Mr March Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Actually, the VF-25 and VF-27 can accelerate so fast they can destroy themselves just by accelerating. No bullets required Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VFTF1 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 If I ever want to know how to kill myself while flying a jetfighter- I promise to re-read all of the posts I just read in this thread with more care and understanding than my meager brain can muster at this moment... Pete (goes back to taking pictures of scantly clad women, since he obviously can't understand anything beyond that...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Let me say this: 12 Gs, your neck can snap 16 Gs, your eyes can pop 20 Gs, your heart can stop 33 Gs, your brain can be crushed VF-25Gs, your plane can be crushed Should I sig that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macross007 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Let me say this: 12 Gs, your neck can snap 16 Gs, your eyes can pop 20 Gs, your heart can stop 33 Gs, your brain can be crushed VF-25Gs, your plane can be crushed Should I sig that? No, wait a minute : 14 Gs, you start to poo in your pant. Now it's OK. Sig that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 No, wait a minute : 14 Gs, you start to poo in your pant. Now it's OK. Sig that. Ach, nein. Sigged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Final Vegeta Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Only the VF-27 can accelerate that quickly, thus adding one more way to shoot itself down. Except for the fact that the VF-27 shoots beams and not bullets, and that its gunpod is almost longer than the fighter itself FV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Except for the fact that the VF-27 shoots beams and not bullets, and that its gunpod is almost longer than the fighter itself FV Almost? It IS longer... However, gunpods are modular attachments that can basically be wielded by any VF. So, the shorter pod on a 25 could be used by a 27 and crash into itself. I never said it was using its Quantum Beam cannon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letigre Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Almost? It IS longer... However, gunpods are modular attachments that can basically be wielded by any VF. So, the shorter pod on a 25 could be used by a 27 and crash into itself. I never said it was using its Quantum Beam cannon. Maybbeyou took and shot yourself in battroid or gerwalk*... They are modular attachments in the sort they are just mecha-sized hand-held rifles, but I doubt their mounting/holstering(?) points or brackets are universal. So where are you gonna stow another VF's gunpod in fighter mode if it is of a different type? Hmmm? *This reminds me of a Battletech house rule, if you missed a to-hit roll with an arm-mounted weapon at point-blank range, you had to make gunnery skill with a modifier. If you failed that roll, you shot yourself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Almost? It IS longer... However, gunpods are modular attachments that can basically be wielded by any VF. So, the shorter pod on a 25 could be used by a 27 and crash into itself. I never said it was using its Quantum Beam cannon. well then it depends on how fast the bullets of a GU-17 gunpod are then doesn't it? if the rounds are in the 1,000m/s muzzle velocity range, the Mach 9+ VF-27 could probably catch up to it and hit it. if the round is in the 3,000m/s muzzle velocity range (that's a little over Mach 10 at 10,000 meters) I wouldn't be so sure, I have a feeling the round will hit the ground before it slows down to a low enough velocity to damage the VF-27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Maybbeyou took and shot yourself in battroid or gerwalk*... They are modular attachments in the sort they are just mecha-sized hand-held rifles, but I doubt their mounting/holstering(?) points or brackets are universal. So where are you gonna stow another VF's gunpod in fighter mode if it is of a different type? Hmmm? you make a mounting bracket that has a VF-27 gunpod handle on one end and a socket in the shape of the mounting point on the VF-25. or maybe they DO have the same style handles and they ARE interchangeable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letigre Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 you make a mounting bracket that has a VF-27 gunpod handle on one end and a socket in the shape of the mounting point on the VF-25. or maybe they DO have the same style handles and they ARE interchangeable Considering we hardly ever see VF's sharing the same gunpod design, I'm persoanlly gonna lean toward no on both points. THat's not saying it's not possible, I just don't see it. Not in-universe, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Considering we hardly ever see VF's sharing the same gunpod design, I'm persoanlly gonna lean toward no on both points. THat's not saying it's not possible, I just don't see it. Not in-universe, anyway. we know the VF-171 can mount a sniper gunpod of the same model as the one used by the VF-25G, and the VF-25F can carry the sniper pod as well so there's some evidence right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letigre Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) Playinghte devil's advocate...who is to say that L.A.I. didn't manufacturer tha VF-25 to do so? And going from one model of 25 to another is a moot point, since it's probably also presumable that a version aside from the G could probably mount a sniper pod as optional equipment. Although I cannot recall if Alto mounted the sniper pod during the fight in fighter mode, or carried it by hand..that final portion of the battle is a bit fo a blur. Edited February 13, 2009 by Letigre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) Maybbeyou took and shot yourself in battroid or gerwalk*... They are modular attachments in the sort they are just mecha-sized hand-held rifles, but I doubt their mounting/holstering(?) points or brackets are universal. So where are you gonna stow another VF's gunpod in fighter mode if it is of a different type? Hmmm? *This reminds me of a Battletech house rule, if you missed a to-hit roll with an arm-mounted weapon at point-blank range, you had to make gunnery skill with a modifier. If you failed that roll, you shot yourself! MacF 25: "Alto! I entrust this to you!" So, we know the Sniper and the GU-17 have the same hardpoint, at least. I would assume that since they're competing, they have to be able to use the same weaponry. That's how it is today, and it's quite similar to how it was in Plus... It is mounted. Look closely. I think March has a pic, but then again, I think March has a pic of everything. Edited February 13, 2009 by SchizophrenicMC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronoReverse Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 It's definitely mounted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letigre Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Along side the GU-17, no less. Go Messiah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Dude, that's undeniable proof of what I'm saying (At least about the sniper. No news on the QBC.). Also, it looks like it'd make a damn good-looking wallpaper. Good proportions for one, knowwhatImean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Along side the GU-17, no less. Go Messiah! the VF-25 appears to have a lot of gunpod mounts, it can do 2 between the engines (as pictured). it can also store it's gunpod on it's leg while in battriod mode (as seen at the end of episode 12). and latter in that battle he has the sniper pod stored on the onderside of one of the armor's booster while in battroid mode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macross007 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Ach, nein. Sigged. You are no fun at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 the VF-25 appears to have a lot of gunpod mounts, it can do 2 between the engines (as pictured). it can also store it's gunpod on it's leg while in battriod mode (as seen at the end of episode 12). and latter in that battle he has the sniper pod stored on the onderside of one of the armor's booster while in battroid mode Probably a bonus of the linear actuators that it uses for transformation. You gotta figure, since pretty much the entire surface of the valk has to be able to generate/manipulate magnetic fields for transformation, it wouldn't be difficult to mount a gunpod anywhere as long as it has some ferrous material in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Probably a bonus of the linear actuators that it uses for transformation. You gotta figure, since pretty much the entire surface of the valk has to be able to generate/manipulate magnetic fields for transformation, it wouldn't be difficult to mount a gunpod anywhere as long as it has some ferrous material in it. I doubt it. It's probably purposeful that those would be there. How does transformation require the generation of magnetic fields, and how would that let you mount a gunpod anywhere? Besides, if the point at which it's attached isn't hardened, it'll rip off. That's why an F-18, which can carry the weight of an AIM-54, can't carry it. It has no hardpoints strong enough to hold it without ripping out of the plane. I believe there are several mounting points, a result of the VF-25's high customization capability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I doubt it. It's probably purposeful that those would be there. How does transformation require the generation of magnetic fields, and how would that let you mount a gunpod anywhere? Besides, if the point at which it's attached isn't hardened, it'll rip off. That's why an F-18, which can carry the weight of an AIM-54, can't carry it. It has no hardpoints strong enough to hold it without ripping out of the plane. I believe there are several mounting points, a result of the VF-25's high customization capability. It has been stated that the VF-25 uses 'linear actuators' which use electromagnets to transform the valk, such that transformation times are reduced. Also, given ECA, your idea that any part of the VF wouldn't be strong enough to mount a gunpod is ridiculous. All in all, magnets provide the simplest solution to the variety of mounting points on the VF-25, and also explain why it could mount the Sniper rifle instantaneously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 It has been stated that the VF-25 uses 'linear actuators' which use electromagnets to transform the valk, such that transformation times are reduced. Also, given ECA, your idea that any part of the VF wouldn't be strong enough to mount a gunpod is ridiculous. All in all, magnets provide the simplest solution to the variety of mounting points on the VF-25, and also explain why it could mount the Sniper rifle instantaneously. It's a bit of a stretch to say that because the VF-25 uses electromagnets in its transformation (now or why they use them I don't know or understand), the whole valk and its armor is either A) covered in electromagnets or B) one giant electromagnet. I think a bigger problem than the strength of the surface the gunpod is attaching too is the strength of the electromagnetic field itself. Attaching something as large and heavy as a gunpod to a valk would require a very strong magnetic field that may very well be strong enough to start causing problems like attracting every piece of metal nearby to the airframe. The other big problem with using magnets is how they’re able to get the gunpod perfectly aligned under the valk. Gunpods have irregular surfaces that wouldn't sit cleanly against the surface they’re being mounted to if it was just electromagnets. Unless the area you’re attaching the gunpod to is shaped to match the gunpod, the gun is going to be crooked and misaligned. And if the designed to match the gunpod, that mean you were planning to put the gunpod there from the start and it would probably be easier just to use a mechanical connection. I think the simplest solution is that the VF-25 just has multiple hard points to attach gunpods. It would make since for that to be the case for the fallowing reason: the GU-17 can't be reloaded in combat. The extra mounting points would allow the valk to carry multiple gunpods so that when one ran out they could discard that gunpod and switch to a new one. It's the same idea as on the YF-21/VF-22. Of course, if the VF-25 really dose use magnets then it's fairly safe to assume that the VF-27 uses them as well. If the VF-27 does use magnets than it to could mount any gunpod it wanted too; including the GU-17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbes221 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 ... That's why an F-18, which can carry the weight of an AIM-54, can't carry it. It has no hardpoints strong enough to hold it without ripping out of the plane. I believe there are several mounting points, a result of the VF-25's high customization capability. Off topic but I'm not following that. The F-18 can't carry an AIM-54 because IIRC it does not have the support systems built in to do so, and as far as I know that the radar is not set up to work work with the missile ether. The Hornet can pack Mk.82, 2000lbs bombs and the AIM-54 clocks in at just over a thousand. Also the missile does not light on the rail, ( it's not even on a rail IIRC) it drops free and then lights the motor, so a F-18 should be able to carry an AIM-54 as long as the mounting lugs match up. Can it pack a GPU-5/A? - Don't think that it would be a good idea. The GAU-13/A is a four-barreled rotary cannon based on the mechanism of the larger GAU-8, sharing the same massive 30 mm ammunition. The principal application for the GAU-13/A was the GPU-5/A gun pod (originally marketed as the GEPOD 30). The pod is 4.3 m (14 ft 2 in) long and can be mounted on any standard NATO 762 mm (30 in) suspension lugs. It holds 353 rounds of ammunition, enough for approximately nine seconds of continuous fire. The GAU-13/A weighs 600 kg (1,325 lb) empty and 841 kg (1,854 lb) fully loaded. The GPU-5 pod, however, proved unsatisfactory in service. It was briefly tried on some Air National Guard F-16 Fighting Falcons during the 1991 Gulf War, but was removed from service after barely a day of combat use because of its very poor accuracy. Despite the cannon's impressive ballistic characteristics, the pylon mounting was not sufficiently rigid to prevent deflection, and the weapon's heavy recoil exacerbated the problem by causing pylon misalignment. Further, the GPU-5 was not integrated into the F-16's sighting system. The GPU-5 is no longer in U.S. service, although some Thai F-5E Tiger II aircraft still carry the weapon. - info from Wiki I do agree in that the VF-25 seems to have a fair amount of hardpoints for mounting gun pods. I could think of a few reasons for being able to do so, first of in battroid mode with a gun on each leg, one in each hand and a another on an arm mount a single -25 could resupply four other -25s in combat and still have a cannon for itself. Two, it allows the VF to have a greater chance of keeping the gun (again in battroid) and not just tossing the thing away, we saw this early in Frontier when Alto mounted the gun on the leg and quickly pulled the knife in combat over the ocean. I'm sure there could be other reasons as well but it's late, I have to go and I'm just not a fan of thinking that the gun pod could be mounted anywhere like velcro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Off topic but I'm not following that. The F-18 can't carry an AIM-54 because IIRC it does not have the support systems built in to do so, and as far as I know that the radar is not set up to work work with the missile ether. The Hornet can pack Mk.82, 2000lbs bombs and the AIM-54 clocks in at just over a thousand. Also the missile does not light on the rail, ( it's not even on a rail IIRC) it drops free and then lights the motor, so a F-18 should be able to carry an AIM-54 as long as the mounting lugs match up. Can it pack a GPU-5/A? - Don't think that it would be a good idea. the F-18 doesn't carry the AIM-54 for a couple of reasons. First of all they don't have the correct mounting points for it. this could be fixed fairly easily (the managed to mount the AIM-54 on an F-15 after all). the Second and bigger issue is that the F-18 lacks the avionics to fire the AIM-54 and hit anything, I believe it's because the F-18 isn't set up to send mid flight updates to the missile before it transitions to on board radar. and even though they could fix both these things so that the AIM-54 could be launched from an F-18, they never bothered because there's no point. the AIM-54 is old, Expensive and limited in it's capabilities to the point that it's practically worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I think the simplest solution is that the VF-25 just has multiple hard points to attach gunpods. As evidenced by the complete lack of any hardpoints visible on the craft, in contrast to the clearly visible wing hardpoints for mounting missiles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 AIM-54: This thing is a heavy sumbitch that weighs more than 5 AMRAAMS. Ask my grandpa who's actually loaded the damned thing. This is too much for any one hardpoint on a F-18. Moving on, the only 2 planes in history that could carry one stock were the F-14 and the SR-71. This is due to software problems between the missile and most planes. Third, the AIM-54 was an anti-bomber missle with a range of 154 miles. The F-14, to this day, has the longest-range radar of any fighter jet in US History. (14D being used as the reference. F-22 has a more complex one, but it's not as long range as even the AWG-9 which could track and fire on (If the plane carried enough ammo at any one time) 18 cruise-missile size objects at 150 miles away.) The only F-15 to ever carry one had modified wing pylons. It's not a problem of the mounting lug, so much as size, weight, and software used to program it. The F-14 was retired for 3 reasons: Gas, Repairs, and inability to fire newer missiles. No Hardpoints (Edwin3060): Ed, you realize that a wing hardpoint is visible only because it requires a pylon to keep the missile separate from the wing, so as not to disturb airflow around it. Body hardpoints aren't as visible because they don't need it. The F-15 mounts missiles below its engine nacelles, and without them, you can't see the hardpoint unless you're sitting right in front of it. Some planes don't even have the pylons constantly attached. Some planes have to have it attached, then the missile. Magnets: Ok, a linear actuator is a motor that moves in a line. Whoever came up with that did so because it sounds cool. A linear actuator is used in maglev trains. A linear actuator is used in railguns. It does not magnetize the skin of whatever it's acting on. And, to be honest, there're no hinges by the gunpod mounting points, and the hinges are where any form of motor would be. Hardpoints, man. ECA makes the armor as strong as tank armor, but tank armor doesn't take too kindly to holding too many tons of weight. That gunpod must weigh at least one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 AIM-54: This thing is a heavy sumbitch that weighs more than 5 AMRAAMS. Ask my grandpa who's actually loaded the damned thing. This is too much for any one hardpoint on a F-18. Moving on, the only 2 planes in history that could carry one stock were the F-14 and the SR-71. This is due to software problems between the missile and most planes. Third, the AIM-54 was an anti-bomber missle with a range of 154 miles. The F-14, to this day, has the longest-range radar of any fighter jet in US History. (14D being used as the reference. F-22 has a more complex one, but it's not as long range as even the AWG-9 which could track and fire on (If the plane carried enough ammo at any one time) 18 cruise-missile size objects at 150 miles away.) The only F-15 to ever carry one had modified wing pylons. except weight isn't an issue in terms of mounting an AIM-54. heavy for a A-to-A missile yes. but it's still only 1,000lbs. an F-18 can mount AGM-65's 3 to a hard point and each of them weights an average 500lbs. hell an F/A-18C can heft around a Taurus cruise missile and that weighs in 3 times as much as an AIM-54. the AIM-54 has never ended up on any other plane because of software and the fact no one want's to use it. the AIM-54 costs almost $500,000USD; it's been shot 3 times in combat and hit NOTHING. the F-14 was the ONLY plane to use the AIM-54, the SR-71 is an unarmed spy plane developed form the A-12 and the YF-12 which was an interceptor developed from the A-12 never carried the AIM-54 either; the YF-12 used the AIM-47. the F-111B would have carried it but that got canned in the 1960's hence why we have the F-14 at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 No Hardpoints (Edwin3060): Ed, you realize that a wing hardpoint is visible only because it requires a pylon to keep the missile separate from the wing, so as not to disturb airflow around it. Body hardpoints aren't as visible because they don't need it. The F-15 mounts missiles below its engine nacelles, and without them, you can't see the hardpoint unless you're sitting right in front of it. Some planes don't even have the pylons constantly attached. Some planes have to have it attached, then the missile. Magnets: Ok, a linear actuator is a motor that moves in a line. Whoever came up with that did so because it sounds cool. A linear actuator is used in maglev trains. A linear actuator is used in railguns. It does not magnetize the skin of whatever it's acting on. And, to be honest, there're no hinges by the gunpod mounting points, and the hinges are where any form of motor would be. Hardpoints, man. ECA makes the armor as strong as tank armor, but tank armor doesn't take too kindly to holding too many tons of weight. That gunpod must weigh at least one... We all know that some techno-babble is involved-- in fact, we are told that some funky new transformation system, using 'linear actuators' which are some sort of magnets is used for transformation, and that parts of the VF are literally re-arranged in space for the transformation without any contact with each other. Given this, I don't see how your objections can hold, especially since my solution can explain why the VF-25 can seem to place/store the gunpod anywhere it wants during a fight AND take on additional gunpods/sniper rifles etc at will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 We all know that some techno-babble is involved-- in fact, we are told that some funky new transformation system, using 'linear actuators' which are some sort of magnets is used for transformation, and that parts of the VF are literally re-arranged in space for the transformation without any contact with each other. Given this, I don't see how your objections can hold, especially since my solution can explain why the VF-25 can seem to place/store the gunpod anywhere it wants during a fight AND take on additional gunpods/sniper rifles etc at will. ok, devils advocate, they do use magnetism to hold the gunpod down. they still need dedicated hard point even if instead of using a hook/clam they used magnets. you need the dedicated mounting point if for no other reason than that the gunpod would never be aligned properly if it just "stuck" to the side of the plane. If you have an odd shaped metal object and put it near a magnet, the metal object is going to want to have as match surface area in contact with the magnet as possible. they would need to have some kind of mounts to keep the gunpod pointing the right direction, correctly aligned and right side up. you're not going to get that with a gunpod just stuck to the side by a big magnet. and another thing, at leas the main gunpod has to be connected by a physical hard point since it needs some way of being fired by the aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 ok, devils advocate, they do use magnetism to hold the gunpod down. they still need dedicated hard point even if instead of using a hook/clam they used magnets. you need the dedicated mounting point if for no other reason than that the gunpod would never be aligned properly if it just "stuck" to the side of the plane. If you have an odd shaped metal object and put it near a magnet, the metal object is going to want to have as match surface area in contact with the magnet as possible. they would need to have some kind of mounts to keep the gunpod pointing the right direction, correctly aligned and right side up. you're not going to get that with a gunpod just stuck to the side by a big magnet. and another thing, at leas the main gunpod has to be connected by a physical hard point since it needs some way of being fired by the aircraft. Actually no, since the linear actuators for transformation are clearly capable of positioning large pieces of metal precisely-- how else do you think transformation would be possible? Also, you don't need your hands on a phone to answer a call now-- wireless technology has been invented . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Actually no, since the linear actuators for transformation are clearly capable of positioning large pieces of metal precisely-- how else do you think transformation would be possible? Also, you don't need your hands on a phone to answer a call now-- wireless technology has been invented . two problems with your theory; 1)just because parts are moved around/held together by magnets doesn't meant they're sticking an arm to a random piece of metal. 99% likelihood that the body and arm have brackets that line up to make sure they mate up correctly, including any power/fuel/control lines that run from one part to the other. 2) a cell phone call and a military aircraft are two very different things. if you're cell phone louses it's signal, you miss a call; if a the control's of a plane lose signal YOU F*CKING DIE. Airplanes have tripple/quadruple redundant systems that are EM shielded for a reason, and you think it's a good idea to replace that with a wireless signal which is subject to active jamming, interference, arrant signals and a crap load of other reliability issues that you don't run into with a hard line? they aren't going to use wireless for the simple reason that nobody is going to want to fly in an Valk where the enemy can turn off your gunpod or lock up your arms and legs using a Jamming pod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbes221 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I think I need more info on the 'linear actuators' I thought that they were more of the replacement of today's hydraulic systems. I think that anime52k8 is right in that they still have hinge points and the like. And I'm fairly sure that we have seen hardpoints on the wings, at least there looks to be that big one on the wing glove - look at this line art in the upper right and see what you think - If they use hardpoints for the wings I don't see them using something totally different for the gunpod, but that's me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin3060 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 two problems with your theory; 1)just because parts are moved around/held together by magnets doesn't meant they're sticking an arm to a random piece of metal. 99% likelihood that the body and arm have brackets that line up to make sure they mate up correctly, including any power/fuel/control lines that run from one part to the other. Again, proven by the absence of the fact? Besides, the gunpods are self contained. 2) a cell phone call and a military aircraft are two very different things. if you're cell phone louses it's signal, you miss a call; if a the control's of a plane lose signal YOU F*CKING DIE. Airplanes have tripple/quadruple redundant systems that are EM shielded for a reason, and you think it's a good idea to replace that with a wireless signal which is subject to active jamming, interference, arrant signals and a crap load of other reliability issues that you don't run into with a hard line? they aren't going to use wireless for the simple reason that nobody is going to want to fly in an Valk where the enemy can turn off your gunpod or lock up your arms and legs using a Jamming pod. Wireless technologies run the gamut from radio to microwaves to lasers-- heck, by slightly changing the magnetic field you can send a data signal which couldn't easily be jammed. Besides, interference, signal loss and errant signals plague hardlines as well-- especially if those very hardlines that you trust have to pass through 3-4 very active and packed areas at least-- the shoulders, elbow, wrist and (multiple) finger actuators. Not to mention splicing off to the multitude of hard points. Ultimately, unless the gunpod is very much closer to the enemy than your own aircraft, I wouldn't worry too much about the effects you talked about. Ultimately, the whole idea of hard points comes into a lot of problems once you consider the multitude of places where the gun pod has been shown to attach and the fact that Alto could mount the sniper rifle on the fly. SK has already given us some 'hand-wavium' with the whole linear actuator thing. I say we use it. Besides, have you seen those robots that they are building which are basically rectangles of circuits and electronics that assemble themselves using magnets? hobbes221: SchizMC has a very good explanation of why the wings need hardpoints-- it has more to do with airflow than anything else. Also, the big attachment point on the wing glove fence has more to do with the Super pack wing pods than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saint Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Wireless technologies run the gamut from radio to microwaves to lasers-- heck, by slightly changing the magnetic field you can send a data signal which couldn't easily be jammed. Besides, interference, signal loss and errant signals plague hardlines as well-- especially if those very hardlines that you trust have to pass through 3-4 very active and packed areas at least-- the shoulders, elbow, wrist and (multiple) finger actuators. Not to mention splicing off to the multitude of hard points. Ultimately, unless the gunpod is very much closer to the enemy than your own aircraft, I wouldn't worry too much about the effects you talked about. You can Faraday cage electrical hardlines to eliminate interference. If you're using fibre optics (which they likely are), there's even less chance of outside interference. Instead of magnetisim, why not some sort of unknown super dimensional science effect? Maybe it's the same science that's responsible for energy-converting armor. Inlay an energy grid in two opposing veritech surfaces that are meant to seat flush together in battroid mod. Channel power across the two and by the blessing of OverTech, they move towards each other and are held there by the same force that makes the armor stronger. Edited February 15, 2009 by The Saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.