How do ground based mecha defend themselves from aircraft

>>15743883
shields?

2FAST2FURIOUS or beamspam.
Sometimes autocannons.

The same way tanks do. By being part of a larger force where aircraft are destroyed or forced away before they can drop bombs on them.

Magic particles interfering with wireless guidance

>>15743916
unguided bombs can be just as accurate (as long as the target isn't doing anything erratic).

>>15743883

Phase Shift Armor in SEED reduces a significant amount of damage from physical weapons. to the point where the damage is completely negligible. The battery runs out eventually though, so it's not invincible. Also, it can't defend against beam weaponry.

File: image.jpg (208KB, 1800x1150px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1800x1150px

>>15743883
By shooting the aircraft down with Gatling cannons before it gets within bombing range.

By shooting them down. The Gundam routinely shoots down missiles with just the targeting system helping a newbie like Amuro

>>15743922
It also has the flaw that being impenetrable isn't the same thing as being invulnerable, so a strong enough impact can still damage internal components through the armor. I imagine squash-head ammunition would be the best way to deal with Phase Shift armored mobile suits if you didn't have access to beam weapons.

>>15743929
>>15743935

>Shooting with a gun

ha ha ha ha

Good luck hitting anything above 2000m (which is the highest a dedicated SPAAG can defeat aircraft at)

Most combat aircraft have a cruising altitude of AT LEAST 5,000m, and service ceilings more than double that.

You NEVER see the F-16 that dropped that JDAM on you

>>15743940
>Good luck hitting anything above 2000m

You don't need to hit the aircraft you dolt only the munition. Also, nice reddit spacing you faggot.

>>15743940
That bomb (and the plane that dropped it) is literally one Newtype flash away from being shot down from extreme ranges.

>>15743940
Sounds like someone doesn't believe in Newtypes.

>>15743940
???

The Gundam's sensor range is nearly 6km. Beam weapons are effective outside of the range of ships and MS, like when the Braw Bro and Elmeth attacked

>>15743883
The same way tanks do

>pray that your allies still maintain air dominance, and if not pray to your diety of choice you don't end up in a depleted uranium lined coffin.

>>15743883
>acquire target
>aim beam rifle at target
>pull trigger
>repeat as necessary

>>15743940
>2000m (which is the highest a dedicated SPAAG can defeat aircraft at)
>jet-fags actually believe this

Modern SPAA can already engage aircraft at twice that elevation, and in the future AA technology is likely to get much better.

>>15743984
>Modern SPAA can already engage aircraft at twice that elevation

Name one AA gun that can defeat targets above 2000m

File: F117.jpg (827KB, 3008x2000px)

827KB, 3008x2000px

>>15743984
*slips past you*

>>15743916
>Magic particles interfering with wireless guidance

Realistic scenario would just mean they'd over compensate by blinding mass firing. You don't have to be accurate if you fire 100 missiles for every target.

File: 486.png (173KB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x367px

>>15744013

*Serbian Greetings*

>>15743989
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K22_Tunguska

>>15744025

>The height of defeat for guns is 0–2000 meters

Read your own fucking article.

current AA Guns cannot defeat targets above 2000m

If you want to change your argument to missiles, now would be the time.

>>15744024
>1 single shootdown over literally thousands of sorties

>>15744027
I didn't specify guns, just SPAA, Tunguska can defeat aircraft flying well over 2000m with it's missile launchers, and it's a vehicle designed in the 70s, imagine what SPAA will be able to do decades from now.

Also consider that SPAA easily BTFOs pretty much any helicopter, and ground attack planes/jets.

Larger missiles can already destroy aircraft from many times that range, in a war between proper militaries "MUH INVINCIBLE INVISIBLE JETS" would get shot down constantly and suffer losses just like ground forces, they only get lost so rarely currently because they've only been fighting poorly equipped third worlders for decades.

>>15744050
If stealth doesn't matter, how come the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and Turks all have stealthy fighter aircraft in development right now?

>>15744062
Because by its very nature, fighter aircraft development is a technology race. If you don't keep up with opposing nations, then you may as well not have an air force at all.

>>15744097
So stealth isn't useless, got it.

>>15744113
I wasn't the anon arguing that it is. I'm just pointing out that failing to keep up with other nation-states leaves you in peril of being left behind. Ultimately, stealth will just end up putting everyone on parity (temporarily) until a new type of radar renders all current-gen stealth technology useless.

We have a pretty good example of that in just the last few years. If you look at Gadhafi's forces during the Arab Spring, they were more than sufficient for killing unarmed protesters and technical-armed militias, but once NATO stepped in they all got wiped off the face of the planet. The weapons that didn't get destroyed got smuggled into Mali and topped the government there.

>>15743883
head mounted laser beams silly

>>15743883
>Implying that aircraft bombs are anything more substantial than the buzzing of gnats to Dougram's armor

File: T-80 Arena KAZT Active Protection System.png (71KB, 740x556px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 740x556px

>>15743883

Do APS work on bombs?

>>15743883

Why has no one mentioned walking out of the path?

Because seriously, most mecha are fast. They can, you know, move.

File: f8 rockets.webm (942KB, 622x480px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 622x480px

>>15746087
Planes are faster.
Even if you've got some kind of Gundam style Minovsky particle effect going on that negates guided missiles, aircraft with unguided rockets, bombs, and gun attacks can still acquire a decent bead on a moving target.

>>15746095

The idea is that a mech would have unpredictable movement. A tank can only go forward and backwards. It can't strafe.

>>15746114
>The idea is that a mech would have unpredictable movement.
Planes can carry more than one bomb or bullet.
Furthermore, the plane has all the time in the world to adjust its aim, since it has the altitude advantage.
>tank's can't manuevre unpredictably
what did he mean by this

>>15746087
>>15746114
This is assuming that a) the ordinance is not guided (self or launch platform), b) the mech is even aware that it is underattack before the munition hits, and c) there is enough reaction time to correctly understand that its under attack and figure out where/how to evade.

A dedicated AA mech is the best bet if the standard grunt doesn't have good enough sensors to ID and track an enemy attack craft. If the standard grunt does then piggyback some FT AA missile to its back, kinda like how attack helos carry stingers or sidewinders do today.

APS can take down APFDS rounds and heavy ATGM and AGM. Not sure if one can currently intercept large dumb bombs. The Isreali's have a truck mounted AA vulcan that can intercept mortars and howitzer rounds, so its possible that an autocannon armed mech can attempt to intercept aircraft launched munitions.

If a attack jet is mounting beam weapons then who ever sees their enemy first is going to win.

File: atgm.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>15746087
>Why has no one mentioned walking out of the path?

That requires you to know it's coming.

Projectiles are very hard to spot, especially when they're heading straight for you.

>>15746095
Magic particles won't just affect guided weaponry, they'll fuck with whatever's keeping the plane in the air as well unless it's a bi-plane or an early WWII fighter.

>>15744022
That is a lot of missiles. You sure it's worth the effort firing that many to take down one target?

>>15743883
You're joking, right? Just Photon Beam will be enough to pick off those falling gnats.

>>15746556
So how come the zeeks have jet fighters?

>>15746581
Missile costs $1million spacebucks
Mecha costs $100million spacebucks + pilot training costs + munition costs

If it takes less then 100 missiles to down mecha its still a win.

>>15743883
disperse minovsky particle, all guided munitions are rendered useless

>>15743920
you will never hit anything that isn't a static target. erratic or not, you cannot predict movement, you're not a newtype

>>15746930
yes, which is why planes usually carry more than one bomb, or one missile, or one rocket, or one bullet.

>>15743883
They catch it and throw it back

>>15746939
Which will put you out of your comfy high-altitude and force you into visual range.

Mobile artillery with a spotter has a better chance to hit moving targets without getting blown the fuck out.

>>15746930
Alright couple of issues here.
>disperse minovsky particle, all guided munitions are rendered useless
This is stupid. Minosvsky particles fuck up radio and radar. It shouldn't effect beam guided (either reflected or beam-riding) munitions. If it magically can then there is still electro-optical and thermal guided munitions which now days are getting good enough that even flares are having issues defeating. Then there is still wireguided munitions and inertial guidance.

>you will never hit anything that isn't a static target. erratic or not, you cannot predict movement, you're not a newtype
This is bullshit. Its one thing if the mecha is actively dodging and jinking like a methed up break dancer but if the mech has yet to realize that it is about to be attacked then it will likely be moving in a nice and predictable path that is easy to compensate for.

>>15746968
>This is bullshit. Its one thing if the mecha is actively dodging and jinking like a methed up break dancer but if the mech has yet to realize that it is about to be attacked then it will likely be moving in a nice and predictable path that is easy to compensate for.
you are arguing against people who calmly believe a 5 metre tall machine can jump out of the way of cannon shells

>>15747015
point, but a 2000lb bomb *missing* a mech is still going to damage the hell out of it considering the blast radius.

File: CBU-97_cluster munition.png (258KB, 830x1550px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 830x1550px

>>15746955
>Which will put you out of your comfy high-altitude and force you into visual range
explain why
>>15747022
especially considering how a mech has to rely on fine servomotors and complex joints to move. shit would get fucked up by a few JDAM's impacting near by.
also can't forget about fun things like cluster munitions.

>>15747042
shit, could drop a string of anti-armor mines and let the mech fuck itself over.

File: 020916railgun_1280x720.jpg (101KB, 1280x720px)

101KB, 1280x720px

#: Assuming fusion reactors are mecha sized and are used to power the whole robot.
A1: Mecha can be an EMP pulsar. I wouldn't know the range of EMP for a machine, but nuclear-level blast EMP travels 2500km+, so we'd be after something much less than that. The closer the missile, the greater the effect and potential to shut it down.
A2: If the missile survived this, or was just a dumb bomb, you'd need a fast impact weapon to deflect/disable/destroy it. That would be an electrically powered and cooled railgun. As railguns only require power and massive cooling, we would assume mecha technology is sufficient enough to cool the reactor and a weapon. Therefore, the railgun could be strafed using iron cores. Traveling in low speed of mach 8-10+, with a 20kg core, aimed accurately with a computer targeting device, I seriously think the bomb/missile wouldn't stand a chance.
Even better if the mech doesn't have to carry the railgun, you'd just need it somewhere nearby to your operation.

File: GAtomrailgun.png (284KB, 721x399px)

284KB, 721x399px

Adding to post 15747891. Doing the quick math of a 20kg block fired at mach 10. For example, a car of 1816kg traveling at 60mph has 652kJ of kinetic energy. So, if you think a car could smash up or deflect a bomb or missile, then cool. If not, the kinetic energy of a 20kg iron core @ mach 10 = 115MJ. Which is 177 times greater than the car! That type of energy would make mince meat out of any airborne ordinance, especially if you strafed it.

File: 1490245756545.jpg (136KB, 797x876px)

136KB, 797x876px

They do that thing where the mecha catches the missile at the last second with an outstretched hand and the aircraft pilot goes "he's fast!" come on do you people even /m/

>>15743883
Smoke screen or some laser thing that shoots projectiles.

>>15748019

>catches the missile

...So the missile hits the mecha?

>>15748019
You can't mass produce Newtypes anon.

File: tumblr_n5j9gtBVAz1qb8rcao1_500[1].gif (892KB, 500x283px)

892KB, 500x283px

So given perfect sensor info, perfect reflexes, but only about the same mobility as a normal person (no magic dodging or thrusters), how well could a mecha actually dodge incoming rounds?

Seems like tank rounds should be pretty ineffective - at the range a tank wants to engage at, there's still a travel time of a second or 2, and they're unguided.

Missiles are guided but can they turn well enough to hit something that dodges when it is tens of meters away? It would only miss by inches, but as missiles work right now, thats all that is needed.

>>15748307
Pic related

File: proximityfuze.png (103KB, 2320x3408px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 2320x3408px

>>15748454
Don't even need to get a direct hit on a mech to fuck it up.

>>15743883
air superiority, organic AAA, electronic countermeasures, regular countermeasures, CWS, diving for cover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg0Gd6AhqfE
the missile isn't aircraft deployed, but this is still pretty cool regardless

>>15748480
That's part of my question. Are those rounds commonly supplied? I imagine that they would be if its known that the target requires it, so sure, we're shooting those now.

How effective are those assuming that the mecha still dodges really fucking well - is it a smoking wreck whatever it does, or could it maybe survive several of them?

>>15748519
Yeah, they're common, because they're incredibly effective against infantry, since detonating a bit above the ground greatly reduces the effectiveness of cover.

You'll notice that open-topped armored personnel carriers stopped being made right after WW2, and VT fuzes were first deployed widely by the Americans towards the end of the same war.

>>15743883
They don't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX_AvU7B1y4

>>15743883
>How do ground based mecha defend themselves from aircraft dropped ordinance?

realistically they don't, there are other forces at play that are supposed to defend them from that situation from occuring.

this is like asking how a tank would defend itself from the same situation

File: PREPARE TO BE LIBERATED.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>15743883

Hiding

File: B2_unloading ordnance.webm (3MB, 888x500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 888x500px

>>15749781
Beautiful.

File: Esper Armor.jpg (583KB, 1600x1235px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 1600x1235px

>>15743883
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyiRQsEroSc
point defense systems or lasers

>>15743883
Its about AA and deployment most of the time "mecha" aren't deployed in a way that would leave them exposed to aircraft without support of some kind, so I would say tactics and branch division support for land sea and air.

Plane drops a bomb, ill just open get, fly up, change getter ,1, chuck tomahawks. Ez

>how do mecha avoid bombs?
/m/ says: "It shoots down the aircraft."

>don't be silly, it can't hit it past 2000m
/m/ says: "Then it dodges."

>can't dodge bullets, lol

...but see, the original question was how does it dodge bombs. If it's facing a traditional strafing run, that aircraft is fucked because its engaging the mecha within the mecha's threat range.

>>15750379
>can't dodge bullets, lol

You really can't though.

No one can dodge bullets, you just ascribe the mistakes of the marksman to your own control.

File: image.jpg (107KB, 2000x1000px)

107KB, 2000x1000px

>>15750972
If you had excellent reaction time you kinda could if they were big and bright enough to see them coming at long ranges, but they're pretty much invisible to the human eye in flight so you won't know they're coming until they impact.

Pic related, tank shell coming at the camera from not very far away, takes about half a second from fire to impact, moving faster than most bullets.

>>15746498
What happened here? Did it just hit in a critical spot?

>>15752428
ammo bin

>>15752428
Its just an old tank going up against a somewhat modern ATGM.
Also rooskie tanks are notorious for placing all their ammo in the turret ring, which often leads to the turret being blown sky high when shit cooks off.

Lasers

>>15749781

Pretty sure this is accurate. Of course, I'm a power armor type person so maybe something larger won't be able to hide itself.

>>15745046

IIRC that truck-mounted Phalanx CIWS can intercept mortar shells, I don't see why it couldn't intercept bombs, as mortar shells are also literally known as bombs.

I am also pretty sure CIWS detects missiles and bombs based upon their velocity, not a radar or infrared signature. I'm not sure how effective motion detectors are in real life but I imagine it would make some sort of difference.

As for stealth aircraft, the most reliable way I can imagine getting around stealth is by using an upward-facing variant of look-down radar. A stealth jet may have the RCS of a sparrow, but unless it has an insanely low stall speed it's not going to fly as fast as a sparrow. Just speculation though.

Also, for those of you that think a mech-mounted laser rifle can intercept aircraft, keep in mind that a bomber-mounted laser cannon can basically do the same thing, and from a much better vantage point (Think of the Sanctuary Mark-II from Another Age).

Also, if that doesn't work also remember that there is such thing as high-velocity missiles and they travel about as fast as a tank's cannon shell. Even the HVM-2 Starstreak fs a HVM system and it's man-portable (It's an air defense system but has some surface-to-surface capability). Intercepting those is going to be a pain in the ass.

File: GDATP-338NM-LWMMG-1.jpg (111KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x790px

>>15758394

Oh, and to add to that last remark -

Once reliable mechs and stuff appear on the horizon, chances are that immediately afterward someone's going to develop countermeasures to them. They may be off-the-shelf, but as mechs get more advanced so will the weapons that are used to stop them.

There's also no underestimating how powerful military technologies would be today if every single one got proper funding. The LWMMG for example would probably be a wrecking machine against power armor as is, and judging by the fact it has the recoil profile of an M240, which supposedly can be fired from the shoulder...well, that's trouble to say the least.