Flying Mecha

Humanoid mecha have no place in any realistic theater of combat. They're not good for land, for air, or for space.

But they're fucking awesome so who gives a shit? Stop worrying about realism and respect the robot.

Flying Tierens literally are just bricks with enough thrust to overcome gravity

>>13476415
The most retarded shit from 00, and that's a tall order.

>>13476440
Well they do have a very powerful niche role, sorta it's somewhat practical but also kindah insane..

File: 8851020eb2c2c81dc0f897b284316c0316e97b87_zps89e71653.jpg (101KB, 800x485px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x485px

Yes.

You can't kick without legs.

>>13476440
Humanoid mecha, on the ground, have the believable excuse that they use legs which allow them to traverse rougher terrain than treads. In the air, there is literally nothing they have that can excuse their presence.

>>13476771
Vertical take off?

File: 1152.jpg (812KB, 1218x820px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 1218x820px

>>13477023

File: trans-amburst04(2).png (696KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 960x539px

>>13476771
Pixie magic dust says fuck you.

>>13477034
Funny how even in that universe they still make transformable MS with aerodynamic shapes for aerial combat.

>>13477050
>aerodynamic shapes
Minus the fists...

>>13476771

The idea is I think that they can go from air to land quickly. A jet can't land shoot up a few guys on the ground and then jump back into the air, and a tank can't start flying to get out of reach of ground locked opponents.

A mech however, can this. We actually see some stuff like this with the Lancelot in Geass's season 1 finale, where it approaches from the sky, takes out a bunch of KMF's on the ground and the cannon, lands and ducks into an alley, flies just out of reach of the Guren, etc.

The problem is animating stuff like this is hard and it's eaiser to just have mechs constantly in the sky pew pewing with a static background and laser flashes added. Which is the case in Geass season 2 where Knightmare's now never land and we don't see that kind of stuff again until the final Lancelot and Guren battle.

>>13477065
>not punching the air to go faster

>>13477065
>>13477101
>having fists in flight
>not splaying the fingers out and rotating the hands at the wrists for maximum propulsion

>>13476771
>othing they have that can excuse their presence.
Swords for glorious melee combat against honorable alien foes that have been attacking your aircraft because they are under orders, but would really like to engage in a proper duel and find a rival because that's the only way they will truly feel complete in battle.
>>13477101
This anon knows what's up.
>>13477131
This anon also knows what's up, but is trying too hard.

>>13476415
>Should they instead stick to ground combat, where their defining trait (legs) actually sees use?

Yes, but not because flying non-transformable humanoid mecha are stupid or unrealistic, but because ground combat is a lot more interesting and entertaining. Having flying mecha combat is 90% just an excuse for the animators to be lazy, or at least that is what it comes across as.

>>13477143
>Swords for glorious melee combat against honorable alien foes

Okay that excuses the presence of having arms and hands on a plane, but what about the legs and feet?

File: spacefaces.gif (69KB, 520x420px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 520x420px

>>13477143
>trying too hard

>>13477177
How new?
It's for the kick to establish yourself as the nemesis/rival so your opponent knows it's both super and real.

>>13477205
Okay, that's just fucking silly.

>>13476771
>have the believable excuse that they use legs which allow them to traverse rougher terrain than treads

by rougher terrain you mean hard surfaces, as their ground pressure would be astronomical

>>13476415
Flying vehicles have to change direction and potentially altitude to aim somewhere else. Humanoid mecha have independently moving parts and thus have no such restriction

>>13477065
Sorry, meant "more aerodynamic shapes". Still applies, however, in that the designated gottagofast flyers all turned into vaguely plane-like shapes rather than try to fulfill their role in mech mode.

If you accept humanoid mecha in other environments for combat I don't see why you wouldn't for aerial combat. They're retarded anyway so being in the air doesn't make it any worse.

Humanoid mecha are 100% rule of cool. Utterly impractical.

File: 026_gungriffon_mekaking.jpg (46KB, 480x596px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x596px

>>13477093
funny you should mention that...

>>13476440
>Humanoid mecha have no place in any realistic theater of combat. They're not good for land, for air, or for space.
>But they're fucking awesome so who gives a shit? Stop worrying about realism and respect the robot.

THIS GUY GETS IT

File: 1396459512435.jpg (1MB, 3200x2464px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3200x2464px

>>13477093
>A jet can't land shoot up a few guys on the ground and then jump back into the air

>>13477278
High off-boresight targeting for AA missiles has been a thing for about...25? 30ish years already

File: this is you.jpg (666KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1280x1024px

>>13477348
>>13476440
>>13477465
I didn't realize we had so many west point scholars posting on /m/.....

>>13477392
>>13477543

Those are just robots without heads.

Actual non transforming air only jets can't do that.

>>13477163
Air combat can be exciting, with effort. Similarly, ground combat can be boring, without effort.

>>13476415
VFs are great because they move at speeds comperable to fighter jets while also having the ability to hard-turn like a robutt. Jets move fast, but they can't really turn. Realistically, a VF would be infinutely more useful than a regular jet.

File: Ndoef56.png (377KB, 624x480px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 624x480px

Hard turning?

File: [Taedium]_Sky_Girls_-_06_DVD_[720(853)x480][x264_&_HE-AAC][49BE8BA1].mkv_snapshot_06.30_[2015.03.07_19.21.45].jpg (28KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 720x480px

>>13476415
>his humanoid mecha doesn't transform for atmospheric aerial combat

>>13477273
No, not really, a scopedog wouldn't have any more trouble than a tank would.

File: 1433084065347.jpg (105KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1440x1080px

>>13480198
An Abrams weighs 54 tons and has a ground pressure of 103kPa, while an average 1.8m tall man weighs ~70kg and has a ground pressure of 55kPa. The tank weighs 771 times as much as the person, but its ground pressure is only twice as high.

Stop talking about shit you're clueless about and stop getting all your facts from anime.

>>13476771
In that case four legs would be better. Nothing can really justify humanoid mecha, not for military use anyway.

>>13477131
>tactical jazz hands

>>13480028
Since the 70s, most fighter jets can turn harder than pilots can stay conscious through for more than a fraction of a second.

The limit on turning these days is entirely human, not machine.

>>13476415
>tfw no kit

>implying a humanoid machine can turn harder than a plane
>what is thrust to weight ratio

>>13476492
>Doesn't even move limb because the thrusts at it's best is barely keeping it flying.

>>13484039
>>13480613
>planes can stop in mid-air and do a complete 180

>>13485038
Please explain what kind of magical technoology allows your fictional cartoon robots to defy the laws of physics and why you can't put it on a plane.

>>13485038
>what are vtol aircraft

>>13485051
>Please explain what kind of magical technoology allows your fictional cartoon robots to defy the laws of physics and why you can't put it on a plane.
Specifically the robot shape.

File: 1426211201923.jpg (398KB, 1023x600px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1023x600px

>>13485366
I don't think you have any idea whatsoever how physics work. Please stop posting.

>>13485377
>>Please explain what kind of magical technoology allows your fictional cartoon robots to defy the laws of physics and why you can't put it on a plane.
I'm telling you, it's the robot shape. Even if a human pilot can't handle the g-forces of hard-point turns, a robot can. This is because robots aren't aerodynamic, and have to use more force to reach the same speeds that a jet can. Of course, a robot can also stop faster, and isn't going to fall the second it stops moving. It's also not being carried through the wind like a plane. Trust me, it makes more sense. Ever play a Robotech game? When you're in plane mode you have to do a complete u-turn whenever you want to turn around, but not in gerwalk or robot mode.
Also
>offer a logical explanation to why fictional thing applies to a but not b
>hurr durr real physics

>>134853917
>>hurr durr real physics
You might want to read the OP before you post in a thread. A giant robot would tear itself apart if it tried turning on a dime through sheer drag.

>Even if a human pilot can't handle the g-forces of hard-point turns, a robot can. This is because robots aren't aerodynamic
This makes literally no sense, and even if it was true, what good is the robot if it turns the pilot into mush?

>a robot (...) isn't going to fall the second it stops moving
There are planes capable of hovering, and why can't you put those super engines the robot uses on a plane?

>>13485437
No idea where that post number came from.
>>13485391

>>13485038
A ten ton robot would have an even harder time.

And yes a plane could do it, if it had fancy gadgets like airbrakes and verniers and thrust vectoring, except that the pilot would pass out.

>>13476440
>Humanoid mecha have no place in any realistic theater of combat. They're not good for land, for air, or for space.
If you make them small enough for indoor use, they would be perfect for that. Basically the only thing humanoid shapes are good for is traversing human living spaces. But that means giant robots are out of the question.

File: movie circus.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>13485038
If you pause you can see him actually turning 180 and firing backwards while still flying forward. No transformation needed.

>>13485038

>plane stops in midair from going 700mph

>pilot carried forward by his inertia, destroying his restraints, hits front of cockpit at supersonic speeds, blows the cockpit to pieces, the bloody mess scatters over several acres.

>>13485391
>Trust me, it makes more sense.

It doesn't make sense. It's very much like saying a schoolbus should be able to outmaneuver and outrun a car because it needs a bigger engine just to move in the first place.

>>13485728
>Basically the only thing humanoid shapes are good for is traversing human living spaces
Or swinging through the trees.

>>13485038
A VF can do that.

Shit, they can fly backwards in gerwalk if they want to.

Or even pull a cobra, then switch to gerwalk, then switch back to fighter and diving, then switching to gerwalk before they hit the ground and high speed hover over the surface.

>>13488895
>>13486209
Guy, we're talking irl physics, not cartoons.

>>13477031
someone actually thought this was good?

File: reifukai.jpg (54KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x480px

>>13488899
>His plane can't fly backwards on pure inertia

>>13485038
If you've the tech to make a robot do that you've got the tech to make a plane do that.

>>13485391
>An oil tanker can turn more quickly than a speedboat because it's bigger and less streamlined!

>>13489385
>robots are oil tankers in size compared to jet speed boats
Woah

File: sieben.jpg (40KB, 600x487px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x487px

>>13476415
>Do humanoid mecha have any place in atmospheric aerial combat
Putting a Festum in a plane is an absolutely terrible idea.

Thus the existence of the most beautiful Fafner.

>>13485051
Active Mass Balance Automatic Control

The limbs give you more options as counterweights.

>>13488899
Do you even Luftrausers?

>>13489872
AMBAC isn't useful in atmosphere. It's notable in space (because you don't have any drag to utilize, so you have to fall back on something that doesn't require air resistance), but in atmosphere, traditional control surfaces are far more effective.

>>13489894
It's also more useful in space where there is no gravity.

File: Type77_f4j_mecha_1.png (653KB, 721x1029px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 721x1029px

>>13489816
Depending on the robot, they can be.

File: 1444799665881.png (3MB, 1351x1296px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1351x1296px

>>13491114
Old 1st generation clunker.

>>13489894
AMBAC is also just generally kind of worthless if you do the math:
For instance, how much of the robot's mass do you suppose is in the legs? Like a third? A half? You can kind of wiggle the robot around a bit by shifting that mass, or gradually reorient by using a bicycle pedaling or other circular motion, but it's slow. And while it gives you some ability to shift the robot around with respect to its center of mass, AMBAC can't change the velocity of the robot's center of mass, which is what you need in order to dodge.
Using articulated masses to reorient a spacecraft is a real thing: Typically it's in the form of flywheels, just a disc that can be spun by an electric motor. Satellites frequently have them so they can reorient without using propellant.
The problem is that these are combat machines. Fighter jets aren't built for fuel economy, they're high-performance gas-guzzlers.. Because the priority is to not get shot down. So AMBAC gets you nothing that couldn't be better accomplished by carrying more propellant.
Where the legs maybe become useful IMO is when the robot goes from one environment to another; robots in Gundam fly through space and then maybe enter a colony. Macross fighters might fly around then land and fight on the ground, or board an enemy ship. It's the closest thing to a valid rationalization for humanoid robots flying around that I can think of.

>>13490047
First of all, gravity has nothing to do with whether or not AMBAC will be useful.

Second of all, there most certainly is gravity in space. Objects appear weightless because they're usually in free fall, but the reality is that everything is still falling.

>>13491383
You're an idiot.

>>13491208
The waist on that one in the back looks like the stuff of nightmares

File: 16402715_p0.jpg (989KB, 2148x1300px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 2148x1300px

>>13491455
They all have small waists.

>>13491652
I know
it's just that the one in the back shows it off terrifyingly so

>>13491208
Why are those shoulders so sillyhuge?

Why don't they just build more Balls?

>>13492943
Something to do with the higher center of gravity letting them move faster.

>>13491420
He's right though, there are a few points in space where gravity of different objects cancel each other out, but there is still gravity acting on anything in those points.

>>13494059
Balls can't fly.

>>13494059

Because that's basically saying "We're just gonna throw you guys to the slaughter enmass until we overwhelm them with pure numbers. Most of you are certainly going to die." To the pilots. Not the best thing for morale.

File: F-35_15128600_big_p1.jpg (252KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 900x675px

>>13494203
>Something to do with the higher center of gravity letting them move faster.
Basically this. Muv-Luv actually goes out of it's way to explain the technology to the reader.

>>13494511
>>13494203
It doesn't let them move faster, it lets them fall over faster, making sudden changes in pose easier to accomplish. Stability is enforced by rigorous fly by wire.

>>13494533

Jets have been designed to be passively unstable since the 1970s. You can only take that so far, though, before it becomes passively stable in reverse and you wind up lawn-darting backwards.

>>13494533
>Stability is enforced by rigorous fly by wire.
Wow, like real world modern jets. It's almost as if TSF's are based on them or something.

File: Syd Mead 0031.jpg (779KB, 1402x1050px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 1402x1050px

>>13476440
I think humanoid robots make sense in one setting: space habitats. A single combat vehicle to operate more or less seamlessly both inside and out of a colony. Once you put said vehicle in a heavy gravity environment like Earth, however, it loses most combat advantages to a tank. And forget about making it fly on the atmosphere: flight is difficult enough as it is with actual vehicles.

Nevertheless, 20 meters tall is fucking silly.

>>13494656
And yet fighter aircraft can be 20m long.

File: F-35%20cutaway.jpg (158KB, 1164x767px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1164x767px

>>13496785
Long, not tall. There's a big difference there.

You also have to consider limbs and the weight of the carried weapons (in the Zaku II's case, a 120mm cannon, roughly the same caliber as a tank, with a high rate of fire)

>>13496785
An aircraft is basically an engine or two with wings and cockpit bolted on.

A mecha is a giant robot with an engine bolted on.

>>13494656

That is the silliest fucking unicycle I've ever seen

>>13494656
It being human shaped wouldn't really give it any advantages in either enviroment though.

>>13494656
Giant humanoid robots make sense nowhere but in fiction. Unless they are meant to be big, like a statue/ceremonial/amusement thing.

It's just more plausible in space, which is good enough for me.

>>13498437
Just think of each limb as manipulators.
Gundam, with wing winged binder/backpacks can be thought of as 6 to 8 limbed multipurpose pod...

>>13498490
>amusement
That's really how I expect mecha to show up in real life.

They'll never be practical, but there are plenty of applications where looking cool takes precedence over practicality.

File: tumblr_nd7hyjFR881ra3lv7o1_500.png (653KB, 500x572px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 500x572px

>>13498664
Flower covered gendems at the New Years Day Rose Bowl parade...

>>13498490
>Giant humanoid robots make sense nowhere but in fiction.
>It's just more plausible in space, which is good enough for me.
I repeat myself: the overall "mecha" shape makes sense when your vehicle is supposed to fight in terrain and the airspace inside a space habitat, plus the vacuum of space and low-gravity bodies like asteroids and natural satellites.

Can you think of any other "shape" for a combat vehicle that has this amount of commonality and practicality for all these environments?

>>13498664
If we can do it we would definitely make mechs. Humanity is more vain than you give it credit for.

File: 10242789k.jpg (233KB, 836x1200px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 836x1200px

>>13498708
If yer talking about PA, I'd agree.
There's nothing a giant robot can do better that a an already existing vehicle design can't do.

>>13498769
You already have the top limbs. The bottom ones add AMBAC capabilities for space and fast locomotion on solid ground.

File: matrix_sentinel_by_kehlan.jpg (112KB, 1024x650px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1024x650px

>>13498780
Legs are just for show.

You wouldn't call a spider tank a giant robot though.
Can Gundam sell itself on Octobots?

>>13498780
>AMBAC
This is just made up, you know.
You can get the same effect with a rocket stuck at the end of a retractable boom, no need for legs.

>>13498780
Triple transformer:
Spaceship gotta go fast mode, all thrusts pointing aft.
Spider/octopus mode, for maximum exploratory manipulation.
Humanoid mode, to look badass and heroic.

>>13498798
>Legs are just for show.
In The Origin, the tech that says that to Char later explains that the lack of legs means that AMBAC would be limited and attitude control is rough on the Zeong.

>You wouldn't call a spider tank a giant robot though.
They're not humanoid, but the Tachikomas do count.

>>13498812
>You can get the same effect with a rocket stuck at the end of a retractable boom, no need for legs.
And rockets need reaction mass. And, again, they double for locomotion for low-gravity ground. Flywheels (another solution) are dead weight on the ground.
Limbs grant three abilities (AMBAC, hardpoints/manipulators and ground movement) on the same weight. It doesn't have to be an identical replica of a human body, but limbs do have advantages.

>>13498829
And then you have an engineering nightmare.

>>13488966
Your argument is possibly even logically dumber than the one you are responding to, good job.

>if you have the technology to make a car you have the technology to make a horse and buggy go 50mph

>>13477273
This isn't something you could prove without an actual robot, and last I checked the idea this was the case for just about any fictional giant robot designs that actually have a stated weight and don't fly was disproven. Most real robots have huge feet, a Zaku is practically wearing snow shoes.

>>13497197
Most Gundam machineguns are 10x scaled up SMGs and thus not comparable to a tank gun.

>>13498190
No. Even if you look at the Gundam, the majority of its torso and upper legs are engines.

If you worked on the same assumption of separating fuel tanks, weapon systems, electronics etc. from the aerodynamic and structural shape of a fighter you would end up with something pretty fucking ungainly.

File: latest_crop.jpg (501KB, 790x651px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 790x651px

>>13498852
>Most Gundam machineguns are 10x scaled up SMGs and thus not comparable to a tank gun.
I'm going by the numbers here. The Leo is stated to have a 105mm rifle. From the illustration, the rounds seem to be about the same size of a real-life round for the L7 105mm tank gun.

File: c0028679_473ee66a93ff9.jpg (11KB, 300x191px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x191px

>>13498883
Gundam Wing is also generally fucking insane and not even trying.

The box fed 90mm machine guns in the OYW OVAs are pretty blatantly based on real WWII SMGs and are often supposed to actually be more powerful than the 120mm Zaku MGs.

>>13498883
Caliber doesn't mean shit in Gundam. It's all over the place. Take for example the Ez8's head vulcans. They're 35mm and stated to be too weak to damage mobile suits and heavily armored targets, yet the Gouf Custom's machine gun is 35mm and it was shown destroying a Guntank.

>>13498921
A .22 gatling will tear the ass off shit a 10/22 can only dent
RoF and ammunition matter more than caliber. The Abrams could easily be equipped with a 90mm gun that penetrates better than the L/44. There's literally no reason to develop such a gun but it can be done.

>>13499012
Wrong.

>>13498921
Caliber doesn't mean shit in real life either.

The only reason we kept increasing the caliber of our tank guns is only because we can pack more propellant into a bigger gun without making the gun destroy itself when you fire it. And there's a limit to how high you can go without resorting to autoloaders since the shells get pretty damn heavy for a person.

A large caliber is only really useful on stuff like artillery where you can jam a lot of explosives into a large shell.

If you go too big a caliber, your ammunition storage has more weight as compared to an equivalent amount of a smaller caliber.
>An individual 140mm APFSDS could weigh as high as 40kg, while a 120mm APFSDS weighs between 19 and 23k. This means that thirty 140mm rounds would weigh roughly 1,200kg as compared to the 830kg of a forty round 120mm ammunition load

How would putting wings on a Tieren be preferable to putting wings on a plane?

>>13500957
Prove it on both counts. Count one is on YouTube. Count two is a matter of simply ignoring any HEAT/HE requirement and putting enough propellant behind a sabot.

Hello from /k/. You guys sure know jackshit about weapons.

>>13501528
Payload?

>>13501565
So much mad.

>>13501771
There are more efficient ways to get this, that don't involve useless legs and arms and piss poor aerodynamics.

File: ma-115ht.jpg (55KB, 400x338px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x338px

>>13501528
00 is a horrendously justified universe in general. Besides the ones that are post-apocalyptic or Gundams are generations old lost technology it's the only one with literally zero reason for using giant robots, and every faction exclusively uses variants of one giant robot for all of their military vehicles in a given generation no matter how ridiculously absurd.

>>13477031
>heavy arms big duo

>>13488911
I do.
Making a big heavy mecha fly by basically bolting an Osprey to its back is an amusingly cool idea.

>>13503645
>00 is a horrendously justified universe in general.
It isn't, really. If you look at the story closely, you'll note where everything lies: Aeolia Schenberg planned everything 200 years before the story: the technical basis for the solar-based economy, the unification of Earth's governments in a single entity, GN technology, an eventual encounter with an alien intelligence. The whole setting is, in the plot itself, the whim of a single individual and the conspiracy he left behind. That's why it was incredibly frustrating to see that faggot Corner shooting him. What a fucking waste.

>it's the only one with literally zero reason for using giant robots
From this reasoning, thinking that Schenberg ordered his conspiracy to use giant robots is not that farfetched.

And you know what's the sad thing? That Mizushima and Kuroda stole this idea from Asimov's Foundation.

>>13504746
>From this reasoning, thinking that Schenberg ordered his conspiracy to use giant robots is not that farfetched.
That isn't really a justification without a reason he would want that.

>>13503683
It looks retarded.

>>13504758
Maybe it would be easier for the aliens to grasp that big humanoids have tiny humanoids inside

>>13504746
>stole
Can't it just be a homage?

Mecha need magic dust and rainbows to be effective ground vehicles there's no reason why they can't have the same to be effective aerial vehicles.

>>13504746
The Seldon Plan from Foundation was unsuited for dealing with non human or otherwise aberrent adversaries though. That's why that guy decided to choose Galaxia in Foundation's Edge over the Second Foundation or the First Foundation.

File: 1371346208748.jpg (285KB, 1600x1111px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1600x1111px

> Take a classic gunship
> improves the landing gear into slightly heavier legs
> add claws
You now have a gunship that can land on slope and wait for extended amount of time, it is also easier to hide very low behind tree, like any gunship we hear about do.

> improve open rotor into streamlined tilt lift-fan
> move sensor above the structure
> improve claws-legs
The gunship can now hide and see from behind a crest indefinitely and its leg can stabilize stuff carried on tether.

> abandon the old structure design only justified for counter-torque propellers
> move weapon above the lift-fan, so long as they can suck air.
> counterbalance by moving the weight of the engine around
The gunship can now see and fire from behind unreachable or safe position and move away as needed.

> improve on the design by forgetting old way of thinking, building vertically if needed
> do not use human-shape like uncreative SF author
> forget armor, modern weapon are one-kill anyway
The gunship is now a variable vehicle capable of landing truly anywhere, lie in ambush near indefinitely, do recon without a flyby, fire at anything and run like hell with greater impunity.

> accept that all this is still SF but strive for more realism
You are now having fun without feeling insulted by a producer treating you like child with ADD.

>>13511692
That's not a mech.

>>13511744
Then what is it?

>>13511744
Then what is it?

>>13511744
>>13514121
A gunship.

>>13476415
No

File: 30di1w0.jpg (117KB, 810x668px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 810x668px

>>13511692

File: airborne_battleframe_by_kvlticon-d664z6k.jpg (350KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 640x960px

>>13514137
So by your logic, any flying vehicle, legs or not, is a gunship ?

>>13516231
This has a head, arms, and a humanoid shape. It's a mech.

>>13516316
>needing head and arms
So a Zentraedi battle pod is not a mech?

File: 1320202894312.jpg (2MB, 2631x1759px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2631x1759px

>>13516316
That's an idiotic logic.
Just admit that you are incapable of categorizing stuff (or a troll)
A mech is defined by the ability to use limbed locomotion, nothing else is needed
A gunship is defined by the ability to use heavy weaponry from the air

So, any legged vehicles that fly is still a mecha even if it is not humanoid and since gunship is a subcategory, a flying mecha that can use heavy weapon from the air is a mechs first.

File: Msn-02.jpg (20KB, 372x426px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 372x426px

>>13519670
What about this asshole? Didn't use limbed locomotion. Is it a mech?

>>13521955
Are you blind and can't see the fucking arms?

>>13477922

Show me that army that's working on giant robots for military use.

You don't even see them in Sci-fi series that try to be realistic in any way. Because everybody with a brain knows they are retarded.

>>13480072

This design is as retarded as giant mecha.

Jet engines on wingtips means that if one engine fails you die.

>>13478744

The thing is they would never need to do that.

Jets still use guns in movies or anime because it looks cool. In reality guns are never used anymore. You launch missiles from 100km away.

Valkyries kind of make sense in the setting since they are primary space fighters and have gravity manipulation technology. And stay in fighter form 3/4 of the time. They are still dumb but not Gundam dumb.

>>13519670
>A mech is defined by the ability to use limbed locomotion
>limbed locomotion
>locomotion

>>13522956
You said limbed LOCOMOTION you fucking retard

>>13523088
>implying arms can't be used for locomotion

>>13488899

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-VNSJMiNt0

Real enough for you?

File: b1eaca57b8e202267f888692a7eec3f4.jpg (128KB, 652x476px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 652x476px

>>13500957

He's not wrong.

You know what is the main reason why flying mecha will never make any sense?

Because if you have the tech to make one you will also have the tech to make missiles that can always get it.

We can make fighters that could do 20G turns today. The problem is we can also make missiles that can make 60G turns. 60G 180 degree turns at mach 2.7 is what AIM-9X is capable of.

Modern fighters have 9G limits because anything above that can kill the pilot.

File: fichtenfoo-griffon-01.jpg (102KB, 600x602px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x602px

>>13523095 >>13523088 >>13521955
We can cut the debate easily : Flying imply atmospheric flight or at least overcoming gravity in a controlled fashion. So the incomplete Zeong could be considered a flying mech above the Moon, but it's missing legs (which are critical AMBAC component) make it ill suited for ground combat.

Anyway we are seeing the usual anti-mech shitposting. Some don't care about discussing the subject, they just try to annoy people by insisting about how they lack imagination.
During the first World War they would probably have argued against any future for tank or during WWII against radar or guided missiles.

>>13523166
Do you know why we can't make affirmation so definite ?
Because combat doctrine and warfare paradigm change over time.
I don't believe in stealth stealth but information warfare and jamming can do a lot to prevent a war only focused over missiles warfare, and yet on the opposite the progress of radar and laser can do a lot to prevent air domination because a ground anti-air system don't operate the same way than aircraft.

For all we know the future could see the fall of agile fighter for heavier, more equipped gunship with drones.
And attacker copter doctrine could ask for gunship that would functionally speaking be Mechs, with landing legs and meant to snipe from incredible distance thanks to Information grind telling them where to land and where to shoot.

>>13523166
>Because if you have the tech to make one you will also have the tech to make missiles that can always get it.
There is literally zero connection between these two things.

>>13523400

Except there is? If you can make a 40 ton humanoid thing fly you can make a much smaller thing that is nothing more than a flying engine with a warhead be much faster and more agile. That's simply how it works.

Do you even realize how much space and weight is wasted in mechas? Limbs, joints, all the things that make them move.

>>13523413
>That's simply how it works.
It's simply not. Missile tracking is separate technology from making a brick fly.

You kids need to stop thinking in your dumb homogenous tech levels.

>>13523425

Just stop.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

Tell me how flying mecha would deal with it.

>>13523425

If you can make an engine that makes robots fly you can take that engine, put it in a 20 times more aerodynamic missile and then put a warhead inside.

That missile will always be much faster and more agile. That's how physics work.

>>13523431
>tell me how this completely unspecified thing that doesn't exist would handle this
Well since I can completely fucking make up what happens, I guess it does the hokey pokey in the sky around it then punches it in half.

You're still missing the point and might just be a retard.

>>13523440
Faster yes. Agile depends on a bunch of things that don't even slightly apply to just putting a huge chunk of metal in the sky.

If your argument is "if you have the technology to make flying robots you have the technology to make really fast rockets" you might be right, although the robot's thrusting capability might be dependent on some sort of engine that you wouldn't put in a disposable rocket, active targeting technology and turning capability have no inherent relation.

Like Christ the entire point of Gundam's setting is they don't have the technology to make that missile in their combat environment. Minovsky particles are magic of course but the anti-missile race exists too.

>>13523465
>Minovsky particles are magic

And this is the only kind of setting where mecha works. Setting where you have magic shit that has nothing to do with reality.

Face it, nobody is working on combat mecha. Literally nobody. Because every army on the planet realize it's retarded.

And advances in technology won't change that until we have literally magical technology that can ignore physics. And even then there is absolutely no reason to make your large combat machine humanoid.

>>13523440
Why bother making planes if you can just make missiles instead?

>>13523166
What if they also have the tech to make electronic countermeasures to render BVR missile sniping useless?

>>13523502
As drone technology improves, this becomes a real question instead of what you think is a gotcha that allows mecha to be practical in the real world.

>>13523502
No glorious Kamikaze for glorious Nipponese

>>13523502

F-35 literally exists just to increase the range of it's missiles.

>>13523509
You're asking the wrong question, actually.

>>13523517
This is what should be on the mind: the payload delivery role the machine in question provides.

Everything is nothing more than a means to get your weapon in killing range, when you get down to it.

>>13523497
>ECM has nothing to do with reality
Okay buddy.

>Face it, nobody is working on combat mecha.
There are military projects for robots though, working on giant robots would be like the Wright Brothers trying to make a B2.

>>13523528

Well, yes. Next gen planes are nothing more than stealth missile trucks.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (160KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1280x720px

>>13523535

And how in the hell is ECM related to mecha?

Nobody is working on combat mecha. Nobody even considers it.

What they are working on are legged transports and exoskeletons. Neither of those leads to mecha in any way.

Large humanoid mecha will never ever work because of ground pressure. To overcome ground pressure you need anti gravity tech. When you have anti gravity there is no point in legs. Spider tanks may become viable in the future. Humanoid mechs never will.

>>13523559
I'd rather talk to a wall than someone who can not follow the simplest train of discussion and just keeps crapping out the same bad post over and over.

File: 787074081559470152.jpg (128KB, 636x891px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 636x891px

>>13523564

Stop trying to rationalize complete bullshit.

Mechas make no sense and that's a fact.

3/4 of the inside is wasted on things that make it move. It makes no fucking sense in any way and never will.

What you will maybe see in the future are large exoskeletons used in constructions. That's it. It will never be a combat technology.

>>13523564

Tell me how mechas overcome the problem of ground pressure. Or the fact that humanoid shapes are not aerodynamic in any way.

Go ahead.

>>13523564
>>13523595
You two need to fuck

File: weasaa8fk87mkeonmrwq.jpg (43KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x360px

This is what China is actually working on. For use in places like Tibet where normal tanks struggle.

It's still much smaller and lighter than a tank. 5m long and armed with 30mm.

Humanoid shape is not even being considered.

File: 1258683390275.jpg (214KB, 1550x913px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1550x913px

The trolls are so fed here they are getting overweight.

It's stupid to reduce warfare to a missile tracking a target.
Warfare is an incredibly complex ensemble of combat units which use not just their specs to win but also multiple configurations, tactics, strategy, and logistic where the right technology used the right way can change everything.

Aircraft have plenty of disadvantage, the first one being their endurance, a second one being their aerodynamic restriction.
Gunship have worse endurance, but carry more weapon with a greater versatility and easier deployment than plane. Still they cannot hold the ground.
An hypothetical flying mech can capitalize on the ability to land and hold the ground for long duration after crossing long distance fast.

Basically a flying mech can be anything from a recon vehicle to an artillery commando.
Especially if we ended up getting the awesome missile with awesome techs that can blow any plane at long range before it can do anything.
Such missiles would in fact favor mechs since no aircraft could survive it.
A flying mech would simply blow out of the sky anything that threaten them first, as no stealth will save you from future sensor or todays IR sensor.
A mech could also land anywhere if needed and use relief as shield, and no plane could sneak on them and no helicopter could outmaneuver them.
Since aerodynamic isn't important on a mech it could have more efficient anti-missile system and being on the ground already it has more chance to survive any damages.

Technology march on, and people who can't imagine what can happen will just stay behind.

>>13523851

Anon, do you even realize how much weight and space limbs would require? Not even mentioning how vulnerable they would be to any kind of damage.

That thing you posted is ridiculous. Half of it's weight would be the limbs.

You would get an overweight helicopter that couldn't fly very well.

File: hammerhead-digital-camo-3.jpg (125KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1280x720px

>>13523851

Limbs are still completely pointless. So is humanoid shape.

>>13523851
>hold the ground for long duration after crossing long distance fast.
That's what transports are for, to deliver ground units that are better at holding ground than something that's trying to be both a ground and an air unit, escorted by fighters that are better at air combat than something that's trying to be both a ground and an air unit.

File: 1274068248155.jpg (2MB, 3466x2776px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3466x2776px

>>13523908 >>13524009
You clearly have no technical knowledge to exaggerate the weight like that.
Weight is not everything between different technology. You don't complain of the useless weight of rotor-blades compared to that of a fixed-wing plane. Nor of the lack of armor, hold or winch of an air-fighter.

The Military would already kill for helicopters landing legs capable of stabilizing one on any ground at moment notice. Same for a stilt-rotor system because of all the advantage it would give over current techs.
The point is that a flying mechs would be capable of doing what no other design can do. Justifying its design entirely.

> That's what transports are for

You fail weapon design 101 and have the memory of a goldfish.
A specialized transport couldn't deploy any weapon and sensor anywhere in an instant, stay and combats for hours and lift-off again fast to reposition anywhere. Then a ground vehicle couldn't get in place in time or in good position because it can't fly, and a hight flying plane would be an easy target for moderns missiles.

With a logic like yours we wouldn't have attack-copter because you wouldn't understand how something that isn't a transport-copter but not an attack-plane or a tank either could be useful. Same for IFV vehicle like the Bradley.

You do know that technology evolve and vehicle design change with time ? right ?

>>13524214
So your argument boils down to "it's magic." As the F-35 program has abundantly shown us, a vehicle that tries to do everything is going to excel at nothing. This is ignoring the flagrant violations if common sense displayed by your claims that a conventional airframes are somehow more limited than hypothetical flying robot suits, or that dedicated transport aircraft suck because they can't do things they're not supposed to be doing in the first place.

>>13523918
The reason to use limbs is explain in the very post, learn to read.
And who is talking of humanoid shape ? Beside, if humanoid shape ended up useful, we would use it regardless if you like it or not.

>>13524250
look man we all like watching mecha shows, but youve gone full mecha, youve started to actually buy into the crazy horseshit they pull off in most mecha anime as even remotely plausible when its full on crazy nonsense. Please calm down..

>>13523086
>Jets still use guns in movies or anime because it looks cool. In reality guns are never used anymore. You launch missiles from 100km away.

Oh boy, I can't wait for a repeat of the F-4

>>13524258
Wasn't that also the result of the fact that the USAF's retarded ROE in 'nam required visual confirmation?

>>13524269
Confirming your target is still a barrier to BVR missile sniping even now, unless you really enjoy downing airliners or have total control of the combat airspace.

File: Ka-50_helicopters_over_Moscow.jpg (675KB, 1199x803px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1199x803px

>>13524240
Must I teach you how new combat vehicle appear and evolve ?
You need learn about what multi-tasking brings in term of combat versatility. Real warfare isn't a textbook about what we used vehicle for. Sometime you must invent the new use.

Dedicated fighter / bomber evolved into more efficient omnirole fighter thanks to guided bomb, we learned with the F-16 that on-board radar was useful after all, the F-15 taught us that heavy fighter can be more useful than light one. giant bomber disappeared for tactical bomber and supersonic bomber proved inefficient.
The Bradley IFV, despite being born of one of the worst design process proved itself more useful than MBT in real combat theater and MBT were considered be replaced by indirect-artillery with smart guided shell.
Occidents helicopter focus on speed whereas Russian's one focus on armor, and the Hind is still an useful transport and gunship.
Ground drone are appearing as well as exoskeleton, nothing like that existed before
The F-35 is a turd, but that's because the objective was not to have a good plane but to spend 1000 billions on it. The Harrier was a useful VTOL. The A-10 itself is also useful despite being more costly than using an omni-role fighter (a good one, not the F-turd).

Anyway, you aren't being bright claiming no flying mech will ever exist in the future. You should start discussing what you think one would look like...

File: 1423530863879.jpg (70KB, 750x537px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 750x537px

>>13524257
So ... if anything appeared in a comic or on TV it will never exist in a reworked form someday ? Woah, I can't imagine how insane the real world must be for you.
We are getting near tricorder from Star Trek and it was bad SF !! Army are experimenting with VR helmet for tanks and the DARPA (and China) are working on god damn robot dog

You are coming out as either very ignorant or autistic.

>>13524450
I've seen you make this argument countless times in threads like this, and your keystone is always "future tech will do it," or "we'll invent roles for them. This is about as grounded in reality as saying they'll be powered by pixie dust, or that they'll work because they're blessed by God. You don't design a weapon and then find something for it to be good at.

Plus, we still make use of strategic bombers, MBTs, and you're grossly misrepresenting the life cycle of the Bradley.

>>13511692
So, this?

https://youtu.be/Ip_WqX8nmKY

>>13524214

Jesus man, you have no idea what you are talking about. Just stop.

>>13524258

Yeah, we didn't advance since 60's.

Holy shit dude, none of the air kills during the recent wars were due to gun.

>>13524479

Star Trek is not completely retarded like Gundam is.

Many of the ideas from Sci-fi movies made it to reality since they were good ideas. Mechas are not one of them.

>>13524240

When will this idiotic F-35 bashing stop?

It's a perfect plane for the intended job. Remember how people were shitting all over F-16 when it first appeared? Saying how Russian planes will eat it alive and how it's overpriced to hell?

>>13524849
I just want to see a repeat of the F-4, why you mad senpai

File: Su-35.webm (864KB, 718x404px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 718x404px

>>13488895

That ultra maneuverability is kind of pointless really. Modern fighters can already do most of this shit without growing legs.

And it won't let you dodge a missile anyways since air-frame will fall apart at that kind of load factor.

Most military planes will fall apart at 12-15G. Some can survive up to 30G. Missiles can easily survive 50G. Some can survive up to 100G.

>>13480299
I laughed so hard at the scene in Gasaraki when the mechs are outperforming the tanks on like fucking sand dunes and shit.

>>13523502
Seems to work for Russia.

I mean, certainly, they have planes, but they are much more reliant on surface to air missiles for air defense, because they were not confident that they could keep the US from winning air superiority during the cold war, so missiles would make the advantage of air superiority mostly worthless by making it too dangerous to operate gunships and CAS aircraft even without the threat of Russian fighters.

>>13523851
What makes you think walking on legs on the ground is going to save so much fuel that it's worth it against the downside of carrying several tons of legs through the sky while flying?

What you're proposing is an attack helicopter that uses 90% of it's payload capacity on better landing gear, which sounds pretty stupid to me.

>>13524258
>get rekt in vietnam air battles for having fast but unmaneuverable fighters with no guns, and early generation clockwork and vacuum tube missiles with a 10% chance of working
>build every subsequent fighter with guns because of that experience
>more or less never use the guns ever again because the missiles available weren't made in the 1950s

If you actually look at how those early missiles worked, you would not be surprised at how often they, well, didn't. A single pixel IR sensor or directional radar antenna on an offset spinning mount wired to a pair of out of phase potentiometers to sort out the X and Y channel, then fed into overtuned vacuum tube amplifiers that drove the steering fins. No smarts whatsoever. I guess it must have seemed like some pretty high tech shit at the time, but Jesus christ I would not trust my life to one of these things hitting an aeroplane instead of chasing after a forest fire or the sun.

Fighting still isn't all BVR, because obviously if it's BVR you can't see what it is you're shooting at, and it's usually frowned upon to go blasting whatever pops up on sensors, but up close, fancy off-boresight missiles have almost completely superseded guns.

File: f-4_phantom_air_force_united_states_f4_jet_hd-wallpaper-1337181.jpg (296KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 2560x1440px

>>13524888

F4 is an attractive older lady

>>13525602
>liking the f4 instead of the JAGUAR

>>13525621

>mixing with mud-movers

I'm not saying F-4 didn't drop probably hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs in her day, or that Jaguar didn't carry AA missiles going through rough neighborhoods, but come on, man, she's an attack aircraft.

>>13525602
F-4 is aerodynamic blasphemy.

>planefags
GO AND STAY GONE, LIKE YOUR JETFU'S FUTURE RELEVANCE

File: PL-01_Concept_comparision.jpg (50KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x533px

> Reminder that Poland is trying out a frigging stealthy tank.

>>13524697
Yes, exactly.

>>13524619
...and you can't deny that the future is just that unpredictable, so you might as well try your luck. It will be more fun than boring everyone with how little imagination you have.

>>13524859
2/10, made me smile

>>13524878
Actually the F-16 was very well received because it had everything that mattered at the time. Won't make you a list.
But the F-35 is just bad, its 360° IR sensor is about the only redeeming feature, so the US better hope it really don't need to turn or rely on its stealth (because its payload is minimal then)
The only reason the program kept going is because it is too costly to abandon now and there's no alternative.

>>13525353
Not saying Gasaraki couldn't be better but tank do have trouble in unexpectedly simple terrain. They are better than wheeled vehicle overall but a walking vehicle do have more potential.
The anime could have been way better if they just started using relief as shield, and not playing magic spidermech

>>13527977

Then obviously, like that one anon was saying here

>>13485391

It needs to brute force it's way through the skies with powerful thrusters and therefore must be the most maneuverable aircraft ever developed!

Trust me, it makes more sense.

>>13525353
To be fair that armor convoy was caught with their pants way down.

Half of them got their dicks caught in their zippers too.

A buncha Hajis with RPGs could terrorize a humvee line, a flock of Ishtars with LOSATs upscales the damage to be effective against IFVs and tanks.

>>13528169
> Actually the F-16 was very well received because it had everything that mattered at the time.
Revisionist shit, the Viper and M1 both had horrible receptions. Sprey made DAMN sure to do what he could to slander it because they dared put all that useless crap like radar on his precious point defense gunfighter. It wasn't until the F-16 proved itself the best ground-pounder flying, period, that it became well received.

>>13485391
One day im gonna wake up as genius programmer skills. Which i will then use to write to a perfect Valkyrie simulation with real world physics(and indestructible unobtainium metal) and then we will all know how a real Valkyrie would behave

File: that's one loud ghost.jpg (223KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1920x1440px

>>13527977
talk to the thrust, anon.

File: [Commie] Macross Frontier the Movie ~Sayonara no Tsubasa~ [BD 1080p AAC] [66AE8F11].mkv_snapshot_01.25.15_[2015.11.21_12.30.17].jpg (124KB, 1916x1076px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1916x1076px

>muh missiles
>Implying the true plane meta isn't a fighter with an automated turret or two to shoot down enemy missiles or enemy planes if they are in range
Since they barely use the gun anymore, might as well put that thing into an turret and let it shoot shit on its own when enemies are in range

File: 1378879633041.jpg (91KB, 846x614px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 846x614px

>>13528301
To me you are the revisionist. Isn't it handy to blame Prey ? No way the rest of Lockheed could be the ones at fault.
That Prey guy even admitted that putting radar on the F-16 greatly improved it's multirole ability, and his A-10 is the next best thing after a Zaku.

Let's look at the list of what the F-16 was :
# inexpensive
# supersonic (was still a big deal at the time)
# agile (missile/bomb hit rate wasn't very high at the time)
# multirole
# going to last
The perfect plane for country to start an air-force and other to have cheaper but still efficient plane

In comparison the F-35 is :
# So expensive it won't have been worth it unless it win World War 3 by itself
# not multirole, it was built for a "deep bombing" philosophy then called the second coming of F-16 Aznable
# plagued all around by its minor VTOL variation.
# bound to become obsolete fast, especially its stealth.

>>13529616
Or put it on a drone. Ghost, Ghost everywhere.

>>13476415
I still don't understand why anyone was using mobile suits in 00 before the advent of GN particles. Even if we resort to "Veda was behind it all," it shouldn't take any traditional military long to figure out the obvious advantages of traditional war machines against giant gas-powered bricks.

File: 1446761051882.png (482KB, 672x658px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 672x658px

>>13476415
Are you trying to take away muh sky?

File: airliners.jpg (2MB, 2048x1364px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1364px

>>13534096
Every day, at any given moment, like, right now, there are thosands and thousands of people inside of her, going in and out, without giving a single fuck.
You're waifu is a big fucking slut.

>>13528169

You autists do know that almost all F-35 myths are pure bullshit right?

F-16 is locked at 26 degrees AOA. F-35 is locked at 50 degree AOA.

F-35 is capable of supercruise. F-16 isn't.

F-16 top speed drops to mach 1.4 when it's not in clean configuration.

>>13528169
>and you can't deny that the future is just that unpredictable

How long were we fighting with spears and bows?

How long were we fighting with muzzle loaders?

Future of military tech is not unpredictable at all.

Tell me how much tanks changed in shape since the end of WW2 til today.

The main multirole fighter we use today is from 70's.

Our guns and ammo are from 60's.

File: Russian_AA.webm (2MB, 466x370px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 466x370px

>>13529616

Ships have it for decades. Tanks are already getting them with Afghanit and similar systems. Planes are next.

The thing is it won't change the fact that missiles are the kings of modern war. You will just need to throw more of them at the target.

It depends on the design of the mecha.

If heavily armored mecha would be the status quo and fairly prolific in the worlds wars then there will probably be attempts to make them aquatic/flying.

>>13529616
dogfight doctrine says don't do it if possible.

beyond that it says missles are nice.

>>13534369

Nobody is putting jet engines on tanks to make them fly.

File: Mi-24_Super_Agile_Hind_in_flight_2006.jpg (47KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1280x960px

>>13534341
Actually the F-35 can't supercruise
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/supercruise/
The best you have is them pretending that as long as it doesn't immediately lose its speed its "tactical supercruise"

The F-16 had deep stall problem in its early version, fixed later, and still outmaneuver the F-35 with 2 fuel tank. You should know that one. Anyway, the F-35 is supposed to match modern aircraft, not old ones.

>>13534353
> Tell me how much tanks changed in shape since the end of WW2 til today.
So much have changed...
# we stopped making specialized tank and low caliber cannon toward MBT
# their height decreased and relied on sophisticated optic to shot
# turret became self-stabilizing, got laser rangefinder and more
(by the way, this is barely during WWII that we discovered new suspension system and abandoned multi-turret)
# smoothbore cannon
# missile launched out of smoothbore cannon
# Automated reloader
# one case of turbine-driven tank
# Network & GPS guided warfare, yes anon, you reshape vehicle around that.
# remote-control turrets, be it anti-personal or the Armata
# Anti-missile system, they might be mods for now you can be sure the next generation will be built around it (see PL-01)
# Adaptiv IR camo ...etc
And we are not talking of NEW VEHICLE like Gunship or would be, mechs.

> ammo
Actually they improved too, we just have stock

> The main multirole fighter we use today is from 70's.
Improved countless time.
Anyway how is that a point ?
You would have kept using the first musket for 50years ?
Refused repeater because that's "too complex" ?
We could have something considered "mecha" by 2050 and undeniably so by 2100 it will still demonstrate further your inability to look to the future.

File: gyrocopter road warrior.jpg (24KB, 640x555px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 640x555px

>>13534614
>We could have something considered "mecha" by 2050 and undeniably so by 2100 it will still demonstrate further your inability to look to the future.

We could have easily given every infantryman their own ultralight attack gyrocopter 60 years ago. A Benson B8M gyrocopter from the 60s cost about $1000, approximately the same as a Vietnam era infantryman's kit.

Not every idea is a winner.


for example:
># missile launched out of smoothbore cannon

to the best of my knowledge, in the ~50 years since the introduction of gun-launched missiles, there has only been one instance of anyone actually using one in action. In the first gulf-war, a couple of about-to-be-retired M551 Sheridan light tanks (built specifically around the gun-launched missile concept) threw about five (out of 88 fucking thousand built) expensive but about-to-be-thrown-out Shillelagh gun launched anti-tank missiles at an iraqi bunker, because there was absolutely no reason not to.


also, just as an interesting historical note:

># turret became self-stabilizing, got laser rangefinder and more

most US tanks in ww2 came standard with hydro-electric vertical axis gun stabilizers. Shermans, Stuarts, hell, even the fucking m3 Lee had stabilization on both cannons. how useful that was is up to debate, and probably depended quite a bit on how well the crew and mechanics working on each particular tank could keep the machinery working and tuned, but stabilized turrets is nothing new.

>>13534614
>we stopped making specialized tank and low caliber cannon toward MBT
Partly due to them realising heavy tanks and their thick armor just ain't worth the cost, not with improvements in ammunition and guns so good that pretty much made thick armor useless, so they went for mobility instead.
Similar to why we dropped the battleships, too expensive and something can do the same shit for a lower cost and larger number.

>relied on sophisticated optic to shot
We always relied on optics and rangefinders. They just improved on that shit. In cases where they don't have a rangefinder, they use the gunsight to calculate the distance.

>self-stabilizing
Improvements on the control of the gun elevation, logical choice considering that aiming on the move was a problem, but even in WWII, they had some form of gun stabilisation, although its effectiveness is not as good as modern ones.

>smoothbore cannon
We had smoothbore cannons since forever. They just didn't use them in WWII because without spinning the shell, it ain't accurate, and rifling is a way to make the shell spin. When they figured out fin-stabilised projectiles, smoothbore cannons became viable again, and they used them.

>missile launched out of smoothbore cannon
Limited use of that, as mentioned by another anon.

>Automated reloader
Logical evolution of the loader's role. They are useful, but people keep the loader around because he is useful for various purposes, an autoloader can only load shells, it can't look out of the hatch to help the TC spot enemies when travelling, it can't switch shells without firing the loaded shell, it can't brew coffee for the TC.
The use of the carousel autoloader is responsible for the spectacular ammuniton cook-off of russian tanks we see in videos, by the way.

>one case of turbine-driven tank
Just a different type of engine used. Still an engine.

File: 1336242485260.jpg (85KB, 991x660px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 991x660px

>>13534828
> Not every idea is a winner.
No shit Sherlock.
The things is : technology evolve fast and unpredictably enough that you cannot dismiss whole line of though (mech come in infinite flavor) without being stupid.
Though, /m/ being /m/ I'm not ruling out that you could be moving the goal post in the hope of looking smart.

The fact that many SF ideas before didn't get application or WIDE application before, do not mean that some didn't succeed (including later, revisited) beyond our wildest expectation, including ideas that would have looked to ridiculous to remember if we wrote them down.
ex : Personal flight-pack during cold war looked idiotic because soldier are not pilot and parking those safely is impossible, right.
Now imagine a modern 4x4m drone that could carry 100/200kg, make it modular enough to carry a wounded... wait, we just reinvented personal flight-pack and it feel logical !

> most US tanks in ww2 came standard with hydro-electric vertical axis gun stabilizers. [.....], but stabilized turrets is nothing new.

None could fire at target 1 or 2km away while moving, even less jumping, on a target they don't see themselves.
Your remark about smoothbore missile is one of so many example that can be made that even the military don't know what could become useful. After all we have right now a sleek futuristic fighter that take-off vertically despite VTOL all-purpose-fighter being firmly considered SF stuff.

So once again, rather than boring everyone with your unwillingness to think outside anime's convention or cold war textbook you could simply try imagining how you would expect mechs in the future.
Myself I expect a Gunship WITH LEGS. That's a mech, that's frankly feasible

File: Folding ving VTOL_3.jpg (41KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x450px

>>13534948
Basically that whole post just admit that a modern tank is nothing like an old tank outside tracked locomotion. And again we didn't even get started on new vehicle design or their use.

You know that you could simply admit there's lot of rooms for mecha in the future ? You would stop looking like a granpa unable to cope with the modern world.

>>13535139
>a modern tank is nothing like an old tank outside tracked locomotion. And again we didn't even get started on new vehicle design or their use.
Exactly. No matter how much else changes, tracked locomotion remains, because tracked locomotion is so effective that there's no reason to start making vehicles with legs. All those advancements in tank design are changes to the details, not changes to the fundamental concept of a tank. Tanks will remain tanks; there's no reason to try to make them walk.

>>13535139
>a modern tank is nothing like an old tank outside tracked locomotion
Not exactly.
A lot of the "new" stuff is often an improvement of things they already had. It's mostly the missile shit that is "new".
WWI/WWII is the era where they pretty much figured out how to build a tank, and it never changed much from there.

They just use different technology, but the basic idea behind them didn't change much.

The British Mk1(First tank) was a box that moved forward with machine guns sticking out, the FT-17 set the trend of the single turret tank, a few tanks share the "First MBT" title.

We have no idea what will happen in the future, but one thing we can determine is what is CURRENTLY possible with our technology and decide whether its worth the cost.

File: mechaAIRFROW1.jpg (68KB, 717x486px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 717x486px

>>13535505
Way to miss the point. It's like you've been brainwashed to believe tracked locomotion is some sort of messianic drive that rule all, the very concept of MBT was being reconsidered until anti-missile turret brought some hope.

>>13535549
If you generalize like that, then to you a WWII cruiser must not be used differently from a missile-launching cruiser or a Spitfire from a F-35.
Once again, you need to stop thinking like a textbook and look at the real world. Modern doctrines and tactics are vastly different from what they were during WWII or even the cold war, MBT included.
Vehicle like the Bradley performed way, way better than the Abram despite being built for radically different purpose.

Also learn that mechs wouldn't need to act like/replace MBT, gunship or air bomber, assuming MBT don't become obsolete by then.

> We have no idea what will happen in the future, but one thing we can determine is what is CURRENTLY possible with our technology and decide whether its worth the cost.

The big flaw in your logic is that not knowing what will (really) happen in the future don't mean never developing or considering new combat vehicle, systems or means of locomotion. We are currently developing new technology like walking-software which can transfer to everything, with short-terms objectives in minds and the knowledge that COST can significantly decrease as the industry make common what was once cutting-edge.

It is CURRENTLY possible that in 50years /m/-approved technology could rule future warfare or give a tenfold advantage over enemy, be it symmetrical or asymmetrical warfare.
So you see there's no reason not to consider what mechs could look like in the future, if only to avoid being like the guy who in 1977 claimed that no one would ever want a personal computer at home.

File: greenbot.jpg (120KB, 1600x1100px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1600x1100px

Attack copter started when putting weapon on helicopter meant for transport, and as such they were pretty inefficient until missiles made them into formidable tank killer.

Nowadays we are shifting toward drones, but those can be hacked and the skies is becoming more dangerous than the ground. So there's all reasons for ground vehicle to go one step further.

>>13536358
I like that design. Is it from something or is it an original design?

File: tumblr_no0fpjN55I1sxm4gzo8_1280.jpg (238KB, 1280x905px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1280x905px

If you ask, that design come from a video name "ICONIC FIELD"
http://animatorexpo.com/iconicfield/
As far as I know it is not a planned series. The design are gorgeous though

File: 1239855354798.jpg (79KB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x667px

>>13536425
From memory it was original design linked to nothing

File: Centurion_cfb_borden_1.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>13534614

Anon, WW2 tanks look almost exactly the same as modern tanks.

Yes, a lot changed inside them. But the point is it's still the same vehicle.

And this won't change for the next 100 years.

>>13534614
>and still outmaneuver the F-35

Yeah, back when F-35 was in early development stages and flying with 20 degree AOA limit.

>>13536384

There is no reason to build a humanoid weapon.

File: 800px-Char_Renault_FT17_at_the_Invalides.jpg (89KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x600px

>>13536549
> And this won't change for the next 100 years.
Yeah, right. Enjoy being wrong for the rest of your life

File: No comrade premier lunch has only begun.png (160KB, 319x378px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 319x378px

>>13536501

>jewcopter
>little stubby T-rex arms on the outer pylons
>coaxial regular helicopter rotors literally on top of ducted turbines

what

>>13536582

I see a vehicle with tracks and a turret with a single gun.

The basic concept is the same today.

It sure as hell didn't evolve into a humanoid robot.

>>13539024
>I see man with big long hurt stick, sword no different from wood club
>I see an installment of self-propelled explosive things, fire lance is no different than ICBM
>I see a man with a handheld ballistic device, an M4 is no different than a flintlock
Basic concept is still the same but everything around it, even its role in war, changes. Nobody thought the tank would exist before WWI and nobody thought it would last. War will shape the conditions necessary for a giant robot to come forth. And you will not pilot it.

File: British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg (216KB, 700x524px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 700x524px

>>13536582
>Posting the goddamn FT-17 to prove his point
The thing that made the FT-17 stood out was the single turret that can shoot all around the tank, and that never changed despite all the changes in role, technology, etc.

You know what is definitely different from a MBT? The first tank, the British Mk 1.
People change shit not because they wanted to try that shit, but mostly because they had something they needed to do and was looking for a solution.

Why did they move on to the single-turreted tanks from the moving boxes they had? Because they realised it was much more effective in battle than moving boxes. They needed an effective breakthrough unit that can take machinegun fire.

They didn't intend to let tanks fight tanks at first, then someone put an anti-tank gun into a tank and killed enemy tanks with it. The tank-vs-tank concept was then used by everyone. They needed to kill enemy tanks quick.

Then by the cold war, they realised that with the advances in gun and ammunition technology, armor is kind of useless and phased out heavy tanks for smaller and more mobile tanks because a big slow tank is an easy target and it costs more than a smaller tank to build. Advancement in technology renders armor much more useless than before, they needed to address that issue.

Someone figured out a way to provide some form of protection from the powerful guns they got(ERA, etc) to keep their tanks alive, and everyone else followed them. Keeping their tanks alive is always good and needed.

Until someone makes a different combat vehicle that is more like a mecha than tank/gunship and proves that it is worth the cost, much more effective than our current vehicles and actually addresses the current needs of the military, the damn thing doesn't change. There's always something that they needed from it when they "changed" the tank.
Is there a problem they need to tackle that requires redesigning the whole 'tank' concept?

>>13536835
I guess it's so that they can quadcopter while they quadcopter?

Like the turbines produce lift and the coaxial ones provide stability.

File: 1354538407414.jpg (192KB, 952x705px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 952x705px

BEHOLD

THE ULTIMATE CONVERGENT EVOLUTION OF THE TANK, CHOPPER, AND MECHA

>>13539277
How does that thing land?

File: 1410676927483.png (104KB, 687x412px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 687x412px

>>13539099
News flaws in your logic is that we ain't talking about replacing (current definition of) MBT by Mech (which don't need to be humanoid), neither to mimic the way they are/were used (this isn't needed) and as said, (today's) MBT could still become obsolete in the near future (20~50years) assuming little but decisive doctrine change, new technology or say plain discovery of new tank-less strategy.
The same can be said for Gunship/Attack copter, they aren't some sort of ageless inalterable meta-concept inherited from the dawn of warfare.

Forcing yourself to think in term of false equivalence like WWI tank = 2015 PL01 is only inhibiting your ability to recognize the critical changes that change the future little by little. Plenty of example can be made as well.

More on the topic, helicopter would have been /m/-stuff if 4chan had somehow originated at the time, same for "variable geometry aircraft". The objective of walking locomotion is simply to make something a definite mech, but most of /m/ is just as interested by all sort of interesting concept, thrust-vectoring, rotating engines or variable aerodynamic, stuff we got to see appear first.

>>13540355
It doesn't.

It comes to an idle hover at ground level. They have to tether them down so they don't drift off and crash into something.

>>13539277
Weapon to surpass metal gear.

>>13540360

I'm glad that they are finally working on compound helicopters.

I have no idea why nobody did this earlier. Cheyenne was cancelled only due to political reasons.

File: G-armor.jpg (1MB, 5703x3924px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5703x3924px

>>13539277
>Not the G-armor
You tried, anon

>>13540629
Where's the limbs? How can it be a mecha without limbs?

File: intrusion.png (401KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1920x1080px

GENTLEMEN
BEHOLD

File: h50_46[1].jpg (44KB, 600x283px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x283px

>>13543783
What do you think are holding the shields?

File: 1410676785652.jpg (57KB, 650x979px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 650x979px

>>13540613
The more you learn about helicopters, the more amazed you are they fly at all.

The main rotor create a couple you must counter, and said tail-rotor must ideally be at the same height, but then it also propel you aside (since you push air aside), requiring the main rotor to be ever so slightly inclined. leading to the challenge olf tilting the main rotor so it propel you in a direction while it is rotating fast.
As you fly forward the blades going prograde are speedier relative to the air, resulting into different lift on each side of the helicopters, to solve that you must not just tilt the rotor, but make the blades angles/spacing vary between each side.
And we are not finished ! The above is the main cause of ground resonance which can make a copter disassemble itself if its not dampened.

Next, the coaxial rotors have equivalents problems. Put aside the need to control a rotor through another, how they turn in opposite direction and must never collide (despite requiring the up&down articulation)... you have a complex aerodynamic and as much problems of resonance and gyroscopic effect.

Tandem rotor solves some problems... but generate some aerodynamic "kill you" vortex and you can lose autorotation.

So compound copters ?
...well, now we also have to solves the problem of supersonic blade-tips.

In comparison a mechs transforming into a plane actually sound more straightforward (software nightmare put aside).

File: 5-rad-boss-killer.jpg (311KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1680x1050px

>>13545258
The physics in that game was awesome.
It was everything arcade game should have become long ago.

File: 1384108929301.jpg (652KB, 1860x2309px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1860x2309px

> HIGH-MACS simulator launch Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzAkfREVtDk

>>13545741
Looks fun. What is it? Are these bigmacs from some franchise we know, or unique works?

>>13545779
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dde7k65iAcI
The Gungriffon series for Sega Saturn, PS2, and Xbox. Great mech sims.

>>13545779
>>13545741
I guess I'll dl it again. Maybe this time I'll understand how the controls work.

>>13545279
>tiny stubby wings
How does that even fly, brute force?