>private company's mobile suit its actually stronger

>>15038936
>Machine where a multi-billion dollar company can pump all their cash into it
>Military where things have to be scaled down from the test phase where their stats might be better to enter mass production for all the troops

Makes sense.

>>15038936
Militaries buy their equipment from the lowest bidder.

>>15038936
The t-64 mbt is superior to t-72, but the soviets discontinued the former.Quantity has a quality of it's own.

>>15038936
Damn that Nadesico!

>>15038966
>>Military where things have to be scaled down from the test phase where their stats might be better to enter mass production for all the troops
This has never made sense, ever.
In real life its always the opposite, the production version has all the problems ironed out.

>>15038979
PMC's often buy their gear from military surplus dealers.

File: T-80U snow.jpg (244KB, 1200x798px)

244KB, 1200x798px

>>15038986

They discontinued it BECAUSE they were producing the T-80, anon, a tank that clearly outclassed the 64

The Stargazer was literally a machine designed for solo space exploration.

It's built to last without constant repairs and uses an experimental system

Meanwhile the Blue Cosmos are military machines meant to go on missions and are factored to being able get repairs and such.

A machine meant to survive solo for months on end is going to be more durable than a machine meant to fight a few battles before getting serviced.

And Sven still forces a fucking draw because the Stagazer actually isn't equipped for combat and couldn't actually beat him

>>15040939
You do know probes and other exploratory spacecraft are fragile as fuck, right? There's no such thing as "it's meant to survive alone so it's built tough" when it spends years traveling through mostly empty space.

>>15040945
> There's no such thing as "it's meant to survive alone so it's built tough" when it spends years traveling through mostly empty space.

The difference is that the Stargazer was built to survive rapid acceleration at an unmatched level, that the only parts of the Strike Noir that survived said acceleration were the parts being shielded by the Stargazer, while everything else was fucked, meanwhile the Stargazer was left intact.

Nice try retard, but your logic doesn't apply.

File: 1445794018816.jpg (242KB, 500x663px)

242KB, 500x663px

>>15038936

>>15040945
its a giant fucking robot. If you have the technology to build one, you can surely bet material or procedure used to build it would be tougher than anything we can fly up in space. Also since its a giant robot and not a satellite. You can bet it would be encountering a lot of debris and micro meteors, Building it tough is the correct answer.

>>15040945
And what happens when it collides with a baseball sized piece of rock going several thousand miles per hour?

File: 640px-Evidence_01.jpg (30KB, 640x362px)

30KB, 640x362px

>>15040945
yes but what if they encountered space whales

satellite can't fight space whales

but a gundam can fight space whales

>>15038936
eternal animu neets v. military guys thread

nice.

>>15041168
>Implying the space whales wouldn't just fuck up the Strike Freedom on the first encounter

>>15041292
>Lacus! They EAT beams!
>Oh shit, what are we gonna do now!?

>>15041297

> I know, we'll copy and paste stock footage from the Heavyarms
> No-one will notice

>>15040968
Are you sure you're not mistaking structural strength for military grade armor? Enduring several Gs of acceleration is not the same thing as armor protection. You would never say a fighter jet is more durable than a MBT just because it is rated to handle very high G forces that a tank would never experience. How tough the armor is has nothing to do with the frame sturdiness, and vice versa.

>that the only parts of the Strike Noir that survived said acceleration were the parts being shielded by the Stargazer
That's not how acceleration works. You can't shield things from G forces by putting something sturdy in front of it. It's already kind of stupid that Sven and Selene traveled several million miles in what must have been only a couple of hours because the G forces should have killed them if it can tear apart a regular mobile suit.

>Nice try retard, but your logic doesn't apply.
Says the guy who thinks it's possible to "shield" acceleration forces. If that was a thing then we would never ever have to worry about fighter pilots passing out or drivers experiencing whiplash if we just put something sturdy in the way of the acceleration/deceleration forces. How about a nice thick slab of metal?

>>15041010
Again, structural strength is not the same as armor durability. If nothing else, Stargazer is probably supposed to rely on the energy beams to protect itself. Wouldn't that be easier and smarter than "lets build a mobile suit with super armor that can withstand impacts by objects moving at the tens of thousands of miles per hour range"?

The problem with making armor durable enough to withstand that kind of impact is that it has to be ridiculously thick and strong, much more than existing CE MS use for armor. If such a light and strong armor exists.. why the hell aren't they making armor out of that material? It'd make phase shift armor obsolete since that can't protect against all projectiles and it drains the battery. If it's too expensive, then I wonder how the fuck a civilian research group has a bigger budget than a military during wartime.

>>15041016
It's dead. Space Shuttle Columbia's heat tiles were damaged beyond repair by a chunk of foam while flying at about mach 2.5. Space station Mir has been accidentally tapped by spacecraft that have failed to dock at "low speed" which resulted in damage to modules and a solar panel.

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/impact-force-calculator.html\
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829
http://www.amsmeteors.org/meteor-showers/meteor-faq/

The M1 Abrams can fire a M829 sabot round weighing 4.6kg at about 1500 meters per second. A 1 second impact time results in 13800 newtons of force.

A baseball sized rock? Let's say.. 0.5 kilograms moving at 11000 meters per second (~25000mph). A 1 second impact time results in 11000 newtons of force. Shit's comparable to being hit by a tank cannon shell.

>>15041359
>Shit's comparable to being hit by a tank cannon shell.
Which has never hurt a Gendum but ok.

>>15038936
All of Paptimus Scirocco MS were pretty strong and overall stronger than most if not all of what the Titans were using at this point. It was probably stronger than the Qubeley as well (though it didn't work on the same style of fighting).

>>15040880
The t-80 was retired, while the t-72 is still in service, so my argument stands

>>15040857
>the production version has all the problems ironed out.
something something f-35

>>15041571
Compared to the many prototype versions, yes, the F-35's production models are much better.

File: T-80U at the Engineering Technologies 2010 international forum..jpg (2MB, 2250x1425px)

2MB, 2250x1425px

>>15041415

>T-80 was retired

Wow, I thought I just heard something retarded!

There's still 3,000 T-80's (of all variants) in the Russian Army, fucboi

Get the fuck outta here, trying to talk shit to me about tanks, you don't know shit, fucker

>>15041362
That's because of phase shift armor. Stargazer doesn't have phase shift armor. It has to use energy beams to protect itself.

>>15040991
Oh yeah, the ronahs basically started put as a bunch of industrial magnates didnt they?

>>15043365
Well, the industrial business they started was also a plausible cover for developing their own MS technology, independent from AE, Zeon, or Feddy in-house design.

File: F91-verka.jpg (45KB, 327x459px)

45KB, 327x459px

SNRI was too good for this world. Why did they have to go?

>>15038936
If you worked for the government then this makes a lot more sense. The amount of safety regulations we have compared to private organizations is so insane it takes forever to even get any work started let alone completed.

File: V-Dash_Gundam_-_Ver_Ka.png (939KB, 835x1071px)

939KB, 835x1071px

>>15043472
They didn't. The Federation fell into economic uncertainty and BESPA simply commandeered the Side 2 branch. They're still there; the Feds just have no money to pay for new model MS.

But Anaheim does.

>>15041571
But it is? Production F-35s don't have all the problems of the early models.

>>15040857
I dunno, equipment bloat to militarize prototype aircraft was a pretty big problem in WW2. Happened to the F2A, where the radio/armor basically killed the performance, and IIRC it was so bad for one Italian plane they ended up only using the production aircraft as grounded target decoys to draw fire away from real aircraft during the Allied air raids.

The Stargazer is more of a case of improvisation.

It can't fight at all, but the Voltuire Luminere system gave it the ability to capture beams and use them, which they used to fight somewhat.
You try to shoot it, it captures the beam. You try to melee, it backs off and cut you up while you try to close in.

Its only 'better', because DSSD spent all their money and effort on that one machine, while the machines used by Phantom Pain were just high end combat MS that ultimate had to share their development funding and shit with other MS. The Strike Noir is still ultimately a Strike E at its core.
Its like comparing a F1 racecar to a high end commercial vehicle.

>>15043320
Given how useful it would be in preventing damage from high-speed impacts, not having PS Armor for a deep space exploration craft is puzzling.

>>15044772
PS Armor kills power though, the Stargazer is meant for long trips so it needed to be as efficient as possible

>>15045436
The Stargazer is supposed to run off a nuclear reactor/NJC like Freedom, etc though.
They haven't got the NJC when they were attacked so they had to depend on the battery.

I suppose them getting PS tech might be a little hard considering that its for military MS

File: 95894684387.png (337KB, 746x689px)

337KB, 746x689px

>prototype MS are vastly superior the final product

Why is this allowed?

>>15045991
Why is this such a thing in nip media?

>>15045991
because the mass produces version is supposed to be a cheap, watered down copy of the original prototype

>>15046037
But why though?

>>15046040
to save money

>>15046040
Can't produce at same rate. Too expensive. Go bankrupt, yo.

>>15046042
>>15046045
Then why bother blowing all that money on the invincible juggernaut prototype?

>>15046050

Proof of concept

>>15041415

Go and re-watch GuP to feel like you know anything about tanks, faggot.

File: 54352332w6356342.gif (8KB, 400x377px)

8KB, 400x377px

>>15046037
>because the mass produces version is supposed to be a cheap, watered down copy of the original prototype
Maybe in anime logic that's the case.

You don't start a project with package that dramatically exceeds every performance benchmark and then fundamentally changing the design by reverse-engineering it to suit the original need. It's a very inefficient approach to have a team waste their time developing something and making it work well in a system then wasting even more time and money having them scrap much of those ideas that they've worked so hard for in favor of something that never needed it in the first place. It's totally obtuse and ass-backwards and you may as well be shitting on the design team's desk. Not to mention having to explain to the big-wigs on the company board why you wasted resources by doing it that way.

>>15047591
Not often (and I doubt it's ever happened to the extent that anime does it), but you do occasionally get a better prototype than the production model. The P-39 basically lost its high altitude combat ability in the transition.

>>15047629

It's totally possible to have a prototype that may fair better than the production version in some areas. That's usually because during development the prototype was found to be lacking in another area and to improve that attribute, it would lose performance in another area as is the case with the P-39: The USAAC wanted a higher top speed than what the prototype so they concluded that it's possible to reduce drag by changing the induction system and getting rid of turbocharger. The increase in speed and performance at low-altitude however cost the plane to lose high-altitude performance in the production version.