought I have in something of the (off-topic zomgz ;)) nature of what you all stated.

O.O'; Mobile Suits in real life would just make war too glorified and "cool"(once again, "zomgz", you know they look cool in the series) for the real world.

Ctholhic

August 5th, 2005, 09:53 AM

I don't see how that is a good thing but ok, whatever you say.

I mentioned already that I was speaking about the perspective of the people who have the authority and power to start wars, rather than in general on that point.

Gaizokubanou

August 5th, 2005, 11:07 AM

I mentioned already that I was speaking about the perspective of the people who have the authority and power to start wars, rather than in general on that point.

Well, I'm don't believe in relativism :P

Ctholhic

August 5th, 2005, 01:52 PM

Hmph, it's not a relative point, it's a good thing in their eyes, remember that to someone who has an exploitive character things that are obviously not good may be favourable.

Thus I would bid that you mentally replace the word good with favourable in the described situation. I should have noticed this earlier, we were working with two different interpretations of the meaning of what I said.

Techrobo

August 5th, 2005, 04:11 PM

O.O'; Mobile Suits in real life would just make war too glorified and "cool"(once again, "zomgz", you know they look cool in the series) for the real world.
I find that in the 18th century ranging up to the Napoleonic era, war was glorified by both aristocracies and the people. However, war was a much more humane affair at that time than any other in my view, yet it was more glorified than ever before. Ashuredly war was still terrible, with many of Napoleon's later campaigns being horrific affairs, but the butchery and senseless slaughter of civilians seen in Ancient, Medieval, and later 18th and 20th century warfare was not so much of a factor for much of that time. It was still there, just on a supressed scale, and for a time at least the idea of "rules of war" did not seem like such an oxymoron. I believe that war can be seen as a noble and glorious thing, without necessarilly giving rise to massacre. Accepted hnonour codes often can do much to keep a war humane, though the case of Japan in WW2 shows that the exact opposite can happen. I guess It can go either way. War is aweful, but it is not inherently wrong to see it as a noble or glorious thing in my view, it is how the people accept and act on that idea that can cause problems.

Thus I would bid that you mentally replace the word good with favourable in the described situation. I should have noticed this earier, we were working with two different interpretations of the meaning of what I said.
Yes, it does just seem to be a misunderstanding. In order for an intellectual idea to be pursued one must be able to take on the point of view of others. Indeed, the views of all parties concerned should be examined before coming to a conclusion. However, in a discussion this can often lead to confusion, expecially when personal opinion is also part of it. I hate to quote the same philosopher twice in the same thread, but I can't resist... I loves my quotes;

"The mark of the intellectual is the ability to entertain a thought without agreeing with it" ~ Aristotle

Gaizokubanou

August 8th, 2005, 10:16 PM

Thus I would bid that you mentally replace the word good with favourable in the described situation. I should have noticed this earlier, we were working with two different interpretations of the meaning of what I said.

Ahhhh ok now I get you :)

However, in a discussion this can often lead to confusion, expecially when personal opinion is also part of it.

Most definitely. Also since we are missing all those other great sources of communications, such as facial expression, misunderstanding is bound to happen on online boards...

AngelOfHell

August 9th, 2005, 06:52 AM

I would Say yes.... but thats just me... after all look at Gundam Wing... the only Flaw i see its the Beam weapons

Techrobo

August 9th, 2005, 07:45 AM

I would Say yes.... but thats just me... after all look at Gundam Wing... the only Flaw i see its the Beam weapons
Gundam W is hardly the show I would look at for a realistic and practical take on mecha. Even among other Gundam shows, there are slightly more practical examples...

Demonboy

August 9th, 2005, 07:49 AM

I wouldn't say Gundam Wing has realistic mecha at all...

Esrhan

August 9th, 2005, 07:57 AM

The most "realistic" implementation of mechs I think would be found in the Mechwarrior universe. But a lot posted so far applies to it as well.

HitokiriShadow

August 9th, 2005, 12:10 PM

Gundam W is hardly the show I would look at for a realistic and practical take on mecha. Even among other Gundam shows, there are slightly more practical examples...

0080 would probably be the most realistic. The early episodes of 08th MS team would follow.

Techrobo

August 9th, 2005, 03:36 PM

The most "realistic" implementation of mechs I think would be found in the Mechwarrior universe. But a lot posted so far applies to it as well.
Mechwarrior is a good example of a more down-to-earth mecha story. However, any mecha we would ever see on the battlefield in our lifetimes, as unlikely as it seems, would be more akin to those in Gasaraki in my opinion. The last statement of course refers to TAs like the Type-17 Raidens and Shindins, and the Metal Fake Ishtar Mk2s, not Kugais. Sadly we'll never see Kugais...

0080 would probably be the most realistic. The early episodes of 08th MS team would follow.
Yeah, the early UC OVAs are more grounded than the rest of Gundam, including the later UC shows.

P.S. I like seeing a quote from me in someone's signature, especially one which reflects my personality like that one does.

AngelOfHell

August 10th, 2005, 12:40 AM

Gundam W is hardly the show I would look at for a realistic and practical take on mecha. Even among other Gundam shows, there are slightly more practical examples...

thank you, i didnt take it rfrom that point of view... but if it was like how it was in GW endless waltz... it would be our olny hope, right?

HitokiriShadow

August 10th, 2005, 07:57 AM

P.S. I like seeing a quote from me in someone's signature, especially one which reflects my personality like that one does.

Glad you like it. ^_^ After I saw that, I couldn't NOT put it in my sig.

Ironbear

December 19th, 2005, 12:17 AM

Actually, if the technology for an "exo-skeleton" would be practical and easy to manufacture, thus earning also a drop in price, there would be several uses for a humanoid, giant robot. Not in the military, of course.

The human form isn't meant for combat. We humans are weak, clumsy and fragile. You cannot escape it. The human body is a tool, not a weapon.

But to get back to my claim, even today scientists are working on a kind of an exo-skeleton for rescue workers, that would allow them to lift massive weights and move with less energy, as the suit could supply them with aid. If a fully-enclosed, fairly nimble and most importantly highly protective powered armour were available, I believe rescue workers would be one group to utilize them.
Dockworkers and certain areas of the transport industry would also benefit from this kind of a suit, I imagine.

I'd also feel a lot safer doing work with hazardious materials in an enclosed suit, even if it were only a "radiation jacket"... >_> These materials are notoriously difficult to handle without direct human interaction, but you know why this is not possible...

Of course, something like building a colony on a foreign, hostile environment of another planet might need atleast a few powered suits for certain materials and colony components, but you really can only fantazise about that now.
This is only a possible fantasy scenario, so don't fry my buttocks about it.

CrossboneGundam, I sense needless amounts of hostility towards powered suits in your earlier post.
I wouldn't yet deny the possibilities of a powered armor suit, as we haven't even had the first REAL prototype developed, if even desinged!
You do remember what the wright bothers began flying with? A clunky, barely airbourne gadget, and that has evolved into the likes of the F-22, the Harrier and the the infamous "Blackbird"... There even are unmanned planes in flying and in testing today.

The idea isn't that far-fetched, but the suit would be difficult in many aspects. The possibility remains, if only as a technology consept. Someone will at some point build a powered suit, sooner or later.
Wether it will actually be useful or only fancy, remains to be seen.

SSR

December 19th, 2005, 01:14 AM

I liked the design of the armour in GitS:SAC, having the suits arms follow the movements of the operator would be the only practical way to control a powered suit.
That still bugs me about Gundam. They control them with a couple of levers and some foot pedals, more like a tank, not exactly practical for the kind of movement and responsivness you'd need in a battle. The 360 displays are cool, though.

But then it is just anime. :)

Ironbear

December 19th, 2005, 02:27 AM

A pair of levers and pedals just won't do. There's not enough controls to manage everything, unless the OS is extremely well optimized for this setup, dynamicly switching control schemes around and managing everything BUT moving the limbs for the pilot...

Basicly, the worst possible form for a powered armor is the "anime look", wich wouldn't work well. I think Mechwarrior is a lot more realistic than Gundam, as all those fancy forms and decorations will only get in the way and serve for extra maintanance. Patlabor features a more realistic kind or "power armor", but is still a little too "anime" for practical maintanance, if you ask me.

Mechs are bulky, big and feature a simple outer structure, wich in my oppinion is far more realistic.

Lt. Mustang

December 19th, 2005, 02:01 PM

plus convential weapons like the Su-37, and tanks, anti-armor units would kill the MS. The only MS i could see working is something of like a guntank varient, or a "chicken walker" from star wars.

Solid-Snake

December 19th, 2005, 02:55 PM

I may have already posted in this thread. So all I will say is, WE WILL NEVER GET MOBILE SUITS. Unless monovsky particles or something happen.( :lol: )

Vaikyuko

December 19th, 2005, 04:47 PM

plus convential weapons like the Su-37, and tanks, anti-armor units would kill the MS. The only MS i could see working is something of like a guntank varient, or a "chicken walker" from star wars.

I fail to see how an Imperial AT-ST is more realistic than a Gundam, especially since it has one of the oddest mechanical designs (albeit also one of the most recognizable) in history. You could poke it and it would fall over, practically. A tank round would shred it in one blow, considering a tank also has much more mass and power than a simple AT-ST. But I digress.

I don't think Mobile Suit will ever be created in earnest (except by devoted fans like us, and then, who knows how well we might build them; there's also the fact that it would take at least in excess of several million dollars on military budget to create one, but hey, if Bandai can make a gigantic real scale one, so can we). Powered suits are another topic entirely and I think would be decently realistic, especially if they managed to reinforce the user's "defense" (for lack of a better term) and maximize muscle usage to create extra force, etc. I could see powered suits being developed for work in space -- certainly better than those clunky ones we have now.

Suki

December 19th, 2005, 05:04 PM

But in that fact, if you wanted a bipedal armour, but Guntanks would be the best choice, if we did decide to make a real "mobile suit"

Vaikyuko

December 19th, 2005, 06:16 PM

But in that fact, if you wanted a bipedal armour, but Guntanks would be the best choice, if we did decide to make a real "mobile suit"

Not really, it would require much more mass and be just as pointless as the other bipedal Mobile Suits (especially with the current cockpit design. Putting a cockpit in the head is a completely idiotic idea). The military, for example, would just build a bigger tank rather than use a Guntank.

We will never see Mobile Suits be used in a practical application. Not even construction. If the fans decide to make anything, it had better be something as design-savvy as the RX-78-2; not only is it a popular MS, but it's stable and doesn't have as much mass as many of the other MS in Gundam (I recall few MS being as stable but using less mass).

Ironbear

December 19th, 2005, 11:36 PM

Actually, placing the cockpit in the head allows the desing crew to ditch big, power-consuming and possible heavy screens in favour of windows. But that leaves the pilot vulnerable, especially to any kind of laser or other light-based attacks, like flashbangs. Hm... flashbangs against mobile suits... Weird idea... But it would work, as the pilot is the brains of the machine.

I won't rule out mobile suits, power armors or mechs quite yet. I personally think, that with only a few years of developement, a decent chassis could be on the drawing board. Does anyone know the Honda P-3, is it?
I can't remember the model name clearly. A fully functional, if a little short ( but cute ) robot. It even has a "beacon" system, allowing it to identify and wait for people following it. Is that amazing? You try building a walking robot that can wait for people following it...

But as I said, I will not yet rule out the possibility of an either enclosed or open exo-skeleton, a term that I would myself use for mobile suits, power armors and mechs, when I'm referring to all the models. After clearing that up, I make my final statement:

You cannot yet say, that there never will not be an exo-skeleton of some sort. It is far too early to say that yet.

Lt. Mustang

December 22nd, 2005, 02:10 PM

we'll have something like the droid federation army from Star Wars.

Quattro Ninja

December 22nd, 2005, 02:11 PM

we'll have something like the droid federation army from Star Wars.

That's a whole other ballgame, maybe even a different sport.

Vaikyuko

December 22nd, 2005, 03:50 PM

we'll have something like the droid federation army from Star Wars.

How about no? The Trade Federation (rather, the Separatist's, since it's not just the TF working on them)'s droids are completely nonsensical, with a few exceptions. One would be the droidekas (or destroyers). The "transforming" and rolling capability is excellent and to mass-produce such a machine would be smart.

Regardless, this thread is about Mobile Suits, not Star Wars units.

TheDemonSlayer

December 23rd, 2005, 04:03 AM

Although the concept is very cool in theory, such a thing would probably never be realized. But hey, atleast we have the anime..:lol:

Matsu'o Tsurayaba

December 23rd, 2005, 07:49 AM

I think that someday,someday that there might be such a thing in reality as a Mobile Suit.Humanity might develop the technology during war times,the concept of a robot battle warrior is too good to pass off.

But the technology is too far ahead,i would have to say it would be 1,000 years or more,before Suits are easy to purchase,quirks are run out of the programming,and a power source is found for each indivilual suit.

Mazinkaiser

December 23rd, 2005, 07:58 AM

mr44mag

December 23rd, 2005, 06:52 PM

CrossboneGundam

December 23rd, 2005, 07:05 PM

Perhaps it would be quite nice to have right now in the middle-east because it would be invincible against small arms fire, IEDs, and hopefully RPGs. I can't see its effectiveness vs another modernized enemy though.

People with rocket launchers and explosives have taken out mobile suits in various Gundam works.

And what exactly would be the use of giant robots roaming the streets of Fallujah? It's not like it could search houses and schmooze with the citizens in general. All it would really be able to do is smash stuff and cause more trouble than it's worth.

Besides, that would lead to insurgents making bigger, deadlier attacks in an effort to destroy the blatant symbol of American military excess.

Ironbear

December 28th, 2005, 02:03 AM

Meh, I see Construction Labors more in our future, rather than Mobile suits, since they do have a purpose for working. (I'm on a Patlabor marathon right now, I can't stop thinking about Patlabor. XD.)It would of course then be possible to explore retro-fitting worker suits with heavy military equipment, testing military models, or testing models used for military shipping of supplies. The main problem is that a good mobile suit right now, if it could be built, would initially cost at least in the early billions. Each individual model later would cost in the high millions whereas the missles to take them out would cost in the mid thousands. <_<

Perhaps it would be quite nice to have right now in the middle-east because it would be invincible against small arms fire, IEDs, and hopefully RPGs. I can't see its effectiveness vs another modernized enemy though.
A construction worker model would be the most realistic vision, as the "projects of tomorrow" like the ocean city-ship and kilometer high-towers will require something new on the building side. Not that these projects would require human-shaped robot constructors...

But it is inevitable, that some day, some military freak straps on some big guns onto a powered suit and then we have a totally new era of land combat.

...after tens of years of developement, billions of military ( taxpayer ) dollars and who know what kind of engineering challenges...

Against infantry, I believe a powered suit would be very effective, although in a support role. A lone suit would be quite poor against even a small group of brave civilians, who have a long, strong rope and lots of brains.
As with other machines of war, suits would require their own infantry to support them.

I still think, that there is going to be atleast one powered armor suit, or an exo-skeleton, if not in useful operation, simply as a concept machine or as a technology showcase. What better way to show off your new, high-tech product then to stick it into a cultural phenomenomomon... phenomenon... phenomen... phenm... yeah, that. :P

Kevin K

December 28th, 2005, 02:33 AM

Well last I heard the DoD ( Department of Defense ) actually had a 2 billion dollar research project underway researching R&D of mechs, practical use on the battlefiled and practical use in homeland secrurity. I dont know if the research is still goin on, but there is a rumor floating around that the army has made a prototype combat mecha ( one pilot, mech its about 10ft high and 8ft wide. )

Kevin K

December 28th, 2005, 02:37 AM

The have made a construction labor unit in Japan, they should have 10 available models now. they had a report about them not too long ago.
they are gonna be used for mainly for search and rescue as well or minimal contruction work. ( Height: 3m, Width: 3m, 9m ( fully extended ) ) at leas thats i think the specs were.

A construction worker model would be the most realistic vision, as the "projects of tomorrow" like the ocean city-ship and kilometer high-towers will require something new on the building side. Not that these projects would require human-shaped robot constructors...

But it is inevitable, that some day, some military freak straps on some big guns onto a powered suit and then we have a totally new era of land combat.

...after tens of years of developement, billions of military ( taxpayer ) dollars and who know what kind of engineering challenges...

Against infantry, I believe a powered suit would be very effective, although in a support role. A lone suit would be quite poor against even a small group of brave civilians, who have a long, strong rope and lots of brains.
As with other machines of war, suits would require their own infantry to support them.

I still think, that there is going to be atleast one powered armor suit, or an exo-skeleton, if not in useful operation, simply as a concept machine or as a technology showcase. What better way to show off your new, high-tech product then to stick it into a cultural phenomenomomon... phenomenon... phenomen... phenm... yeah, that. :P

Ironbear

January 1st, 2006, 11:15 PM

Nice to know. It's cool that there is actual interest for mechs.

Personally, I think it would be cool to see or even pilot something like this, but the issue of the machine being practical in more than one special assingement rises again.

Still, I hope we get atleast a couple of mechs walking around our streets or construction yards. I don't think, for an example, the police forces getting these as standard or even special issue. In bomb-disposal a suit like this would be quite handy, as the manipulators could be replaced from the production line in the case of an explosion. But nothing rivaling or even near Dominion Tank Police...

But as I said earlier, I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the chance of this kind of suits right away.

Lt. Mustang

January 2nd, 2006, 01:49 PM

How about no? The Trade Federation (rather, the Separatist's, since it's not just the TF working on them)'s droids are completely nonsensical, with a few exceptions. One would be the droidekas (or destroyers). The "transforming" and rolling capability is excellent and to mass-produce such a machine would be smart.

Regardless, this thread is about Mobile Suits, not Star Wars units.

How bout yes? It would be cheaper and more cost affective than moble suits. While it is true that the discussion did pertain to mobile suits, it also looked at other possible solutions, this topic in some ways has changed over from just mobile suits.

Quattro Ninja

January 2nd, 2006, 01:55 PM

How bout yes? It would be cheaper and more cost affective than moble suits. While it is true that the discussion did pertain to mobile suits, it also looked at other possible solutions, this topic in some ways has changed over from just mobile suits.

except for that whole AI thing, yeah waaay more cost effective (note the sarcasm) Even in SW those droids sucked 3 million clone > Trillions of droids.

Droids are not the topic- mobile suits are.

I just can't see mobile suits as militarily practical until the invention/ discovery of two things.

a) miniture nuclear reactors, otherwise how could you power the thing
b) something akin to Minovsky particles- which in UC were discovered because of the invention of A, without these two things, military suits will never happen.

Vaikyuko

January 2nd, 2006, 02:09 PM

How bout yes? It would be cheaper and more cost affective than moble suits. While it is true that the discussion did pertain to mobile suits, it also looked at other possible solutions, this topic in some ways has changed over from just mobile suits.

If you pushed one of their droids over, it would cease to fight, except to fire on a plane perpendicular to it's current position. The droids (again, exception being droidekas) are completely nonsensical. The Super Battle Droids are even less of an ingenious idea, considering that they're so much more top-heavy than the orginal battle droids. Grievous himself wouldn't be a bad design, but his legs would need much more support. Simply put, Star Wars is not realistic, and this discussion is about Mobile Suits. Regardless of possible alterations, SW is too unrealistic to work anyways.

Ironbear

January 2nd, 2006, 11:12 PM

Star Wars droids aren't excactly an optimal desing for a fighting robot in my oppinion. They seem either poorly balanced or too flimsy most of the time. Their fun to watch, but the engineers who need to put the gyro(s) and balancing routines in them would be sitting in a nightmare, especially with such small chassis. Not much room for any equipement...

Also, the droideka isn't a very easy desing. The idea is good, but it's another nightmare to engineer.
I think the biggest engineering problem is locomotion:
How would you get the droid in a totally controlled spin in the direction the AI dictates?
I could imagine this kind of a system used with some kind of guides for the robot in reality, but fully controlled free spin movement is much harder to achieve. Getting around in a tube or on guiderails would be better suited for "realistic" droidekas, dropping off at designated stations. This would also make it easier to manufacture them, as they can use a standard for the locomotive system.

The droidekas also look like they carry very little equipement, and a spin controller, the shield and the power plant/power cells would have to be heavily miniatyrized ( I'm not sure of spelling there... ) and lightweight to not hamper spinning. Without very efficient and small ( very difficult combination ) power plant/cells the droid could function a very limited time.

The idea is fun, but very difficult to make real. Don't let the coolness get to you.

Vaikyuko

January 3rd, 2006, 03:57 AM

Thank you, I was too tired last night to give reasoning. =P

Oh, and BTW: it's miniaturized. ^_^

Lt. Mustang

January 3rd, 2006, 03:49 PM

If you pushed one of their droids over, it would cease to fight, except to fire on a plane perpendicular to it's current position. The droids (again, exception being droidekas) are completely nonsensical. The Super Battle Droids are even less of an ingenious idea, considering that they're so much more top-heavy than the orginal battle droids. Grievous himself wouldn't be a bad design, but his legs would need much more support. Simply put, Star Wars is not realistic, and this discussion is about Mobile Suits. Regardless of possible alterations, SW is too unrealistic to work anyways.

yes and over 18ft mecha is really realistic too :rolleyes: . Mobile suits as mentioned before can be wiped out with anti armor guns as well as other convential guns. In addition to that, Moblie suits would be top heavy. Simply put moblite suits aren't really realistic.

Vaikyuko

January 3rd, 2006, 03:58 PM

Lt. Mustang

January 3rd, 2006, 04:12 PM

Just because they're eighteen feet tall doesn't mean they're top heavy. Look at a Dom (any kind). That is not going to fall over, it is going to be pushed over by something. Those droids would fall over. There are plenty of unrealistic designs, sure...*points to Windam from SEED DESTINY* but for the most part, a lot of Gundam designs are MUCH more stable than Star Wars units.

C'mon. Look at that AT-ST, and tell me the damn thing isn't going to fall over.

More stable? How are engineers able to sync bipedal motions? that would be a nightmare. Also how would would moblie suits be powered? Nuclear reactor? too expensive and unstable? The amount of fuel consumption makes a moblie suit impossible. And lets not forget the amount of wieght. The moblie suit is very heavy, so heavy that it is impossible to transport. the factory required to create such a massive machine is also impractical, it cand be easily seen from the air and destroyed.

Vaikyuko

January 3rd, 2006, 04:35 PM

How are engineers able to sync the impossible unbalanced gyromotors and whatnot for droids, the basic units of the Republic/Empire, and Grievous himself? Syncing bipedal motion is not zOMGz difficult overall (look at Honda's robot), but for such gears to work with the droids, it's going to require substantially more to hold them up.

In the UC timeline, all MS are powered by thermonuclear reactors. As amazing as this might sound, it's really not that hard to create such a device, certainly not when you're a powerful government capable of mass-producing things. And lastly, no one ever said that the Mobile Suit had to be zOMGz gigantic, either, like normal units. The AMX-109 Kapool is actually a bit smaller than a tank, when compared using people piloting them as a reference.

Quattro Ninja

January 3rd, 2006, 04:56 PM

I think he meant the gyro systems on things like the AT-ST (chickenwalker).

The thermonuclear reactors in mobile suits are miniture ones, which we don't have yet as far as I know.

Ironbear

January 3rd, 2006, 11:57 PM

I'd go for a fusion reactor... A LITTLE more safe than thermo-nuclear, and doesn't blow up if something goes wrong...

I actually think something like Mechs in Battletech and Machwarrior aren't totally unrealistic. They are actually one of the few mechs that constantly mention the fusion reactor ( efficient, with proper technology ) and the critical gyro. I also remember something about syntethic muscles, wich can actually be produced today.
Electricity-reactive plastics... What next?

Although I think Mechs can take unnatural amounts of punishement...

In any case, I think the AT-ST needs a huge gyro, preferrably several, to not topple over just standing... >_> If it uses a gyro... You never know in Star Wars...

And the Honda P3 has demonstrated, that a walking, balancing bipedal robot is clearly a possibility. Of course, larger scale requires totally different solutions, but get a couple thousand P3's, put on a more durable exterior, give em beanbag shotguns and input firing and criminal identifacation data and you either got a 24 hour police unit or an expensive comedy. I'm not totally serious so don't shoot at me, anyone ( especially Honda )...
I was just surprised how short the P3 was. I wasn't expecting a 3 metre ( 15 or 16 feet ) tall mechanical gladiator, but something slightly taller. Just slightly. I guess it was the humanoid form and the "spacesuit" look, that made me think like that...

And you don't need to make the mobile suits/power armors/exo-skeletons in models of 15 metric tons. An car weighs about a metric ton, to generalize, and if you actually look closely at the structure, most of the car is air or light materials, like plastics or leather. The body itself is only an empty frame with lots of gaps, but the engine is what's "mostly" solid.

If the entire body of a car was solid metal, you'd be refueling OFTEN. <_<

Demonboy

January 4th, 2006, 12:01 AM

yeh but whats the use of a military mobile suit that has a frame with mostly air gaps, bullets just fly straight through it and the slightest knock will give it a huge dent/knock it over/annihilate it

Ironbear

January 4th, 2006, 12:50 AM

Maybe you could fit the thing with kevlar plates or something? ( only against bullets ) You would really leave a military power armor without any armor?

Besides, if the bullets just fly through the holes, there won't be much damage. Just more holes, if they hit the frame.

Demonboy

January 4th, 2006, 03:48 AM

more holes, eventually the material will just collapse or deform really easily...

Ironbear

January 4th, 2006, 04:22 AM

True, but certain hollowed locations won't decrease the materials durability significantly and do remove a lot of excess weight.

I wouldn't want to pilot anything that reminds me of the oh-so-oftenly-used swiss cheese...

Lt. Mustang

January 4th, 2006, 01:49 PM

How are engineers able to sync the impossible unbalanced gyromotors and whatnot for droids, the basic units of the Republic/Empire, and Grievous himself? Syncing bipedal motion is not zOMGz difficult overall (look at Honda's robot),

Hey stay on topic! The honda robot isn't a gundam! :naughty:

Anyhow, than why was it before that you were saying that large robots were practical?

Vaikyuko

January 4th, 2006, 02:28 PM

Hey stay on topic! The honda robot isn't a gundam! :naughty:

Anyhow, than why was it before that you were saying that large robots were practical?

*sighs* First off, I'm am staying on topic, since I just referenced the P3 while you said outright that SW droids would be much more effective than Mobile Suits.

Second, I just looked through all my posts in this thread. I never said that large robots were practical. I said they were more practical than the impossibly useless SW designs. Compare a standard Trade Federation battle droid and an MS-09 Dom. Which will fall over if pushed? Obviously the droid, considering it's smaller. Okay, let's put relatively equal sized units out. If we had a super battle droid standing next to a Junior Mobile Suit, which would fall over first if pushed with equal force? Magically enough, it's once again the droid. A fair few Mobile Suits are more stable than droids. Get over it. Stability is the first thing for a giant robot to have for practicality. Think about that, as well.

Ironbear

January 5th, 2006, 12:10 AM

Hey stay on topic! The honda robot isn't a gundam! :naughty:
Why should we even have specificly ONLY Gundam robots?

Even if the series is your bible, it doesn't mean it could be the only possibility in the future.
And this conversation is not just about Gundam. See the topic? Look at it again. We're discussing our oppinions on realistic exo-skeletons/power armors/mobile suits here, not Gundam.

And do you think that the Gundam robots just were made all of a sudden? No predecessors or prototypes? Still remember old Commodore 64 and the good old 386 and it's brothers and sisters? They are the Honda P3 compared to your Gundams. Simple and primitive compared to what we have "today" and maybe even not the same purpose, but still a predecessor. Paving the way for the more advanced and specialized models. I doubt that without the Commodore 64 a PC today in every home wouldn't be reality.

There always has to be progress. You cannot just start at the most advanced model. Desing, testing and developement are a vital part of any machine.
You propably knew that already, but you brought it on yourself.

The Honda P3 isn't Gundam... yet... But it might become atleast a predecessor some day ( although I doubt it ) and then you can think back about what you said about it.

Lt. Mustang

January 5th, 2006, 01:42 PM

Why should we even have specificly ONLY Gundam robots?

Even if the series is your bible, it doesn't mean it could be the only possibility in the future.
And this conversation is not just about Gundam. See the topic? Look at it again. We're discussing our oppinions on realistic exo-skeletons/power armors/mobile suits here, not Gundam.

And do you think that the Gundam robots just were made all of a sudden? No predecessors or prototypes? Still remember old Commodore 64 and the good old 386 and it's brothers and sisters? They are the Honda P3 compared to your Gundams. Simple and primitive compared to what we have "today" and maybe even not the same purpose, but still a predecessor. Paving the way for the more advanced and specialized models. I doubt that without the Commodore 64 a PC today in every home wouldn't be reality.

There always has to be progress. You cannot just start at the most advanced model. Desing, testing and developement are a vital part of any machine.
You propably knew that already, but you brought it on yourself.

The Honda P3 isn't Gundam... yet... But it might become atleast a predecessor some day ( although I doubt it ) and then you can think back about what you said about it.

Tell that to Treize X.