Combat in Space

>>14796841
>Why are fleets always neatly facing each other head on? Should they not be staggered all over the place, some upside down and angled? I also feel like the underbelly of ships looks really unprotected?
Well, the fleets would probably be angling to get into the same orbital band, so they would be facing each other. Going up or down in the orbits is something you do to maneuver before dropping back into the same orbit as your enemy. Otherwise you're going to be drifting relative to them, make aiming difficult.

>>14796841
I imagine aligning ships in different ways relative to each other serve different strategic purposes.
Facing an opponent ship directly would give them the smallest hit box.
Keeping your fleet in formation must serve a purpose too.

With how many guns a large ship would have aiming I'm all directions it's hard to imagine how a suit would get anywhere near it.
That being said I never understood why they didn't target the bridge more often once they got there. A lot more good and bad guys should die.

>>14796841
>Why are fleets always neatly facing each other head on? Should they not be staggered all over the place, some upside down and angled? I also feel like the underbelly of ships looks really unprotected?
Depends on the show and what sort of technological reasoning there is. if the ship is long and slender, then keeping the bow pointed at the enemy presents a smaller cross section. Some ships like those from LoGH are basically just laser cannon batteries attached to engines, hence nearly all ships adopting a more or less rectangular body. Ships in Gundam aren't really designed to be evenly protected from all sides because ship combat has taken a backseat role to MS combat sort of like how carriers and navy planes became more important than battleships in WWII. A lot of the time, ships will stay at the edge of the battlefield and maybe occasionally provide support barrages from a long distance. Ships don't need as much protection if they're meant to stay far away and only have their turrets pointed toward the action. Protection for ships against enemy MS/fighters should be carried out by point defense and combat air/space patrols.

Fleet formation is important sometimes because it allows for efficient coordination of firepower and protection. Also minimizes occurrences of ship collision. Also, depending on the types of weapons being employed, it may be advantageous to group ships together to fire concentrated barrages.

>Lastly how does mobile combat actually play out? Can a suit take out a ship single handedly if left unopposed? How long can suits sortie to protect a ship? If suits can just speed in and speed off to retreat whenever they please why can't they just speed past the screens and hit a ship directly and scurry off again?
That is totally up to the direction and writing, and it varies according to the presentation of each Gundam story. Beam weapons give mobile suits the power to sink ships with just a couple of shots, but other weapons could also do it.

If the writing needs it to happen, then it'll happen (see Unicorn OVA 2). But in real life, putting up a wall of fire is intended to do exactly that - the idea is that it's not practical or easy for a mobile suit to just fly through rapid gunfire screens and not expect to get hit.

One other thing to point out is that most ships in Gundam are sorely lacking protection other than just defensive guns. There are almost no energy shields or anything like that. That just makes it even easier for a mobile suit to try and attack.

>>14797088
>With how many guns a large ship would have aiming I'm all directions it's hard to imagine how a suit would get anywhere near it.
At least for UC, it's because radar-guided gun laying systems don't really work due to minovsky particles. Even in MSG and CCA they showed us that some defensive guns are even manually aimed and operated. Either way, not having automatic guns means that sometimes defensive gunfire is just put up randomly or at the very least isn't being aimed with a lot of precision, so a mobile suit can sometimes get up close.

>That being said I never understood why they didn't target the bridge more often once they got there. A lot more good and bad guys should die.
I actually thought the opposite is the problem. A lot of times the bridge is shot and then the entire ship just blows up for no reason, as if losing the bridge causes some kind of chain reaction.

>>14797273
>as if losing the bridge causes some kind of chain reaction.
where else would you store your fuel? in fuel tanks? That's so inefficient and space wasting.

File: Rewloola_unicorn_ver.jpg (79KB, 1242x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1242x720px

>>14797291
I like to store them in giant unprotected spheres, painted a different color to easily distinguish them, especially next to the base of the bridge

>>14797320
and protected by a large complement of six whole anti-air guns! Good design, anon!

>>14797061
I never thought about that, that's cool.

>>14797088
>Facing an opponent ship directly would give them the smallest hit box.
This makes sense but still I feel the underside is undefended a suit or even another cruiser could approach from underneath, head on, giving it the same small hit box and opportunity to hit a larger target.

If an entire fleet approached they other from the bottom they should have an extreme advantage no? Unless the goal of initial maneuvering is to prevent that from happening to you.

>>14797190
This makes a lot of sense with the carrier idea as well, I guess I was considering them more battleships with launchers.

>One other thing to point out is that most ships in Gundam are sorely lacking protection other than just defensive guns. There are almost no energy shields or anything like that. That just makes it even easier for a mobile suit to try and attack.
I asked that specifically because of Yazan sinking the Radish which missed him with every shot and was taken down with about 3 or 4 beams.

Next questions:

How do mobile suits move so agilely? Almost mimicing what a human can do when the cockpit seems to only have levers and no sticks or motion control stuff. Are there different commands for different kinds of movements pre programmed or something? I feel like they should be operating closer to the Matrix's mechs where arms are controlled by the pilots arms. The movements just seem to intricate for dash controls.

>>14797061
>Otherwise you're going to be drifting relative to them, make aiming difficult.

Its only difficult if you are doing the math by hand. But it is, effectively, the same sort of calculations used to dock shit in orbit anyway. Any ship capable of navigating space itself would be able to make those firing solutions. NASA could do it in the 70s if they wanted, and any dude that knows the equations could make a phone app to do it for you in real time today.

Granted, it might not be possible in Gundam because any technology not directly related to make mobile suits better never advances beyond WW2 naval battles in space, with all the weaknesses that implies.

>>14797496

> How do mobile suits move so agilely? Almost mimicing what a human can do when the cockpit seems to only have levers and no sticks or motion control stuff. Are there different commands for different kinds of movements pre programmed or something? I feel like they should be operating closer to the Matrix's mechs where arms are controlled by the pilots arms. The movements just seem to intricate for dash controls.

Don't worry about it. Very few mecha control systems as shown would actually be useful for making the actions as shown happen. Gundam isn't very good about this, but they are hardly the worst offender.

If you want useful mecha controls to act like anything more complex than the level of maneuverability offered by an Urbenmech, you need either a Mind/Machine Interface, or motion slave controls.

An Eva, for example, glosses over the details of fine control by having the pilots thoughts translate into commands and the Eva body doing the rest. They don't need to filter their commands through specific buttons.

A Mobile Fighter or the Gunbuster just have the pilot move around in a battle harness of some kind and the mecha does what the user does, with some wiggle room for activating special systems.

Macross's EX-Gear is another noteworthy example. Most of the time joysticks and buttons do in fact do the work needed, because VFs spend a lot of time as a fancy space plane or occasionally a space plane with arms. But the pilot suit functions as a limited form of power armor, and at any time the pilot can slave the VF to the actions of his EX-Gear, so if he ever needs to do something with his arms that isn't easily done by traditional methods, he can just have the mecha copy his motions for a while before switching back to conventional controls. Kind of a best of both worlds scenario.

File: 1473556143050.png (125KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 320x240px

>>14797496
>How do mobile suits move so agilely? Almost mimicing what a human can do when the cockpit seems to only have levers and no sticks or motion control stuff
Mini nuclear reactors for maximum power, verniers everywhere, as for the controls most cockpits have at least 1 lever and 1 stick and a fuckton of buttons
Which probably change their functions. And that is if we're talking UC only, because motion controls are the norm in FC and RC.

This is something you shouldn't give much thought about.


>Are there different commands for different kinds of movements pre programmed or something?
F91 kinda anwers this, when Seabook tried to grab the Beam rifle, but he was then told to use the automatic function for it.
Also in Victory the pilots mention that the standard is so easy to use, that a kid could pilot an MS,

>>14796841
Imagine fighting against a new type
>get shot by a beam cannon from out of nowhere by a pilot who couldn't possibly have known you were there.

>>14797612
>Granted, it might not be possible in Gundam because any technology not directly related to make mobile suits better never advances beyond WW2 naval battles in space, with all the weaknesses that implies.
So imagine they progressed as you imagine naval combat would in about 200sih (?) years, how might mobile suit combat be different?

>>14797496
>How do mobile suits move so agilely? Almost mimicing what a human can do when the cockpit seems to only have levers and no sticks or motion control stuff. Are there different commands for different kinds of movements pre programmed or something?
Macros are implied in a few Gundam media entires and while the pilot does provide input the mobile suit control system probably does the rest, either coincidentally or programmed to do so.

Though it really comes down to who is directing the series, episode, etc. and how much they want mobile suits to mimic human movement and movement range. Some directors are okay with being mostly mechanical (most of Tomino's Gundams when the mobile suits aren't doing something dramatic) while others take it to the extreme and have mobile suits moving nearly like humans (IGLOO, Unicorn, SEED, a lot of the AUs are pretty guilty of this).

>>14797716

Mobile suits wouldn't exist if the technology progressed in anything resembling a reasonable fashion. You can build a missile that updates its targeting based on optical data as it nears its target instead of being dumbfire, reliably sinking battleships from a range only limited by how much fuel you are willing to put behind the warhead. All you have to do is fire it in the right general direction (easily done, since minovsky radiation can bet detected from afar) and while it won't hit anything on the trajectory it was launched at it just needs to be close enough to have a better idea of the enemies location at the halfway point, and then the 1/4th point, and smaller and smaller increments until it hits.

This flawlessly solves all of the issues raised by minovsky interference that supposedly require us to use mobile suits instead.

>>14797688
>>14797731

>F91 kinda anwers this, when Seabook tried to grab the Beam rifle, but he was then told to use the automatic function for it.
>Also in Victory the pilots mention that the standard is so easy to use, that a kid could pilot an MS,
Haven't just finished those both recently is what made me think about it. It makes me wonder if it's like reveres cameras in vehicles now where it senses something in the vinicity of various senors and figures out if it's a weapon or a box that the suit can bend down and pick up or just reach out an arm and grab.
Still you'd have to imagine they'd be pretty mechanical looking, I know it's a cartoon and all but I'm sure someone has answers somewhere for it.

Another thing I was always thinking about. Why did they only build big pyscho gundams? It's seems giant transforming gundams or suits could potentially obsolete ships all together. Just make them bigger MS? I can't imagine it would be particularly more expensive to just build a MS instead.

Also,
>I wanna have a pure time
>Stand up to the victory (Almost implies resisting the victory Gundam)
>Pray don't break a peace forever
Did no one in 80's Japan understand or bother to check if these would sound strange or unusual to English speakers?

>>14797759
>minovsky interference that supposedly require us to use mobile suits instead.
Is that seriously the justification they use to continue using MS? Not because they pack a punch but because of Minovsky particles?

>>14797759
>You can build a missile that updates its targeting based on optical data as it nears its target instead of being dumbfire,
Visible wavelength is actually semi-interfered by Minovsky particle fields, anon. Also Minovsky particles don't radiate anything, and they can't be detected from afar, they're only detected from the interference they cause locally.

>>14797759
>>14797716
If drone technology is worth anything, why at that point in time to they even need pilots?

>>14797762
why not just make warships that combine into a giant MS?

File: RAI.jpg (1MB, 1613x2320px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1613x2320px

>>14797776
Yeah uh G Saviour and Wing already beat you with that line of thinking

>>14797770

Yes. Otherwise battleships could use those exact same weapons from much longer distances. This is while Battleships, in Gundam, don't snipe each other with physical projectiles from halfway to Mars.

>>14797773
> Visible wavelength is actually semi-interfered by Minovsky particle fields, anon.

And thats why you have to update your trajectory as you near the target. You will miss if you have to make the shot from afar and then never change it, but the closer you get the less the optical interference impact you. So if your missile is smart enough to adjust course as it receives better data as it grows closer, as long as it has the fuel for it it can be fired at where you think the ship is on your best guess and the missiles will course-correct into a hit as it gets closer.

Easy peasey.

>>14797291
why the fuck would you store fuel on the bridge?

>>14797813

disregard that i suck cocks

>>14797788
Welp haven't got that far yet.

>>14797817
Well Wing isn't UC and G Saviour is ambiguously canon, but they do both feature autonomous mobile suits that have some form of advanced AI.

File: Albion resupplying GP03 2.jpg (2MB, 2559x1553px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2559x1553px

>>14797770
At least in the beginning, it was. Then they keep using MS anyway because they've invested in it as a jack of all trades weapon system and never bother to introduce upgraded fighters and tanks.

If guided missiles still worked, how hard could it be to take down a mobile suit? Not very.

>>14797776
Minovsky particles prevent long range communication with drones.

>>14797762
>Why did they only build big pyscho gundams? It's seems giant transforming gundams or suits could potentially obsolete ships all together. Just make them bigger MS? I can't imagine it would be particularly more expensive to just build a MS instead.
There's more than just the Psyco Gundams. There's the Quin Mantha, Neo Zeong, Rafflesia, etc. Basically any giant mobile armor fits those requirements, doesn't even need to be transforming or a mobile suit.

That said, the majority of these superweapons are usually built by the factions opposing the Federation. The Federation is the bureaucratic world government, they have no long term enemies to fight and wars to wage, so they have no reason to develop anything else after the Psyco Gundams. They're not in the business of keeping the peace by building superweapons. In fact, in most of the stories the Federation is somewhat incompetent and their fighting ability is not very strong outside of having a large military. The factions that attack the Federation are usually much smaller, so they try to compensate with fewer but higher quality weapons, like the giant mobile armors and suits mentioned above.

Still, giant mobile suits and armors aren't replacements for ships. What do ships do? They carry people and supplies. Act as base of operations for staff. Perform repairs and carry parts and ammunition. Gundam warships are more like mobile bases than a weapon on the battlefield. The GP03 is like a miniature battleship all by itself, but at the cost of high performance it needs to return to the Albion to be resupplied.

>>14797841
>They're not in the business of keeping the peace by building superweapons
And they are just as good at keeping a peace as the enemy factions are at creating higher quality weapons.

>>14798097
Pretty much.

>>14798119
Why wouldn't the Feds ever break apart internally. Like reverting back into countries or states on earth?

Is it cause they'd set up a new calendar and didn't want to ruin it?

>>14798164
There's just no factionalism inside the EFF. It's just a homogeneous blob that exists for Zeon to always be bitter about and try to attack.

In Gundam Thunderbolt, there is a Buddhist nation that breaks away from the Federation following the OYW. And in Gundam Wing, their Federation was ruined and some countries became independent again, only to fold back into Romefeller and then the new Federation.

>>14798193
I don't know it just seems weird based on the political climate the world continues to exist in that one day all the countries just went, "Okay, lets all work together". Is there any series that touches on how and why it was formed?

>>14798216
Nope, not really. They're never interested in exploring the era from before humanity went into space. Can't blame them, as Gundam is all about the robots and space.

Also forgot to mention, but in Gundam Seed the world is pretty divided. Sure there's a Federation, but it's more of a loose military coalition than a true unified government. Some of the nations that make up the members of that Federation will even screw each other over and pursue their own goals.

Too bad they aren't really given any more characterization than super bigots.

>>14798216
00

>>14798257
Oh yeah, all of the world was subtly manipulated into forming three large power blocs, and then those three were united because they all had a common foe and they were super greedy for advanced technology.

>>14798252
Well from what I understand they first developed MS to build shit in space not fight (ZZ intro said so). So really couldn't they have written in early military mobile suit use as the federation was coming together. Kind of like the Bi Plane era of suits, people taking off but dying in random explosions due to no one understanding them yet.

>>14798257
Damn, not that far in yet, only up to Victory. I guess I'll have to wait.

>>14798279
No, you've gotten the chronology of events a bit messed up.

The Federation already existed for some time before the UC calendar. The UC calendar was declared when humanity began moving into outer space to live and work. Yes, mobile suits were developed from construction vehicles and worker pods used for building colonies, but the first actual mobile suits (humanoid instead of a pod with arms) weren't created until about 70 years after the declaration of the UC calendar.

>>14798323
> weren't created until about 70 years after the declaration of the UC calendar.
So yeah, around 0070 right?

I'm saying if they wanted to tell it and make early early fed stuff about robots and space they could've just written it so that MS were made earlier. I think they really missed out on story telling opportunities there.

But yeah I did have some stuff mixed up.

File: mfc-lrasm-pr2-h.jpg (620KB, 1260x782px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1260x782px

>>14797770
The entire premise of mobile suits being a thing is that because minovsky particles interfere with pretty much the entire EM spectrum accurate fire control is impossible at long distances. It also means some forms of missile guidance simply aren't viable, essentially any kind of guidance where the firing craft guides the missile to the target simply doesn't work due to interference.

The thing is this does literally nothing to affect all the other kinds of guidance where the missile carries its own sensors, passive or active and since it's evidently possible to detect minovsky particle density in a volume of space it also introduces the possibility of missiles that seek minovsky particle sources.

Minovsky particle emissions also decrease the detection capability and and fire control effectiveness of the ship that is emitting the particles, dramatically reducing their missile defense capability. It's like trying to hide in a smoke cloud you can't see out of yourself, it seems like a good idea until you realize that the enemy doesn't actually have to come into the cloud to shoot you and you can't tell what he's doing while you're in there.

It's a pro-missile, anti-gun combat environment, not an anti-everything rational, pro-giant metal man environment.

Well for one thing itd be much more silly looking
The mechs would have to swing their arms and legs in various ways to get their thrusters in position to maneuver
Also, thered be alot more running around on ships outer hull and kicking off/leaping from one ship to another
In this way. Mechs actually do make more sense than an XWing

>>14798467
>The thing is this does literally nothing to affect all the other kinds of guidance where the missile carries its own sensors, passive or active
What are you talking about? If minovsky fucks with the EM spectrum, then it still doesn't work just because the missile carries the IR/radar/etc seeking equipment onboard. If it's blind, then it's blind regardless if the sensor equipment is carried on the missile or on the missile's launching platform.

>since it's evidently possible to detect minovsky particle density in a volume of space
They know the minovsky particle density is rising because their conventional instruments stop working. They never had sensors to track minovsky particles and their sources.

>Minovsky particle emissions also decrease the detection capability and and fire control effectiveness of the ship that is emitting the particles, dramatically reducing their missile defense capability. It's like trying to hide in a smoke cloud you can't see out of yourself, it seems like a good idea until you realize that the enemy doesn't actually have to come into the cloud to shoot you and you can't tell what he's doing while you're in there.
This is true.

> The Minovsky particle also interferes with the operations of electronic circuitry and destroys unprotected circuits due to the particles' high electrical charge which act like a continuous electromagnetic pulse on metal objects.
> The only counter measure to the "M" particle in the series was to install bulky and expensive shielding on all electronic equipment, but only to counteract the effect it had on electronic circuit.

Take it with a grain of salt. I am quoting wikia.

>>14798492
>This is true.
Except weapon ranges in UC tend to be awfully short. There's never been an instance of "I'm going to stay outside of the affected area and just shoot into it". When ships and MS go into combat with each other, they can't tell where the minovsky affected areas are, so it's not like they can move to avoid them. And they pretty much have to get up close (into the sensor-jammed area) to engage enemies with their own weapons at optimal range anyway.

That said, emitting minovsky particles seems to be used like a defensive tactic. Many ships do it when they prepare for battle. I think it's like this: The way radar-guided guns and missiles work is that the fire control or guidance system is linked to a radar system. Radar waves bounce off objects and reflected radar waves are picked up by the system. These reflections are analyzed, and the one that matches the target is the one they aim at. I'm guessing that warships emit minovsky particles for jamming because it will interfere with radar waves. You can't find the enemy, but at least they can't find you either.

Reason on why zeon was so gunho about newtypes and wonder weapons
Being able to engage in BVR combat could've turned the war

>>14798541
yeah, and being one of the few people who have guided weapons when minovsky is supposed to drag everything back down to the same level of pre-WWII lack of radar and sensor tech is a huge advantage

>>14796841
It would be like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWQR2OJKeRk

Literally.

>>14798586
Not hating on you, but I can't exactly watch a 20 minute video on a mobile connection. What's the video about?

>>14798593
Google Chieldren of a Dead Earth.

When you want to change direction in space, which is more efficient or combat-appropriate:
>performing a "U-turn" with slightly-turning (thrust vectoring?) nozzles on one side of the vehicle (think of the Zeta morphing into its Waverider and flying around),
or:
>immediately thrusting to move in the intended direction, either with nozzles on all sides of the vehicle, or by facing the vehicle in the intended direction and then re-firing the engine.

I'm not sure if I'm getting my question across, but I've always had a hunch that the curving motions you'll see mobile suits or spacefighters make in space is a result of the animators/storyboarders applying atmospheric flight dynamics to vacuum flight dynamics. I've thought that maneuvers should be more zig-zaggy, since vehicles don't have to worry about aerodynamics when reorienting themselves.

Imagine an X-Wing, instead of turning around as it would in atmospheric flight, cutting its boosters, then using smaller thrusters dotting the body or wings to angle its blasters towards TIE Fighters to its sides, while still flying along its previous direction according to inertia, and then angling its nose in the direction opposite its travel, and then boosting that way till it stops, then picks up speed in that opposite direction. Would that make sense for space combat?

>>14797061
>the fleets would probably be angling to get into the same orbital band
How close to a massive body do fleets have to be for this to apply?

>>14797773
>Visible wavelength is actually semi-interfered by Minovsky particle fields
Can you tell me where this is revealed? I feel like if it were well-established, we would see such an effect in the animation. Like someone looking out at the battlefield with their naked eyes through the helmet of a normal suit, and seeing everything waver like heat haze.

What are some works with notably "realistic" takes on space combat? I asked in another thread, and I only got someone mentioning Strike Suit Zero.

>>14798279
To answer your statement about 00, it's an AU separate from UC; specifically, an alternate future still on the Anno Domini calendar. You can watch it any time you want.

>>14796841
>There would be no sound so
There's probably sound, moving though the chassis of mech, though the pressurized compartments, through your seat into your ears etc.

File: STARFURY_MK_2_remastered_by_TMC_Deluxe.jpg (130KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1280x1024px

>>14798617

Watch Babylon 5. All of its spacebattles were done on old ass computers, but the Starfury is literally the most accurate space fighter ever shown onscreen. To the point that NASA allegedly contacted the studio to ask permission to crib the design of it as a basis for single-person mobility craft that they never got the budget for.

Starfury's so good that NASA wanted to turn it into a RL version of the Ball.

>>14799084
Those design are fucking rad man.

>>14798481
>In this way. Mechs actually do make more sense than an XWing
Force Awakens just showed them flying into atmospheres unscathed and then flying out, pretty sure they can't do that.

>>14799242
VFs can but
>reaction engines

Mod AMBAC into CHODE and we'll see how it goes

>>14799255

VFs are pretty goddamn hax. The technology floor required to make one is absurdly high, even moreso than most mech, but assuming it worked as advertised its OP as hell. Especially late gen VFs like the 25 where they can almost ignore the limits of the pilot in term of acelleration.

>>14796841

>How do mobile suits move so agilely? Almost mimicing what a human can do when the cockpit seems to only have levers and no sticks or motion control stuff. Are there different commands for different kinds of movements pre programmed or something? I feel like they should be operating closer to the Matrix's mechs where arms are controlled by the pilots arms. The movements just seem to intricate for dash controls.

Most of them are like that just because animation

A lots of movements are pre programed, that is one of the data that the federation used the learning computer of the RX78, Kira did the same with the orbs m1 astray. The Gundam Sentinel novel talk about this and it is pretty good about how MS combat is in space

>>14797832
The first episode of gundam mentions Amuro would be complete shit without the AI complementing for his inexperience.

Same thing at the start of Unicorn when banagers dad is like "sweet" and the pilots like "ty" and dads like "not u. The gundam

File: 1271452959829.jpg (220KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1152x864px

>>14798617

You're not wrong in assuming it's the animators making it like atmospheric flight in space. It really depends on the series--in Unicorn, for example, the RX-0 and Sinanju are cruising around and zig-zagging like no tomorrow. The whole "lateral boost to avoid enemy fire" has basically been Char's signature since the beginning.

That said, it can be rationalized in-universe. For one thing, an Immelmann turn is going to be less strenuous on the pilot; since inertia still acts on them even in zero-G, suddenly boosting in an entirely new direction is going to rattle your head a bit. Tactically, it could also be a matter of speed making you less vulnerable--if you're under enemy fire, it might be more prudent to maintain your speed and adjust your heading rather than take a moment to reorient your craft and use a huge amount of thrust to counteract your previous momentum.

File: Gundamsoft.png (1MB, 833x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 833x2400px

>>14799344
>Implying Amuro can't into Gundam.

File: gundamsan_05_005.jpg (222KB, 1629x1200px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1629x1200px

>>14799636
2/3

File: gundamsan_05_006.jpg (362KB, 1602x1200px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1602x1200px

>>14799644
3/3

File: 1474317733462.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>14797640
Getter also uses a combination of brain synchronization, multiple pilots to operate different functions, and free range arm input throttles to allow for control. Not to mention Armageddon showed a sort of G Gundam style input when Ryoma is using the double guns in the first three episodes and pic related from Shin vs Neo mentions voice command input to trigger some of the more specific actions. These last two are of dubious canonicity as there were from the OVAs but I think I remember the voice command popping up elsewhere and I'm not sure if Ken had input or not with Shin vs Neo.

>>14799459
>suddenly boosting in an entirely new direction is going to rattle your head a bit

Zex in the Tall Gease(sp?) is one of the only times I've seen this taken into consideration.
I haven't seen all gundam by any means but this is the only time I remember someone being affected by it significantly

>>14799764
Bait harder

File: MOBILE SUITS.png (217KB, 1364x736px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1364x736px

>>14796841
Okay i can give you a rough metaphor based on my experiences with >>14798586 Beta testing Children of a Dead Earth. It's a space sim that is limited to actual or near as possible technology for weapons and designs. Basically it goes something like this:

Imagine the inside of a submarine, it's cramped, every ounce of space is used for no less than three things, people share sleeping bags, or gravity hammocks. You are protected from space by a few centimetres of aluminium plating. Now imagine that the ship it'self is very much like a Zeppelin, every ounce of mass has been considered, every person, round of ammunition, can of food etc. Now imagine flying this huge cramped Zeppelin at speeds that would make a Jet fighter blush, but even at that space is immense, so it takes months or days, or maybe even years to burn to the appropriate orbit and back(if you survive) Then imagine Jet fighter like combat, where just a few minutes or seconds of fighting occur, you shoot several hundred rounds of ammunition, fire missiles hit them with lasers, then a it's over in a flash you hear the creaking of the hull, outer armor being burned off or turned to plasma as bullets moving at 30000 kmh smash into the whippee bumpers. Then it is days or months more of waiting, maybe you can repair any damaged systems, but like a jet fighter the mass needed for spare parts is too great to fix everything back to 100%. Then again after days and hours have gone by the same short window of two or three minutes, to fire opens up. And it could come down to a single shot, one lucky shot that hits the same armour twice, piercing the hull and killing all the crew, taking out the engines and leaving you floating off in a giant aluminium coffin, hitting the power plant and dousing the hull in radiation, and boom you are gone.

Also this is what a mobile suit looks like in this universe.

>>14799774
What

I mention a series the hive mind doesn't care for and I must be baiting.

Literally the only other time I remember them mentioning Gs is when Char and Kamille go back to space.

>>14799894
0083 makes a HUGE deal about it and
>Zex
>Tall Gease
What

>>14799764
UC mobile suits past the OYW have "linear seats", which are basically electromagnetic dampeners that reduce g-loads on the pilot. Not to mention the pilot suits themselves probably have g-load countermeasures.

>>14799932
They are not, they're just better chairs.

>>14799932
Haha like nigga just bolt a racing bucket seat and shit haha

>>14798492
>What are you talking about? If minovsky fucks with the EM spectrum, then it still doesn't work just because the missile carries the IR/radar/etc seeking equipment onboard. If it's blind, then it's blind regardless if the sensor equipment is carried on the missile or on the missile's launching platform.
But sensors aren't actually blind at any point, radar returns are just distorted and IR and visible light is "fogged". You still know the rough direction of the enemy and you can straight up see the visual distortion created by the presence of minovsky particles. Minovsky particles don't prevent detection, if they did combat would simply be impossible, all they do is prevent accurate long range fire control, which isn't necessary for missiles since missiles close range with their targets. If a mobile suit can see its target so can a missile.

Also shielding military equipment, particularly sensors and communication equipment against high energy charged particles are already a thing and has been a thing since the cold war.

>>14800118
>Somalia builds a Gundam

>>14799878
>>14798586
I've skimmed some info about this game, looks interesting. If I play it, will I learn what I need to learn about orbital mechanics through gameplay, or do I need retake my college physics courses before I can stand a chance?

>>14801294
It's pretty simple really.

File: Starfish_Prime_aurora_from_Honolulu_1.jpg (35KB, 640x432px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x432px

>>14799878
>Build 160mt missiles
>shoot at enemy fleet
>Their smile and optimism

>>14801985
>It's impossible to achieve a yield above 844 gigatons
Feels bad, man.

Playing EVE and Star Citizen despite taking obvious liberties with realism actually kinda confirms gundam ships in their tactics.

As mentioned before you want have your ships in a coordinated group not only to focus your fire at concentrated target but also to support your other fleets. Ships scattered about not only are ineffective and uncoordinated but if the going gets tough and you need to retreat or make a quick maneuver to cut off the enemy then doing so out of formation is 1000x harder if not impossible and leads to frozen corpses in space.

Generally as a broad strategy you want have two main groups (or two fleets) of ships acting with two different important roles.
Your first group would be support, this would include smaller fast ships who's main purpose is to engage larger enemy ships at relativity close range and prevent them from escaping or forcing them to engage to make it easier for the 2nd group to do it's job. Support ships would be smaller frigates, destroyers up to large cruisers or whatever universe ship would fit the the above mention role. The actual ship isn't import so much as its intended role. The reason being is that larger ships are generally not able to effectively engage smaller ships at close range and have to relly on CWS or friendly fighter mobile suits/support ships. Carriers although technically support ships would not fall into this category because their main function isn't so much to support larger ships but rather the entire fleet. i.e Carriers would assign Mobile suits or fighters to other groups in sorties.

The second group of ship would be your main capital/ battleship basically your heavy hitters. These would be ships engaging in very far range behind the support ships and unleash barrages or missile strikes from large batteries. Battleships would basically be gun platforms in that respect sniping large ships that are engaged with smaller support ships in concerted effort from very far away.

>>14802090
>844 gigatons
Never played the game before but what could you possibly need more than 844 gigatons to destroy?

>>14796841
don't try to make Space Combat "realistic", it just leads to things being boring as hell(same with all combat in fiction to be honest)

File: image.jpg (510KB, 1920x805px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1920x805px

>>14797640

My favorite desu are the arm slaves from Apple aeed, the power armor from Stand Alone Complex and these awesome Spanish rip offs.

It solves the balance and control issue with one smooth stroke by making the entire operator the control surface.

Yes that's a power armored dude inside a bigger power suit, it's great.

>>14802144
The entire enemy fleet all at once.

>>14802146
Anon, we're not discussing this because we want the fiction to be realistic. We're space-exile doomsday preppers. You do ~not~ want to be unprepared when Earth goes into deep freeze and we have to battle over asteroids to keep our space colonies functioning.

>>14802136
>As mentioned before you want have your ships in a coordinated group not only to focus your fire at concentrated target but also to support your other fleets. Ships scattered about not only are and uncoordinated but [...]

How are we defining "coordinated" and "scattered about"? Is this solely a measure of organization, where the space between ships can stretch indefinitely so long as the shape of the formation is maintained, or are we talking about short distances between each ship in the fleet? If the latter, what determines the proper distances between ships?

>>14802610
>If the latter, what determines the proper distances between ship
Arbitrary things like the placement of warp disruption fields and ship and weapon stats like optimal range and tracking speed. The factors in EVE that determine good positioning are game mechanics that have little or no basis in reality, the game doesn't attempt to model any aspect of space flight or space combat beyond players being able to move in 3 dimensions. Also what is and isn't an effective strategy is incredibly dependent on the specific engagement, things that are a good idea in one scenario are laughably ineffective in others, particularly if the scale of the engagement changes.

There's no equivalence between combat in EVE and combat in actual space.

>>14802648
Okay, I thought you were suggesting those two games would give us insights into real space combat dynamics.

>>14802655
I was not that anon that was suggesting they were, I was just correcting him as someone who has also played them and understand that they're not in any way representative of reality.

>>14802610
When I say coordinated, I mean you are all aligned and for the most part maintaining the same orbit. This point is that you can effectively close range and concentrate your fire in the widest possible arc. It really doesn't matter how the ships are in formation, other then perhaps having overlapping fields of fire.

Strategically if your going to be fighting in space the "ground" you will be fighting for is orbit because available orbit is actually finite. That's why orbital defense stations or guns actually makes sense because it's one thing you want to maintain supremacy over. Remember in orbit decreasing speed causes you to lose altitude unlike in atmosphere.

>the placement of warp disruption fields and ship and weapon stats like optimal range and tracking speed. The factors in EVE that determine good positioning are game mechanics that have little or no basis in reality.

No your right they don't have any basis but, the concept is there. You want you ships close enough so they have a effective combined range but not so close they hamper each other .
You want your slower heavier battleships/carriers in the back and your faster more nimble ships ontop of the enemy to entangle them and force them to engage while the bigger ships bear their heavy guns at them.

>>14803206

Grouping up your fleet actually is a terrible idea in space, because it doesn't actually concentrate your firepower any more than a more diffused fleet (unless you are using really shitty short range weapons) and it limits your tactical options.

Efficient spacecraft design is about armoring the shit out of one side of your ship, and keeping that armor between you and the enemy. If your enemy is all in one place, keeping your shield between you and them is easy. But if your enemy is split up into multiple groups and taking up flanking positions, even if each individual grouping has less firepower they can get around your defenses simply as a result of you not being able to optimally focus on all of them.

Newtonian physics also mean that actual fleet diffusion doesn't limit your ability to make coordinated attacks. I can have a ship around Mars, a ship around Earth, and a ship around Saturn and still have all of them fire their railguns and fire their missiles so they all hit the same target within seconds of each other. It just might mean staggering when they fire their weapons individually by minutes, hours, or days depending on how goddamn fast your projectiles are. If you have the computers to navigate space at all well, this kind of firing solution is cake.

File: 1474769671770.jpg (453KB, 1916x1077px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 1916x1077px

> OP
> Realism
Nobody linked you to it because you wouldn't have any reason to come back here but this is what you need :
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/misconceptions.php
Don't mind the retro art, it cover any REAL future technology human could hope to have.

> Mobile Suit
Just to be clear : as said MS cannot exist without the magic jamming particle provided in gundam.
Newtype are "special" because they not only see space clearly without jamming but they don't even need camera to see, that's like having clairvoyance in a world of a myopic.
with real world physic any MS would get sniped before it could ever get close.

>>14798467 >>14800421
> Post about missile sensor still working under Minovsky Jamming

While I agree they exaggerated, the particle also fuck up non shielded equipment, driving missile cost up.
Also you seem to forget that your missile wouldn't be able to know what it is supposed to track before you got close enough to lock it in the first place.

Even if you told your missile to "look for what look like a big ship" it would still need to cruise in an area until it can recognize a ship... and because the jamming force missile to include even stuff that barely look warship (without nice & clean IR like in the real world), then even a ballon could fool them.

Last thing : A missile would need its own minovsky reserve to stay stealthy (thus jamming itself) else it would be easy to intercept.

File: 1377652233299.jpg (276KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1600x1200px

>>14803435
>Grouping up your fleet actually is a terrible idea in space

Not always, this may not so much be about concentrating firepower than concentrating defense.

If you had a single ship it need both "main weapon" and "point defense", if you have a fleet you can specialize them between missile-only, railgun-only or laser-only without sacrifice.
If one of your ship is disabled it can become a decoy if there's a mistake/delay in enemy keeping track of your "active" ship.

So "attacking from several direction at once" may be more in the meaning of "fleet reaching effective range at the same time".

>>14804623
>Things about missiles not working
All of these factors, if they were the case, would make it impossible for a pilot in a mobile suit or other space fighter to locate and engage an enemy warship.
>>14804623
>Last thing : A missile would need its own minovsky reserve to stay stealthy (thus jamming itself) else it would be easy to intercept.
If a missile would jam itself, so would an enemy warship attempting to intercept missiles.

File: regul600.jpg (25KB, 600x486px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x486px

>>14804623
There's no technological difference between a cruise missile and a fighter except one is driven by a computer rather than a human, if one works they both work.

>>14805063
If one works the other has a chance of reducing the fleshbag within to a bloody pulp.

You can remove the man from the machine, but you can't just add the man to the machine like it's nothing.

>>14799242
>Force Awakens just showed them flying into atmospheres unscathed and then flying out, pretty sure they can't do that.
>What are energy shields.

File: TM-61C_Matador_at_Gatow.jpg (1MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1936px

>>14805132
I was talking from a basic functionality standpoint. All the human in a fighter (or mobile suit, which is just a fighter which has arms and legs) is doing is substituting for a computer. If a mobile suit can navigate and find targets in an area affected by minovsky particles a missile can too since they're basically the same thing.

Scenario:

A fleet is on an orbital path from Earth to Mars. Then something happens on Mars while en route. Either there's a coup or rebellion turning Mars into a hostile planet, or let's say Mars was always hostile and our fleet was going to fight, but now a friendly fleet is fleeing Mars on our same orbital path, but in the opposite direction, because it wants to pass our fleet putting us in between itself and a pursuing enemy Martian fleet. The pursuing fleet knows it won't stand a chance against us, so long as we're protecting its target.

So now we want to reverse direction and escort the escaping fleet back to Earth. Let's pretend Earth hasn't moved too much and it's basically where it was when we left; if that's too unrealistic we can turn this to an orbital trajectory from a planet to a moon or one moon to another.

Would it ever be reasonable to spend the energy completely reversing your path along an orbit? Obviously it might depend on the size of the orbit. Would it be unreasonable with conventional fuels, but doable with hypothetical energy sources like fusion? Does these questions even have meaning?

OP here, didnt think this thread would be around still.

It was a good thread, you guys are cool.

>>14805010
> All of these factors, if they were the case, would make it impossible for a pilot in a mobile suit or other space fighter to locate and engage an enemy warship.

I disagree and think your error is that you believe a Missile can be trusted with human decision making.
You are a typical White-base, see a suspicious fog of Minovsky, you know there's CHAR ship somewhere.
- The missile would have to go there with an order "look for a ship" because you didn't know where the ship is, and assume it can get close so you'll need a fleet of missile set to "rush any ship you see", hope you didn't have allies around because IFF won't work. Considering how fucked up their detection have been already, you could lure them with anything UNLESS human locked them on the right signal/ship verified at close range (where you are in range of cannon and MS)
- MS would be sent to look for target, pilot will dismiss all but the most sophisticated threat (like a Derelict with heat source on it), human are here for decision making and because the Mech can fuck up a warship and stay reusable.

>>14805063
I will not dispute that, but here we are operating with UC jamming see above.
With real physics I don't believe in air-fighter anybody, only missile-bus with decision making in case of hacking (I would be amazed if WWIII don't start with entire fleet drone grounded in an instant).

>>14801294
College courses won`t hurt, but the game will teach you basics through the campaign. However, all fun starts, when you unlock ship and component editor...

File: Space Interception v2 burn.gif (83KB, 2084x1234px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 2084x1234px

>>14806017
Ok, I'll try to understand and fill in the void in a realistic way :
(but in short you don't NEED to escort the fleeing fleet in the first place because it wont be pursued)

Things you need to know :
1) You can't pursue a fleeing fleet without more or less going where it goes and spending more deltaV (fuel).
2) You could intercept a fleet midway but it will require extreme quantity of fuel to match speed, if they are attacking your planet you might as well just wait for them here along friendly defense.
2b) if you don't match speed the battle will be decided in only one High-speed pass, and you'll go back home AFTER the attackers (but if you destroy their engine, they can't brake)
3) Orbital Mechanic allow a ship fleeing/pursuing you to eventually run the pursuer/runner out of fuel because their maneuver are much cheaper. Realistically the result will be decided as soon as one made the first move.

Another thing : your context need to be clearly decided because some change are like 1/0 change
A) if you went to Mars to INVADE you'll want to arrive fast so they can't prepare. Realistically it mean using all your dV (fuel) on a fast(costlier) one way trip, no coming back.
B) If you just TRANSFERRED a fleet cheaply you take much longer but can spare dV, you'll certainly have more than enough fuel to get back at home, intercepting another fleet is highly improbable unless they launched before you did.

C) You can mount drop-tank (bigger than the warship) to get faster/further away, but it mean that if you discard them you either can't do Costly maneuver anymore

So to fill up the details "realistically " on your scenario
- You may want your ship to cancel transferring to Mars and go back home not to escort but because Mars Defense Satellite are now hostile and you don't have the fleet to fight it.
- You may want to cancel Invading Mars because if you came back later with the friendly fleet (fleeing) you'll have more ship and infos.

Pict should be correct

File: 1475258452239.jpg (184KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1920x1080px

(continued)
>>14806017

Still filling the void/suggesting stuff :

In a fight between moons you indeed get muuuuch more fuel to waste. The Jovian system would make for an incredible battlefield. In such a case, yes you could reverse your path along an orbit relatively cheaply.
You will however enter an orbital-dance with the enemy.
Enemy who can't fight your fleet will flee, Enemy who can will hunt you. And strategist will make you run until you can't follow him anymore while he attack your base.


Now, I think you'll want to make your tech-level as clear as possible, deciding what doctrine is used can also make a Yes/No difference.
ex :
- How many ship per fleet ?
- What weapon have been deemed most efficient (and for what), Railgun ? Laser ? Missile ?
- Can you afford the weight of armor ? (If not, advantage for laser)
- Is armor so useless that the first to hit win ? (advantage to any weapon capable of that)
- Can ship survive long enough that you need a longer battle to settle it ?
Remember : Radiator are weakness you can hardly hide, without them : no power without melting the ship

And attacking ground target has it own complication. Throwing asteroid take time but leave attacker safe. Bombing/Laser ground force will get you in range of enemy laser, and they aren't as fragile as your ships.

That's all from him, hope I helped

>check my own post
>so many typo
>so many wrong words
I'll blame the Korean-to-Chinse-to-English autocorrect translator I don't use.

>>14806467

Your anti-missile argument seems to be 'its not literally foolproof, therefore it can never ever be used' despite no military weapon ever made meeting your standards.

IFF actually does work, by the way. The IFF signal will become easier to read the closer it gets to the target. The missile will probably still be wasted, but it should deactivate before it hits the friendly. At the same time, why kind of strategic clusterfuck is going on that has you shooting a missile at your ally instead of using their telemetry data to more accurately pinpoint the position of the enemy ship that they are apparently much closer to than you are?

And that level of missile problem solving is easily within the realm of our current computers. Video game baddies from a decade ago had sophisticated enough problem solving to handle this, I don't see why a future missile designed for space wouldn't.

File: jort-van-welbergen-1-page-design-doc-2.jpg (760KB, 1920x2715px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 1920x2715px

Talking of realistic space battle there's reason to think that any army not up for extermination would want to avoid the Kessler Syndrome. I wish someone made a setting where orbital combat is more about capture than destruction

>>14807675
Don't make shit up, I justified missile working as long as human confirm the target identity, check your context !
Your argument seem to be 'guidance is not completely disabled, therefore it should identify and kill enemy warship without been told',

Gundam self-consistency refute your "easy IFF" claim, we are talking of a world where they paint mecha in bright color to make them more distinguishable, have case of Zaku disguised as GM and communicate with light signal.

The problem would not be computation but signal corruption, it's not a video game where you can literally read the code source of the universe, nothing but an sentient AI (or brain-jacked newtype) could identify a target in UC. As for relying on constant IFF ? You might as well be broadcasting "I'm here kill-me" for enemy.

Gundam's UC setting is far from realistic but it's not as bad as your arguments.

>>14808159
> Your argument seem to be 'guidance is not completely disabled, therefore it should identify and kill enemy warship without been told'

Its actually 'guidance is not completely disabled, therefore a specially designed missile can make incremental imperfect decisions that have a strong possibility of culminating in a useful outcome'.

Its obviously never going to be as good as unimpeded missiles, but if you can get the missile to reaching and hitting the target even 50% of the time, that's still orders of magnitude better than Gundam currently has it where any ship more than 2 miles away from you is a figment of your fevered imagination and should be treated accordingly.

> As for relying on constant IFF ? You might as well be broadcasting "I'm here kill-me" for enemy.

Why? Minvosky means that anyone far enough away to not be able to shoot at you already will never receive the IFF signal. It won't give away your position any more than your minovsky cloud would anyway. As you get closer the signal corruption drops off, to the point that it eventually becomes usable. As long as that clarity pointy doesn't take place inside the hull of your ship, the missile will receive the IFF before it hits you.

Minovsky tech fucks with the EM spectrum, but its not a binary yes/no deal. Minovsky interference increases in effect with distance that the wave has to travel. As distance decreases, signal strength increases.

>>14808159
You're assuming that a missile can't ever discern its intended target from a decoy or random object.

This is completely ridiculous because missiles and torpedoes have been doing this for decades through a variety of means, including optically using digital scene matching.

You're trying to argue that computers aren't capable of doing something that computers already do.

>>14809357
Yeah, one of the biggest flaws in older sci-fi is their use of outdated methods of interpreting data. Maybe your magic particle can block IR tracking. Well, to a modern/future computer, if it stops short of blotting out the entire visible spectrum or frying all electronics, it's not going to stop a future missile from tracking or hitting. With computers more and more basically being able to "see" like a human there's less and less stopping from any old missile from being able to "visually" identify a target. If you can fly your plane to it, there's no reason your missile can't find it.

>>14797731
I always thought that, in early-mid UC at least, the MS' were mostly AI and that later on would be able to store battle data, progressively getting better at combat over time. I assumed the levers were mainly for moving the verniers and controlling thrust output. That and using certain weapons.

>>14797704
This. The fact that a pilot could be in an open patrol in space. Out of no where the last thing you hear is some warning detector go off before you explode in a minovsky particle induced nuke ball. Fuck that. Sign me up for them cyber enchantments. At least the battle advantage outweighs the crazy.

>>14806556
man i love fucking gunships with super guns

>>14809895
Only the Project V learning computers and the AI from Gundam Sentinel were capable of that. And of those two systems, only Amuro's RX-78 accumulated any meaningful data, while the AI in Sentinel sacrificed itself to chase after a enemy that was descending through the atmosphere, trying to attack the Federation assembly.

The Federation's early MS incorporated data from the RX-78 learning computer, but there was no AI involved at all, just a flight computer pre-programmed with maneuvers and targeting data and whatnot. Think of it like the digital fly-by-wire systems in modern aircraft. Flying a plane manually can be difficult and requires the pilot to be very aware and perceptive. The flight computers in modern planes help automate much of that, and can keep the plane stable and assist with maneuvers.

>>14797792
>And thats why you have to update your trajectory as you near the target. You will miss if you have to make the shot from afar and then never change it, but the closer you get the less the optical interference impact you. So if your missile is smart enough to adjust course as it receives better data as it grows closer, as long as it has the fuel for it it can be fired at where you think the ship is on your best guess and the missiles will course-correct into a hit as it gets closer.

Good idea, except even modern electronic countermeasures can fry a missiles circuits well before it hit its target. One can only imagine how strong electronic countermeasures would be 200 years in the future. So in practice your idea simply doesn't work.

>>14810192
In those 200 years, can't missiles also get better at seeking out targets and avoiding countermeasures?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ8GYto03cw

>>14810200
You can't simply "avoid" the radiation from ECM. I guess you could put a bunch of concrete around the missile to absorb the radiation just long enough for it to hit its target, but then you are talking about a single use missile that is more expensive than just making a mobile suit would be. Keep in mind that radiation is even more portent in the vacuum of space.

And Protip: don't believe the marketing from the military industrial complex. They also said the Sparrow missile would have a 98% success rate, when the reality was more like 23%. They are lying liars who only know how to lie.

>>14809357
>You're assuming that a missile can't ever discern its intended target from a decoy or random object.

People in UC can't tell that a space balloon is not a battleship until they get within melee range of them. Unless you are talking about a future where AI is smarter than humans (which UC is NOT) then your missiles would be just as blind. Not to mention missiles by their nature have to fly very fast to avoid things like CWIS, which gives them even less time to make a correction than a human piloted machine would have. Even when you know for a fact that the target is not a decoy you still have your visual spectrum being fucked up. It's like spear fishing but the the light refracting from the water is not fixed.

>>14806580
Not a problem, you gave me things to think about. "Filling the void" is a cute phrase to use here.

>>14810212
>Not to mention missiles by their nature have to fly very fast to avoid things like CWIS
We've already had the discussion where missiles and fighters are the same thing. If a missile has to move fast to avoid CWIS a mobile suit also has to move fast to avoid CWIS.

>People in UC can't tell that a space balloon is not a battleship until they get within melee range of them.
Congratulations, you've pointed out that pilots in gundam are retarded. A balloon isn't going to have an IR or radar signature even remotely similar to that of a actual warship even with a shitload of interference. Comparing information from multiple sensors would trivially defeat that and, once again, this is behavior missiles already do to avoid countermeasures.

Also you just implied that computers have worse reaction times than humans and that's the opposite of reality.

>>14810212

Any ECM that would screw up a missile would fry a mobile suit as well. Shielding exists. Radiation is already very prevalent in space, and Minovsky radiation destroys unshielded circuits anyway.

The technology to shield out this radiation must exist already, otherwise mobile suits and their weapons would not be able to function either. It must be able to be fitted onto a small computerized object, otherwise FUNNELS would be fried by the very mobile suit that deployed them.

Yes, preparing a missile to operate in a minovsky dense environment makes them most expensive. Space war is expensive. However, the ability by both sides to shit out mobilesuits for war means that not only is this technology available, its mass produceable and apparently cheap enough that even the 5th and 6th bastard offspring of Neo-Zeon can afford to build and field a mobilesuit using the money you find in your couch cushions.

Keep in mind that missiles are already used in gundam all over the place, they just have shitty guidance and tracking of targets. The missiles themselves function without immediately frying, all we have to do is improve the targeting system.

And, based on all of the rules presented to us about the setting, this should be perfectly doable. Gundam doesn't do it not because they can't, but because they don't want to because it would invalidate the need for giant robots with legs running around in space so they can get close enough to giant space boats to swing their sword at them.

>>14810303
>If a missile has to move fast to avoid CWIS a mobile suit also has to move fast to avoid CWIS.
Which they do. Mobile suits have acceleration rates of multiples of Gs. That's multiples of 9.81 m/s^2. This is due to their fuck huge power source, at least in UC, delivering multiples of MW of power. Missiles don't have miniature fusion reactors and rely solely on chemical energy which doesn't come close to providing the amount of thrust a mobile suit does.

File: 1287177313320.jpg (235KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1280x720px

>>14808235 >>14809357
group answer : what I actually said is that a missile can't target something until you are at range where you don't need human decision-making to overcome data corruption, false positive...etc

You don't shoot missile at vague signal that could be a warship or three small one from any factions and ask the missile to decide which one is enemy once it get in range to know. You only shoot it only once human can ID and the missile can lock the target.
Even knowing there's only one enemy in a 10km cube of nothing, and sending a missile on auto-seeking isn't going to work in a universe where a ballon with hot air is enough to throw away anything not capable of making the difference.

Beside, I'm only arguing that is is credible enough to go along sudden unexpected tech/doctrine change as seen in history.
YES gundam exaggerate, I'm already the sort of guy who calculated MS had no need for catapult, so if I went crescendo I would rule out warship that don't have MW heat radiator, or missile warfare as a whole because Kessler syndrome isn't worth it.