So /m/, you've got your favourite Gundams and your favourite Grunt units.
But what's your favourite mothership. The typical homebase where all of the space opera drama happens.
Pic related, though I feel like there was more of the interior that we didn't get to see. Albion is a close second.
>>11190215
Nadesico
Gotta love the Freeden.
>>11190215
Pic related.
>>11190235
did you just reply to yourself.
otherwise there should be no reason why your 2 minute post is behind the 9 minute post on the board.
>>11190242
I'm not OP
Also, I'm on my phone. Weird shit happens on mobile all the time.
Reinforce Jr.;_; o7
>>11190215
crap, I was about to post the Ptolemaios. Never mind, I'll just post the Free- >>11190223
FUCK
I apologise for nothing. It even has a hot spring inside.
I'm a fan of the final variant of the Musai. Gotta dig that sleek arrow-head look. I'd hate to have my battleship rammed by one of those.
The Tivvay too is a pretty cool looking design. I like how it also has a very sleek and streamlined appearance, but also has that split in the front. Also, dat engine porn.
The Musaka is a notable mention too. The Unicorn Novel version especially has a pretty good look.
;_;7
I was always very fond of the Radish and Dogosse Giar
>>11190289
Zeta had some beautiful ships innit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MAmkKp5tsI&app=desktop
>>11190292
>>11190289
Agreed, I loved the ship designs in Zeta a lot.
Avatar is /m/ related right? I mean, it had mechs and shit.
![Diva-cruise-mode[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/69d1xFC.jpg "Diva-cruise-mode[1].jpg")
Diva, no question.I cried it when it got destroyed, Flit's salute made me cry more.
>>11190333
So are dual cats or better pretty much required for a Gundam suit carrier to be "good"?
>>11190257
Yeah, gotta agree with you there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GYB1neCEic
>>11190367
Probably, when your ability to get as many mobile suits as possible determines your offensive capacity.
>>11190242
You don't even make sense
>>11190335
Post-OYW designs are pretty awesome but around ZZ and late Zeta it starts to feel like a technology war to see who can fit more launchers and decks on Federation ships. All I can ever think when I see those ships with those half-dozen or more launching decks is: "What the hell is even the point?"
I mean, the only reason they would need any catapult at all is so their mobile suits don't accidentally damage the ship or kill crew while thrusting away. Long catapult decks just look cool, and the mobile suits will always dwarf any acceleration gained from it.
Hilariously Zeon and Zeon's descendents always seem to do it right since they tend to base their designs off the Musai, Chivvay, and Gwazine. The Pegasus was good because it had small internal catapults, and then future versions of that design tended to follow suit.
Then someone decided that catapults are the spaceship equivalent of porn. And then someone decided to make the Dogosse Giar-class. The Dogosee-Giar Class has, what? Six double-sided catapults and another four catapults on the top side, with the possibility of mirroring catapults on the under side to match?
>>11190271
>can fly, somehow
>can into space
>can go underwater
>has a hotspring
>pair of positron cannon
I would choose it as well.
>>11190414
So has any design used that huge space above the catapults for anything? I know a lot of Zeon ships have their cats buried inside the ship, but Feddie designs have them out and exposed.
It seems like it cuts into space where you could be putting AA.
>>11190215
Sadalahn, hands down.
>>11190431
The big catapult spaces seem like they'd be better for approaches and recoveries.
>>11190435
Actually that's a lesson learned from White Base: having your catapults be enclosed means that if something manages to get a shot at them the entire thing is busted, rather than a small section of runway that you can manually launch off of.
>>11190435
>AA
>mattering in Gundam
Your effective AA is typically your mobile suits.
>>11190271
>>11190434
>>11190280
>>11190365
Quite easily the two most hideous designs for a main spaceship, especially the fucking Diva. The Archangel at least made an effort: Diva is a toyetic Gray Phantom.
>>11190435
>They could put more guns on that shit.
Agreed. They could easily fit gun turrets on those extremities. Hell, they could angle the catapult so that the mobile suits launch over the guns. They might disrupt fire momentarily when they launch but it's still another gun to shoot your enemies down with.
What would work even better is if they put small internal catapults that just launch their mobile suits far enough to thrust (that's not even that far really), and then put a few bays side by side on the side of the ship. They always seem to put their guns on the top and bottom, so why not build some hangars in the middle of the ship and launch mobile suits out the side? Plus, it makes them less obstructive to your covering fire, because you won't have to stop firing your guns to avoid hitting your own suits.
>>11190446
>It helps with landings and approaches?
Eh, the White Base crew didn't have any problems. On Earth it's somewhat understandable if your ship has a lot of fighter craft. In space though, even that doesn't matter because there aren't any external forces mucking up your approach.
Also, if you make doors like on White Base that extend out, it could double as a catapult to both assist in launches and landings.
>>11190464
>If it gets hit it's busted and that's a problem.
Yeah, but it's not like the failure of the catapult means anything. All it means is that the mobile suit has to push far enough away from the hangar to thrust safely. Whether or not there's a flight deck won't matter because they're in space anyhow. Under gravity they just jump out and thrust away. Your biggest worry is going to be a door jam, which would happen no matter what because there will always be a door.
Also, here's a picture of the aforementioned Musaka-class. Notice the tilted launch bays with catapults that conform to the ships hull.
>>11190474
An air wing isn't enough for both offensive operations and screening. Why should it be any different for mobile suit carriers?
See also, the Irish.
>>11190494
See, I actually kind of like the idea of adapting a hull like the UNSC frigate: a large, main hull above a launch ramp connecting to a large section with the powerplant, engines, living space, hangars, etc. That way you could place large guns and point defense turrets along the whole thing while leaving a full-length ramp for MS launching and recovery operations.
>>11190431
> I mean, the only reason they would need any catapult at all is so their mobile suits don't accidentally damage the ship or kill crew while thrusting away. Long catapult decks just look cool, and the mobile suits will always dwarf any acceleration gained from it.
Exactly !
And when you watch the show they don't seem to really care about the thruster plumes as long as they expect it.
If the goal was to be able to launch all MS around the ship as fast as possible it would be better to have more door than more catapult.
Even made a picture to defend that point some time ago.
>>11190215
Always had a soft spot for the Peacemillion.
>>11190215
Ptolemy I reminds me of a giant space whale.(i love it)
>>11191184
Also Barge, Barge was awesome.
Now if only it hadn't gone down like such a bitch
>>11191191
>>11191195
About the only way Barge better in my opinion is if they switched out those dinky little rockets on the back for an Orion Drive, that would be awesome.
>>11190494
I believe the Zamouth Garr fixed that problem with the center guns. By just putting the cats on the side you free up the center of the ship allowing 4 forward facing main guns. It also gives it the ability of front and back facing cats which mean more MS out at once while still having massive amount of firepower.
Also is fave Mother Ship
Gwadan with albion as second
>>11190479
Oh wooow anon no one asked for your opinion. Post your favourite ships, dont need to shit on others. You don't get brownie points for showing your distaste for AG/CE stuff over whatever it is you prefer.
why bother with a battleship when you can just use a freighter and like...inexplicably stay really far away from combat zones at all times
Except for the unprotected bridge (Minerva is better at this point), no match for the Yamato (USS Arizona too).
Gotta love the classic Musai
This sexy beast
POST FACTORIES!!!
>>11191509
POST WRECKS!!!!
Was gonna post Ptolemy and Celestial Being but they were taken...
Sure it's not actually from a mecha series, but can you imagine the size of the complement it could carry if one chose to use it for such a purpose?
>>11192136
>that design
FUCKING JURAIANS!
It's not enough that the fuckers can flip the bird to Newtonian physics whenever they like, make spaceships out of trees, and create pocket dimensions just for kicks, they have to design their ships in a way that fucking RUBS IT IN YOUR GOD DAMN FACE!
>>11190215
You already posted it. Ptolemaios is fucking sexy.
Also, Mother Vanguard. Because it's a fucking pirate ship in space. With BEAM SAILS. What's not to love about that?
>>11190215
I always thought the Ptolemaios I was a much more unique and interesting design (the whole 4 pods on a ring coaxial to the rest of the ship
>>11191152
The Dolos would like a word with you.
More doors! more doors everywhere!
>>11190218
Probably my favorite ship. Plus it fucking wrecks mother fuckers in SRW J.
>>11190257
My favorite gundam ship.
>>11190235
My favorite colony ship
/m/ confirmed for great taste in ships.
>not having a city in your ship
>not having a giant mech as ship
>not punching enemy ships with aircraft carriers
>talking about best flying fortresses
>no Iserlohn Fortress
>>11192234
And people complain it didn't have enough doors.
>>11192234
One does not simply walk into more doors.
>>11192337
Not unless they open automatically, no.
>>11192155
Cheaty god-magic indeed.
Anyway, I'm a big fan of Jovian Chronicle's Valiant-class strike carriers. They handle the catapult questions (later on, anyway) by having someone realize "Oh hey, I have a giant magnetic catapult on the front of this thing. It is ALSO a weapon." and just fling tungsten rods off it at people once their daughtercraft complement has launched.
It may not have them fancy mega particle cannons, but it does have good weapon placements. Too bad it can't into earth
>>11192494
Earth is overrated, anyway.
>>11192504
Zeon scum
Space Battleship Arizona
Eltreum Gunbuster
>>11192494
Didn't you watch Unicorn? It's pretty much confirmed the Ra Cailum has a minovsky craft system.
It flies on Earth to invade that base the Vists were at
>>11190271
It's like two high heels attached to a pelvis.
>>11192623
Don't make me look for MS ship porn, pls.
![[EG]Mobile_Suit_Gundam_Movie_I_(Triple-Audio)_[13ECA045].mkv_snapshot_00.17.22_[2014.07.03_23.54.11].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TXdkYhP.jpg "[EG]Mobile_Suit_Gundam_Movie_I_(Triple-Audio)_[13ECA045].mkv_snapshot_00.17.22_[2014.07.03_23.54.11].jpg")
>>11192631
I-Is that a thing?
>>11190215
from Gundam the Ra Cailum will always be a favourite, followed by the stylized Mother Vanguard. heck the other ship from crossbone was also pretty sweet, the Little Grey was it?
then I go back to the Nadesico and its treekie roots... I love stylized ships, such as the Nadesico, the Sword Breaker...
but at the end of the day, no matter what, pic related.
The Nahel Argama, more the ZZ version than the Unicorn version. The Albion comes in at a very, very close second, followed by the Minerva.
I can't fucking wait for this to arrive.
>>11192613
>>11192878
Must've slipped my mind since I only remembered in G generation that I couldn;t use it for atmosphere stages
>>11192888
Also, I forget tiny things like this in Unicorn since the gap between episodes.
What do those fin things at the bottom do anyway?
>>11192659
Well, I was fapping to SD Gundam the other day and thought of the Big Zam fight. Only instead it fires laser dicks that fuck all the lil poor feddies, so they gotta climb up onto the White Base to escape and in order to latch onto it they have to sit on dildos nice and tight until Amuro shows up and can size difference fuck the Big Zam and "defeat it".
![[EG]Victory_Gundam_50_DVD.mkv_snapshot_01.33_[2014.08.07_18.48.30].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/t23xvD3.jpg "[EG]Victory_Gundam_50_DVD.mkv_snapshot_01.33_[2014.08.07_18.48.30].jpg")
>>11192888
That's probably just a quirk of G Generation, the Jeanne D'Arc from Victory was also capable of atmospheric flight.
>>11192893
They're radiators for channeling waste heat away.
Zeta / Hygogg
![[EG]Mobile_Suit_Gundam_Movie_I_(Triple-Audio)_[13ECA045].mkv_snapshot_00.26.15_[2014.07.04_00.04.22].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FvhDFbw.jpg "[EG]Mobile_Suit_Gundam_Movie_I_(Triple-Audio)_[13ECA045].mkv_snapshot_00.26.15_[2014.07.04_00.04.22].jpg")
>>11192898
>Well, I was fapping to SD Gundam the other day and thought of the Big Zam fight. Only instead it fires laser dicks that fuck all the lil poor feddies, so they gotta climb up onto the White Base to escape and in order to latch onto it they have to sit on dildos nice and tight until Amuro shows up and can size difference fuck the Big Zam and "defeat it".
STEP ASIDE LASSIES
TIME FOR THE COLOSSUS
>>11192918
Would you like my fantasies with the Qubleys?
They're straight.
![[EG]ZZ_Gundam_BD_22_Resub(720p)[E22E9DCD].mkv_snapshot_15.38_[2014.07.18_02.49.59].png](https://i.imgur.com/fs5YWnM.jpg "[EG]ZZ_Gundam_BD_22_Resub(720p)[E22E9DCD].mkv_snapshot_15.38_[2014.07.18_02.49.59].png")
>>11192924
>Would you like my fantasies with the Qubleys?
I'm honestly curious at this point. I guess I forget how /m/ can be pretty /m/ sometimes.
>>11192949
Well, I'm a lil SD Zaku II and I win a date with Puru II's Qubley. She's just barely a teenager like me and we go out for fast food, as much as SD Gundams can, and we nervously hold hands in her room when we're done. Then those lil blush lines appear as she gets up and lifts up the metal panels around her crotch and butt and I can't help but cum right there. She giggles a bit and comes forward in almost a tiptoe, as nervous as me as she pushes her perfectly plump and red lips on my lil green fuel sprayer and we fuck proper right there on her comfy frilly bed.
Sometimes it's Puru I, or Haman's, but that's for motherly teaching fantasies.
![Head-CM1[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/81GNlnz.gif "Head-CM1[1].gif")
>>11192923
I read it in his voice.
>>11192923
I would've said the Hecate because it's one of my favorite designs, but you hardly ever get to see what happens aboard those ships apart from a scant few cutscenes.also colossus a shit, we could've got five more orions for the same price and a fraction of the time
Failing that, the last few Star Trek threads are kind of pushing me in another direction.
I've always had a soft spot for Kushan and Hiigaran carriers. The Kushan carriers always remind me of turtles with the way the upper half is designed. Hiigaran carriers were also sleek and sexy, and always so much more fucking useful than the Vaygr ones.
I used to love stacking a bunch of bombers in one, and then jumping in on top of an enemy resourcing operation and wrecking their shit.
>>11191152
wow, I remember you from that extremely long arm-chair thread about catapults in gundam. I didn't quite agree with you then, but it does make sense.
>>11190215
>>11191184
Hell yeah, I love ships that are intended for interstellar travel, but end up used otherwise. Gets my mechanical love all fired up.
>>11191191
>>11191195
>>11191205
>tfw barge is sinking in space
Here's an obscure one.
Battle carrier Iderstar
>>11190280
>>11190365
That hurts more than it should.
You were a good ship diva. A good ship.
![[EG]Turn-A_Gundam_36_[7B24FEB1].mkv_snapshot_10.33_[2014.08.07_01.01.09].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/K6F6UqR.jpg "[EG]Turn-A_Gundam_36_[7B24FEB1].mkv_snapshot_10.33_[2014.08.07_01.01.09].jpg")
>>11193182
I just finished Turn A Gundam so even though that's made for ants, I know that drunk terran thinks he can ride a barrel to Earth.
>>11193166
Wait...wait, Virtual On?
I can't even remember what it looked like, just that I liked it and that the name sounded way cool as the narrator said it.
>>11191152
1) Engine wash is going to rip apart your mobilesuits as they land.
2) Trapdoors over catapults mean you're going to have a hard time getting your mobilesuits into the fight/they're going to take much longer to arrive on scene. You might launch faster but your mobilesuits won't be able to intercept effectively, meaning your ship will need more offensive weaponry to defend itself.
3) There's direct access between the main hanger and the deck of the ship, meaning there's no way to defend if someone throws a weapon inside. If you're in atmosphere, the compression of a confined space is going to make any explosive far more effective. The Nahael breaks this up into three large chambers and four corridors, all with paired blast-doors. If one is destroyed, the other two are fine.
tl;dr: While your design is a better battleship, its an inferior carrier.
>>11192972
>>11194877
> 1) Engine wash is going to rip apart your mobilesuits as they land.
Why ? You can land everywhere there's a trapdoor-pad. Mobile Suit don't need a runway.
Plus, the landing pad between the engine don't seem to bother the Nahel Argama or worse design seen.
> 2) Trapdoors over catapults mean you're going to have a hard time getting your mobilesuits into the fight/they're going to take much longer to arrive on scene[...] but your mobilesuits won't be able to intercept effectively, meaning your ship will need more offensive weaponry to defend itself.
Doesn't make sense, on short distance you won't lose time pointing the mothership in the right direction or deploying in any direction around the ship.
Over long distance as said by >>11190431, MS' acceleration would dwarf any advantage given by catapult. I did a few calculation you would be better carrying space-jabber and more fuel than an heavy as fuck catapult.
> 3) There's direct access between the main hanger and the deck of the ship, meaning there's no way to defend if someone throws a weapon inside.
Better than what most gundam-ship do anyway : open the door directly on the hangar for as long as it take to catapult everything (you are expected to close trapdoor and sliding-door facing danger). If a MS manage to somehow open a trapdoor, get inside and don't blow itself up in the process, it was certainly piloted by a newtype and it's fair.
> If you're in atmosphere, the compression of a confined space is going to make any explosive far more effective. The Nahael breaks this up into three large [...] If one is destroyed, the other two are fine.
Not only my ship is no different about this from the Nahael, but it's also not how explosive work. Explosion dissipate if there's room (spaced/slat armor).
To damage the INSIDE you would first have to penetrate the armor THEN explode, and the armor (and trapdoor) are no weaker than those of many UC design.
Face it, they only use catapult because it look cool
>>11196203
Not that guy, but catapults save fuel, propelled older MS faster than they could accelerate at the time, and if externally mounted, allowed for easy clearing should one the catapult get blocked by debris.
While, operationally, a series of doors would work really well for an assault craft for heavy targets, ideally you want to launch your MS as far away as you can get away with to protect the mothership from damage. That means you want you MS to have as much fuel as possible to extend their combat range.
You argue time loss in right direction, but unless they surprise you, this should never be the case. Ideally, your enemy should never be close enough that a mistake in orientation should make your catapults ineffective, unless in atmo....
If in atmosphere, your idea works a lot better. Catapults are far less effective due to air resistance and gravity, thus making the ships weight penalty a huge disadvantage.
I do agree though. Yeah, it's because they look cool.
![51Y50XAJC4L[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zS2ZIre.jpg "51Y50XAJC4L[1].jpg")
>>11190289
Whenever I watched the Dogosse Giar onscreen I was hoping it would suddenly transform Macross-style. I mean look at the thing, push the deck back and make it stand up and it's done.
Also I realized just now what was the purpose of those blocks that turn around the Argama, it was to create gravity for the crew. I thought it had something to do with staying on the air when on a colony or planet.
>>11199241
>saves fuel, propels mobile suits faster than some could accelerate.
Neither of these are true though. Even in real life catapults aren't used to do either of these things for planes. No mobile suit launched from the catapult is going to be accelerated to any worthwhile speed compared to their own thrust. Not to mention mobile suits fly in formation, so catapults doing that would actually be undesirable, as it makes it more difficult for them to group up.
Also, a lot of ships in Gundam actually place catapults on the sides or on the rear, so as far as that series is concerned neither of those ideas are even on the table.
As far as saving them from fire directed at the mothership, that only holds water if they're launched from the sides of the ship. Forward or backward launching put you in the line of fire.
>>11190215
A Star Destroyer-like design, nice red color, Rewloola is the best.
Why even build battleships when Your average Zaku just chews through them?
>>11199667
Because you need someone to carry you to the battlefield.
very little love for the Alexandria class around here.
>>11199622
>Even in real life catapults aren't used to do either of these things for planes.
What real life catapults do for jet fighters isn't the same thing for space mobile suits, though.
>No mobile suit launched from the catapult is going to be accelerated to any worthwhile speed compared to their own thrust.
As I recall from older threads, you believe that because only yourself think the catapult moves too slow, you refuse to think it's a higher rate of acceleration and don't think the five seconds of fuel saved is ever enough.
>Not to mention mobile suits fly in formation, so catapults doing that would actually be undesirable, as it makes it more difficult for them to group up.
Most ships have more than one catapult and are able to launch entire teams at a time.
>As far as saving them from fire directed at the mothership, that only holds water if they're launched from the sides of the ship. Forward or backward launching put you in the line of fire.
No, he doesn't mean that ships can get mobile suits out of the line of fire more quickly, he means that the carrier can stay out of the range of enemy fire while launching units toward the battleground.
>>11199622
Remember, we are making assumptions on fantastic battle situations. It's like when the first metal hulled warships appeared and no one quite knew if tactics would be the same or if/how they would change.
If you look at a modern air craft carrier from a strategic perspective, you want it out of harms way. Therefore you want your mobile suits to have the maximum range possible. You could make the argument that a base jabber or the like would extend the range better, but jabbers tend to get jobbed and they are always treated as disposable. It's not very useful if you have to resupply jabbers after every sortie.
Ideally, you would have a screen of ships, so AA holes are irrelevant for the most part. Problem is in Gundam and a lot of other shows we almost always have one ship pushing on with little to no direct support. So, traditional tactics are thrown right the fuck out. Question becomes, do you design a ship for fleet action or lone patrol?
Additionally, when I was referring to older suits benefiting from a catapult I was thinking of GMs and other one year war machines. True, a GM can almost do 1G of acceleration, but a linear catapult in space could potentially accelerate it a lot faster than that. Later machines, yes, would barely have any benefit, especially considering that in anime constant thrust = constant acceleration.
And I'll post the Gloria from Macross 2, because it's a sexy looking machine even if it's not exactly the best designed piece of kit. It looks cool, like catapults.
>>11199241
> Not that guy, but catapults save fuel
I did the math and I know orbital mechanic.
Compared to what MS are expected to do you save like 1-10 whole % of deltaV, and orbital transfer is mostly ballistic, if you want to go faster you accelerate 10 more second and you are not gaining much if you have a ETA of 5 minutes.
The weight of the catapult can be turned into much fuel, drop-tank, rocket-sled and higher acceleration for mothership.
> as far away as you can get away with to protect the mothership from damage.
What damage ?
From MS' thrusters ? Negligible. They often don't care
From enemies ? Launching 10s sooner mean getting anywhere faster than with a catapult.
> That means you want you MS to have as much fuel as possible to extend their combat range.
"Range" doesn't translate the same in space, what you mean is "spare deltaV" and combat maneuvering should count for 70% of the fuel used, since MS' fuel/mass ratio is so small (MS are pretty much OP) a -barely visible- droptank will double the dV to spare.
> You argue time loss in right direction, but unless they surprise you, this should never be the case. Ideally, your enemy should never be close enough that a mistake in orientation should make your catapults ineffective, unless in atmo....
supposing we can't be surprised (I disagree), then you have even more time to get MS at the right distance, with trapdoor the MS will have already launch and be in route while the mothership is rotating.
Plus MS should stay in formation right ? see>>11199622
>>11199737
> you refuse to think it's a higher rate of acceleration and don't think the five seconds of fuel saved is ever enough.
You talked to another guy, I am the one who can prove that with Math, I was even generous.
The higher Acc require perfect (and specific) condition and is negligible, less flexible with them.
> Most ships have more than one catapult and are able to launch entire teams at a time.
if team mean 1-3 MS ok, but the rest still apply.
>>11200672
>The weight of the catapult can be turned into much fuel, drop-tank, rocket-sled and higher acceleration for mothership.
Catapults are already mounted on the outer hull armor, only a few one-off designs had inefficient catapult systems where they had their own specialized deck that needed to be deployed. If a ship needed to add more propellant tanks or required more acceleration, there are many other places to mount the additional tanks and thrusters before needing to remove the catapult.
>since MS' fuel/mass ratio is so small (MS are pretty much OP) a -barely visible- droptank will double the dV to spare.
Such things like SFS platforms and propellant tanks already exist, and are also used in conjunction with a catapult.
>then you have even more time to get MS at the right distance, with trapdoor the MS will have already launch and be in route while the mothership is rotating.
Hangars already have trapdoors, whether the mobile suit wants to get on the catapult launcher is optional.
>I am the one who can prove that with Math, I was even generous.
>The higher Acc require perfect (and specific) condition and is negligible, less flexible with them.
I'd like to see the math. It's not like they are forced to use the catapult every time, there are situations we've seen where they take off directly from a hangar door when needed (0083, Zeta, ZZ, even Seed and Destiny)
>if team mean 1-3 MS ok, but the rest still apply.
MS teams have almost always meant 2-4 MS, this stems back to Zeon who pioneered MS operations. Each Musai carries 3 MS (later up to 4) and each ship's MS complement is considered a team.
>>11200672
Thruster fuel != vernier fuel. While you could argue that combat loiter time would be increased with drop tanks, it's your verniers that tend to change the immediate orientation of your vehicle in space. While this doesn't have bearing on the whole catapult argument, you would need a drop tank for every vernier mounted on the unit to increase effective combat range. And in order to orientate the MS after leaving a "trap door", you are using that limited supply to maneuver the MS in to position.
Also, you are better offloading fuel and initial maneuvering to the ship than an MS. The more effective loiter time you can give an MS the better. And with a linear catapult, you can coordinate the launch timings and the force applied to allow the MS to form up at intercept distance, therefore preventing a disorganized attack.
Ships don't have to be as maneuverable as MS, and it is far easier to offload the extra mass on to the ship for a reusable launch system that doesn't consume fuel. I don't know what numbers you are using, but a linear catapult isn't that heavy when you compare it to the mass of a ship, especially ones the size of the Albion or the General Revil.
I argue for an assault on a hard target, what you propose is great as a landing craft. It's a helicopter/LCV type approach, which is appropriate with man shaped machines at close range. What I'm proposing is more useful for something like fleet actions.
>I did the math and know orbital mechanics
You did math with loose and relatively unknown numbers. We don't know enough about mobile suit and ship fuel consumption to make any genuine assertion. We can only make "best" guesses. True, you can do basic physics calculation regarding mass and what not, but we are limited by the data we have.
>What damage?
The guns of capitol ships. And before you say "Big guns do nothing in anime", they do, and frequently. The more range you have to maneuver your ship, the better.
Right now, I gotta go with the Albion. I may think of something later that didn't cross my mind, but that's my initial response. I love that ship.
>>11200575 >>11200883
Actually because of Minovsky jamming and the short combat range involved Gundam go with the concept of "Assault-carrier" which is expected to give heavy support
Base-jabber are not really treated as expendable, they are just one of those things you can destroy for free on-screen. They also have the back luck of not being mech in a mecha series.
As for usefulness, many would argue they should rule over MS if given a turret, they allow to patrol, deploy & extract MS from everywhere. They are needed oversea for GAW-like carrier and speedy overground
Linear catapult acceleration is limited by the length available and how much G the pilot can take.
Given a (long) 150m long catapult and a 10G acceleration you'd stay only 1.5 second on the catapult and save 150m/s of deltaV, that's 15second of Accs for an old MS. (it also mean you can have to slow down for 15s on arrival)
Now, an economic orbit transfer ask for minimum 600m/s for a 45minute long transfer (obviously you want to go way faster, so triple that), I also calculated that MS can use around 1800m/s in combat (for 3 minutes of thrust at 1G)
All in all you have a dV budget around minimum 3600m/s ...we "barely" saved fuel.
But we saved time right ?
First : Ship must point toward the target.
If it isn't the case add 2 minutes for the ship to rotate, with trapdoor you can deploy immediately.
If your target is 10km away (pretty close) you'll be there in 66s (against 81s without a catapult)
If your target is 100km away, you'll be there in.... 11minutes, 15s is hardly significant.
But remember how much time pilot spend preparing before launch, battle in gundam last far longer than that.
Now if your enemy is 10km away coming as fast you better scramble all your MS in less than 66s, with 10s per MS the Nahel Argama is lucky it could launch 30 MS (supposing pilots are already in the cockpit) but they better NOT use the catapult because the enemy is already here.
>>11200883
(to be continued)
>>11193117
You. I like you.
>>11190289
>I was always very fond of the Radish and Dogosse Giar
Here's the General Revil then. More catapults than they know what to do with.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131218172125/gundam/images/e/e6/General-revil-topside.jpg
I liked the look of this thing when it first showed up.
>>11200883
> Catapults are already mounted on the outer hull armor
Unnecessary hull armor only meant to allow a catapult.
This isn't a question of place, it's a question of mass, I won't bother finding back the mass but even with 1% the save was astounding.
> Hangars already have trapdoors
Facing the enemy and often leading to the hangar, I call that a weakness
> Such things like SFS platforms and propellant tanks already exist, and are also used in conjunction with a catapult.
Which make catapult even more superfluous.
>>11201017
>Thruster fuel != vernier fuel
Wikia and official info say otherwize, plus MS are supposed to exist thanks to AMBAC
> Also, you are better offloading fuel and initial maneuvering to the ship than an MS
I can argue against but even if true, it mean that MS+droptank/other can use fuel more freely knowing the mothership have more.
> And with a linear catapult, you can coordinate the launch timings and the force applied to allow the MS to form up at intercept distance, therefore preventing a disorganized attack.
Since MS have to accelerate or slow down to match velocity anyway you are not saving anything if they aren't launch simultaneously at the same speed. The save is still negligible.
> I don't know what numbers you are using, but a linear catapult isn't that heavy when you compare it to the mass of a ship
Even if the catapult weighted only 1000 tons, that's 10 more mobile suits and far more worth of fuel. And let be honest, some of those ship are built around their catapults (and to look cool)
>You did math with loose and relatively unknown numbers. We can only make "best" guesses.
You realize that I'm only demonstrating that using the little we know we can say catapult STILL doesn't make sense ? If it wasn't for Jamming and AMBAC it would be even worse.
Here, the catapult is a cliché, a tropes used because aircraft-carrier look cool, cooler than drifting out of a door.
> The guns of capitol ships.
My argument still stand.
>>11201074
>First : Ship must point toward target
True, minovsky jamming does often reduce the range of detection. I concede that at close range a catapult becomes a detriment. However, most ships with catapults can allow for an MS to "hop off" the catapult deck. True, elevating the MS up an elevator if there was one would cause delay, but it's not necessarily the horrible disadvantage you are claiming since there are fall backs.
>we "barely" saved fuel.
Fuel is not the issue, it's effective loiter time, or effective combat range. This is not only limited by fuel/range (or total change in velocity as you calculated it), but also maneuver time. Thrusters mounted in positions around the MS would each need their own supply of propellant. They aren't going to have fuel lines running everywhere around an MS, and from what we have seen in shows, blowing off an arm or a leg doesn't cause instant MS destruction every time. True, you can turn in wide lazy circles with just thruster power modulation, but that isn't good in close range combat and is not an effective use of fuel.
>3 minutes of thrust at 1G
As I said previously, we don't have a good idea of fuel consumption for MS. 3 minutes is more than Cima had in her Gelgoog (with drop tanks) against the Albion, but it's way way way less than Keith had, in the same series. In Episodes 9 and 10 he launched from the Albion, aided an outpost defense, followed Kou through a debris field to his engagement with Gato, retrieved Kou, and then headed back to the ship.
>>11201213
>>11201213
>AMBAC
There is a reason why verniers and apogee motors start getting mounted en mass on mobile suits, and why turning times start to decrease. Re-orienting mass can make you turn, but only so fast. Not to mention it doesn't permit side slipping and other combat maneuvers we often see MS performing.
>1000 tons
I wish I had hard numbers to work with on these systems. I don't, but I would guess it would be 3/4 of that, barring armour. With armour, it would probably be a couple of thousand tons. If you were to take the weight of something like the Albion, 2 catapults with armour would be about 1/12th the weight of the ship, which is a lot.
>tropes used because aircraft carrier look-cool
I never debated this. My argument is that given a known time to target, a catapult pulls enemies away from your sensitive carriers and forces MS combat to occur away from the ships, allowing your fleet to engage the opposing fleet at range, permitting a defense advantage.
>My argument still stands
No, it doesn't.
Imagine this scenario.
Okay, they jumped you with minovsky jamming, and you sat on your ass and didn't attempt to detect them or use tactical insight to determine direction of attack.
They are right on you, and their MS are in combat with yours at close range because you don't have an effective screen between you and their carriers. Meanwhile, you get pelted by their long range guns while you attempt to position your cannon, and your MS can't get to them because they have a screen set up to intercept.
A catapult equipped carrier would be just as fucked, but it's a situation which your ship would have a modicum of an advantage in a very bad scenario.
As I said before, you have designed a good assault ship. However, if you are engaged in fleet action, you don't want MS hanging around you in close range since your guns will have limited fields of fire due to friendlies in the vicinity. AA is not a replacement for distance.
>>11201213
>Unnecessary hull armor only meant to allow a catapult.
What do you mean? it's not like there would be no hull armor there if there was no catapult. The forward bow of the Clop class for example just has the catapult on the "roof" of the forward hull. Other ships like Nahel Argama and Ra Cailum have unarmored thin deck extensions. Only large ships like Dogosse Gier have thickass armored catapult decks.
>Facing the enemy and often leading to the hangar, I call that a weakness
There are also rear and ventral hatches. Trap doors are *supposed* to lead to the hangar, is a mobile suit supposed to walk through an unnecessary hallway before it reaches open space? That's a waste of interior space.
>plus MS are supposed to exist thanks to AMBAC
Unrelated tangent, but the application of AMBAC doesn't mean mobile suits can't have maneuvering thrusters. The original point of AMBAC was that it allowed a way to change orientation without the need for attitude thrusters, but after the OYW, nearly every space use MS have additional maneuvering rockets located on legs and shoulders.
>I can argue against but even if true, it mean that MS+droptank/other can use fuel more freely knowing the mothership have more.
It cuts down on the need to resupply as often, and as mentioned before, increases mission endurance and loitering time. If we're going to argue realism, then I should point out that after initial acceleration, MS can just cruise under inertial flight to the battlezone, then afterward they can engage in combat maneuvers, there is no need for orbital burns or "constant thrust". You keep bringing up the "need" for orbital changes, but the point of the carrier is to carry the MS right up close to the battle zone and then launch MS from maybe only 50-100km away.
You also keep assuming that the ship is not moving when suits are catapulted, but they can also benefit from the ship's forward velocity as well.
>>11201430
cont
Doors are a weakness in space. You are introducing a potential point of failure into the design to allow egress/ingress. No amount of AA screen is going to guaranty prevent some guy blowing it open and landing inside the ship to wreak havoc. This is a problem with all carriers, but it might be exacerbated with more doors installed, since you provide more arcs with which they can attempt such an attack.
I mean, we are arguing hypothetical things here. It's just anime. It's a difference of opinion, one neither of us is likely to change.
I'm assuming that the instant you know you are being jammed, you will try to determine the best course of action. Unfortunately, in Gundam, most ship captains aren't that smart.
In a perfect fleet, they would likely adopt both designs and use them for the rolls they are best at.
I did not mean this as an attack, just arguing that there can be a good reason for it, though I concede it's because it "looks cool".
>>11201180
>More catapults than they know what to do with.
Hehe, it's more the colours and silhouettes than the catapults but I do think the General Revil is one cool customer too.
>>11201502
The GR has 16 catapults for 48 MS (16 teams of 3 MS or 12 teams of 4 MS). It can launch up to 16 MS at a time, which leads me to believe that they have 4 MS to a team.
>>11201246
I just demonstrated that even the longest catapult didn't save fuel or time at any "range".
> They aren't going to have fuel lines running everywhere around an MS,
Actually they do, just like airplane do. Many plane can and do transfer fuel...even from moving parts. Reading from official data all MS are supposed to also use their fuel for cooling, that's what the tube all around the Zaku II are. And is also why limbs explode into cloud of plasma.
Let me remember you again that the MS vernier-thruster use the same fuel as their backpack. (truth we should be talking of "reactive mass")
> it's effective loiter time, or effective combat range.
That's not really good terms for what you describe. Loiter time mean "cruising" in space you don't need much fuel unless you are circling a position. For the other, that would be "combat maneuver budget" and its quiiiite high.
> As I said previously, we don't have a good idea of fuel consumption for MS. 3 minutes is more than Cima had in her Gelgoog (with drop tanks) against the Albion
My estimations are based on physical constant, deltaV is how you measure "range" for spaceship, in short it mean "how much you can change your velocity". It take the same amount of deltaV for an MS or a ship to do the same orbit maneuver regardless of their weight.
Since many MS have been shown to accelerate for 3 minutes non-stop at 10m/s or needed to it mean they MUST have 3600m/s of dV and this is a very low estimation because MS are required to perform very wasteful maneuvers.
Even for OYW suit like the Zaku II or the GM with lower acceleration the dV estimate is not much lower. By the way... in my calculation here >>11201074 I forgot to add the dV budget if you can return to your mothership. that's between 300 and 1800 depending of how much in a hurry you are and if you are doing textbook efficient maneuver or not.
Not my fault if Gundam is inconsistent and catapult only used to look cool.
This catapult argument was stupid a month ago and it hasn't gotten any better. Realize that no matter how a mobile suit is deployed, it's going to arrive at the battle and start throwing grenades the size of cars with its bare hands after its 24/1 scale AK-47 with two stories of faux wood finish runs out of beams.
If you wanted to be entirely serious about it, then remove the hangars entirely and replace them with railguns and emission sinks.
>>11201430
> There is a reason why verniers and apogee motors start getting mounted en mass on mobile suits
Because they can waste even more fuel than before, increasing the dV budget.
> If you were to take the weight of something like the Albion, 2 catapults with armour would be about 1/12th the weight of the ship, which is a lot.
based on http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/MSC-07_Albion
the Albion weight 48900 metric tons, 1/10th is 4890 tons.
As said, many of those fictional ship are built around the catapult.
> I never debated this. My argument is that given a known time to target, a catapult pulls enemies away from your sensitive carriers and forces MS combat to occur away from the ships, allowing your fleet to engage the opposing fleet at range, permitting a defense advantage.
Even using those very specific conditions you are still not saving fuel or gain time with a catapult.
The MS launching from your "carrier" (rather than "attack carrier") by trap door would be deployed -in formation- just as fast and using negligible amount of fuel. You wouldn't have needed to turn the mothership around.
> Imagine this scenario.
Following that disastrous scenario a trapdoor-only ship would still deploy all MS faster from direction not currently attacked, and be defending the ship faster than if you tried by the catapult on the front
>>11201447
> What do you mean? it's not like there would be no hull armor there if there was no catapult.
Why would there be ? quite often it support nothing, no weapon, no thruster. The only point of those is the catapult.
> That's a waste of interior space.
In space it's quite meaningless, and it actually serve as a sort of spaced/slat armor. At least "my" trapdoor can be open in a direction other than the enemy.
(to be continued)
>>11201902
>>11201762
I wouldn't respond so much if it didn't feel like:
A - You were being condescending.
B - Your rejection that any time off thrust, ANY, is a benefit to your mobile suits.
15 seconds is a lot of time in combat, and could mean the difference between returning home, or getting shot down while bingo fuel on the return trip. And if, as you propose, verniers ran off thruster fuel (which they didn't, at least until later UC), then it's even more imperative.
>the Albion weight 48900 metric tons, 1/10th is 4890 tons
Why the fuck did you even bother doing this math. I said assume a catapult is 2k tons, 48900/(2000 X 2) = 12.225 which is approx. 1/12th. I was in honours math, so this is just insulting. Additionally, why comment on something where I said effectively "Yeah, even conservatively it weighs a lot".
>would still deploy all MS faster
And woosh, you missed where I said that yes, your ship would have a slight advantage. But this is a scenario that really should never happen. Close range deployment only happens when you've done something monumentally stupid, like the average ship captain in Gundam (note I said average). And your ship only has a distinct advantage at close range.
Ugh, I'm just... done. This is just stupid and pointless.
> MS can just cruise under inertial flight to the battlezone, then afterward they can engage in combat maneuvers, there is no need for orbital burns or "constant thrust". You keep bringing up the "need" for orbital changes, but the point of the carrier is to carry the MS right up close to the battle zone and then launch MS from maybe only 50-100km away.
That's not how orbital mechanic work.
In orbit, you can't just "thrust toward the enemy" cruise under inertial flight and then match velocity on arrival. A distance of "only 50 to 100km" can (also) mean very costly maneuver, even if you were (luckily) at the same altitude, on the same plane, same orbit. And what if the enemy is making it harder for you ?
If the mothership is coming, YES you can save some fuel (no thanks for the catapult, but the MS staying in the ship), now when you get in range of the enemy you won't keep your MS in. So the suits MUST be able to perform the needed maneuver by themselves, and this maneuver ask far more fuel than you'll save with a catapult.
Remember the 300m/s figure I gave you ? That's was for the textbook CHEAPEST orbital maneuver which take 45minutes to complete. It doesn't on TV, meaning they use far more fuel.
How much do you think you need to intercept a ship on a elliptic trajectory ?
One episode of MS Gundam had the White Base with all MS out perform a Translunar injection (and get bypassed by char)
That's around 2000m/s done the cheap way. No catapult will help much unless it's 1km long.
> You also keep assuming that the ship is not moving when suits are catapulted, but they can also benefit from the ship's forward velocity as well.
I'm not, it's because it can be just as detrimental than beneficial, the mothership have low-thrust can miss windows for orbital change and so must maneuver differently from MS to not "plow into the enemy by inertia"
>>11201832
Stop ? No way ! I'm bored of catapult and I want to make it know why.
>>11201485
(to be continued one last time)
>>11193117
>>11201105
Yes, you guys are alright.
>>11202195
Well... hoping you read this.
>I wouldn't respond so much if it didn't feel like:
> A - You were being condescending.
> B - Your rejection that any time off thrust, ANY, is a benefit to your mobile suits.
For A, I do plead guilty of being harsh, like VERY harsh....and condescending before realizing it.
For B, that's because ANY "free" thrust, ISN'T a benefit to you mobile suits. You accepted yourself that it wouldn't be smart to launch out of a catapult only to nullify speed and turn back, yet that's a common cliché, the MS "launch like a plane" then reverse its direction.
But there's other case, more subtle.
> Why the fuck did you even bother doing this math.
err.... this is 4chan, sometime you find people who will "forget" the number unless you make it quotable.
I'm not insulting to your intelligence. Just writing the data I work with.
> Close range deployment only happens when you've done something monumentally stupid
All UC warship generate their own "fog of war" so I'm not surprised surprise attack happen, even regularly. That's the basis of Gundam UC in comparison of other fictions.
>>11201485
> I'm assuming that the instant you know you are being jammed, you will try to determine the best course of action. Unfortunately, in Gundam, most ship captains aren't that smart.
Okay, but why assume that the best course of action must benefit from the use of a catapult ? That's our disagreement.
> I did not mean this as an attack, just arguing that there can be a good reason for it, though I concede it's because it "looks cool".
Well, to me "good reason" imply that all arguments put together tend in favor of a catapult, when I think they don't.
Not withing the set of rules visible throughout UC. Meaning the justification lie outside the media, they wanted ships that clearly looked like cruiser.
>>11193117
>>11201105
>>11202450
The Ginga is the most superior Eureka Seven ship even if there is like no images of it on the net.
>>11202532
>dat pic
Texture mod or is this the HD remaster Gearbox is working on?
>>11203088
>Relic watermark in the bottom corner
It's the original HW2 Mothership...
>>11203120
I don't remember it being that detailed.
>>11192692
this nigga, right here.
he gets it.
>>11202532
Can I just say this whole discussion owns and I hope we break out the spreadsheets and STI Astrogator for the next rounds
>>11210679
I'm the guy you quoted and I can suggest you this website if you like realism/consistency in fiction.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html
It start out with basic misconception like "is explosive decompression true ?" or "why build a spaceship like a naval ship ?" and you end-up Nomograms trying to make space-fighter worth while.
i'd say the macross, but that feels unfair: being large enough to house it's own fucking city and all.
Anything with Bright at the helm.
>>11192927
muh nigguh.
>>11192301
Iserlohn was a stationary base. On the other hand, Geiersburgfitted with the engineswas the real deal.
>>11192888
It's one of my main Carriers for Atmosphere in G Generation Wars.
>>11210812
Well, the fundamental problem with Gundam has always been the tendency to have ships designed like more traditional marine vessels.
I mean, if you wanted realism Gundam isn't really a good show to go by. It's like saying all the science in Star Trek is 100% accurate.
>>11210679
A similar debate occurred in the UK recently regarding CATOBAR on carriers and whether it would be of benefit to develop ships without launch ramps. They they decided against a catapult and instead opted to offload the weight penalty onto aircraft, the F35B in this case. The result is that the combat range suffered, since the VTOL variant has the smallest combat range by a large margin.
Space is very different, though. The question is, do you want to gun your machines towards a target or not. If so, what compromises to design are you willing to make. And even so, making a catapult longer doesn't make it better, since as you gain more speed you have less force over distance applied by the catapult.
Really, a catapult wouldn't be like we traditionally think with carriers. It would be a gun that you use to change orbital trajectories. You plot a trajectory based on where you want the object to be. If traveling away from a gravitational body you will lose velocity once off the catapult, and gain if moving towards. Problem is, if your enemy moves differently than you planned, your launched vehicle may have to adjust heading manually, wasting fuel.
If done correctly, though, a catapult can provide a useful method of insertion, jut not in the traditional sense. Giving yourself 15 seconds as >>11201074 with the base 3 minutes combat time, that's and extra 1/12th time on thrust. Question is, is it worth 1/12th extra weight as implied here >>11201430. Neither scenario is precise, though. You could optimize an MS for better fuel use/capacity or you could optimize ship design to use the hull of an ovoid design to include optional catapults with negligible weight gain.
>>11211663
I should add, the UK would have had to convert the existing fleet in order to operate with a CATOBAR system, and thus it was a funding issue, not a design optimization issue.
>>11211663
>Talking about catapults and Gundam's tendency to design things like real ships.
It's worth noting that if they can compensate for the Gs, they would actually be better off designing shorter catapults that are enclosed.
You see sci-fi shows sometimes where they launch things through a magnetic accelerator, for instance. Several rings lined up in a tube in the hull of the ship connected to the hangar. In the case of Gundam they could have a catapult device that supports the whole mobile suit during launch and is driven by multiple catapulting devices. Humans can be subjected to a short burst of Gs, and chances are the catapult wouldn't be much worse than half the shit they'll do in the mobile suit anyhow.
They would be better off having a stronger catapult with a shorter distance as it would reduce the size of the vessel. In Gundam's case, the vessel's size would be reduced dramatically in some cases. Also, having the catapult be enclosed means that you've increased the surface area of your ship which means you have even more places to put your pew pew and dakka dakka devices.
>>11212055
The issue with harder acceleration greater than 9-10 gs for a few seconds is that you would either need to design a better pilot suit, better human conditioning, or find a better way to nullify inertia. People have taken much higher G loads than that, but it often doesn't look pretty and they didn't have to fight in combat afterwards... ignoring loss of consciousness and the like.
As for combat maneuvers, that's why they developed the linear seat. However, that's only good for reducing small impulse, things like getting hit and whatnot. It's also why they start getting airbags as well, because of the increasing forces in mobile suit combat.
>>11211663
Hard for me to answer without restarting the debate.
Sea-carrier can not definitely NOT serve as analog to Gundam's Space-carrier, It's too different.
What you say about the length of the catapult isn't false. In theory you can gain any speed with any length if you apply enough force, but in practice you are limited by the G-force felt by the pilot, this is what require a longer catapult in our case.
I do not know how thoroughly you followed the debate. So excuse me if I'm repeating things.
As I kept defending I do not think the fuel saved from catapult is meaningful enough to be worth designing a ship around one (with my lowest fuel estimation for MS). To that must be added tactical concern, like "Can the catapult give a gain in most situation ?" Orbital mechanic is tricky enough that given some common parameter, catapulting your MS to in order to "save fuel" before arriving on the enemy would make them arrive to the battlefield after the mothership, and catapulting them in order to "save time" (which is different) would make them use more fuel. A choice between two lose-win situation.
I admit that there is a few specific situation where the gain is win-win. Say the mothership launching MS toward a close(10-50km) destination like a colony (at a Lagrange point). Then, the deltaV budget saved MIGHT count for a fraction >10% of the fuel "used during the mission", not the fuel carried aboard MS. The gain exist sure, but is it worth building most ship around ?
Even >>11201430 scenario, or mine above, aren't IMO giving significant gain unless you add more specific conditions like MS having less fuel than estimated, or a timing where catapulting is just a "different way" of doing it, not really a better way
Anyway, I'm repeating myself and I risk getting condescending again. It would be great if I could pinpoint why the idea still look worth it for some people or what isn't clear enough in my demonstration (I think the estimate are precise enough to matter)
>>11212214
I'm actually the guy from before. Also, >>11212198
I don't want to restart debate, because it's a hollow one that neither of use can truly win.
I will add this. When launching with a catapult, you don't have to use full force and can angle the trajectory to use gravity breaking to prevent over use of fuel to slow down. Using only thrusters can do this as well, but then you get into thrust time versus loss of velocity over that time. Also, it's a positional benefit that depends on your distance from a gravitational body.
Catapults aren't the be all end all, and are a liability especially at closer ranges if that is the only way you can deploy. However, they can be useful enough to haul around one or two, provided you can be logical about design and placement. A lot of Gundam ship designs are not, however.
>>11212214
Also, the sea-carrier thing was a juxtaposition to the discussion, since it reflects a similar debate. They had already developed their fleet around the Harrier, and were trying to figure out if they could convert to a more conventional system. Truth is, their carriers are quite tiny and converting to CATOBAR would be costly and, potentially, operationally dangerous.
It was not meant as a point for or against anything space-wise.
>>11212381
>gravity breaking
I didn't mean this as a point for or against either argument. I meant it as a "you don't always have to reverse thrust within orbit at relatively slow velocities". It really doesn't benefit either side substantially enough to be of note other than a method of saving fuel.
>>11212381
> I will add this. When launching with a catapult, you don't have to use full force and can angle the trajectory to use gravity breaking to prevent over use of fuel to slow down.
Okay for not restarting but that it is really not how orbit work.
Oberth effect only matter for big velocity change at low altitude, way above what a 10G/150m catapult will give you. And as said above you'd still have to catapult in different direction depending of whether you want to sacrifice fuel to save time or the reverse.
> However, they can be useful enough to haul around one or two, provided you can be logical about design and placement. A lot of Gundam ship designs are not, however.
Can give you that if they are really light, but I still think it's would be like mounting bayonet on every riffle.
>>11212417
Yeah I did understood that.
Unlike our fictional space example the UK's conundrum is caused by the gap between two different philosophy of aircraft (supersonic vs jumpjet). But I think we are all bored to hear about the F-35 not keeping its promise.[/said like an unconcerned European]
>>11212740
The conundrum was one of budget and capability. It was either one carrier with CATOBAR or two with ski jump. The choice was made to have two carriers because the F-35 B really outclasses most naval aircraft that aren't from the US and the UK wouldn't be fighting a war and couldn't win a war against the US anyway.
>>11212740
>>11212789
Now I feel bad for even mentioning the F-35... It's a very touchy subject in Canada.
Back to ships though. In anime, they are rarely truly practical, but looking cool isn't that bad a thing.
>>11199371
I think they were actually called gravity blocks in the show. Might actually be useful maybe for exercise/medical purposes but seems a little unnecessary on a carrier, especially considering how much space they take up.
>>11190431
>mobile suits will always dwarf any acceleration gained from it
Gundam can only output around 1G of acceleration.
IF we compare the catapults to ones on a modern carrier (~7Gs), you can see that a catapult gives a significant speed boost.
>>11212740
>I still think it's would be like mounting bayonet on every riffle.
Almost every military rifle is capable of mounting a bayonet though.
>>11215941
To be fair, it's not like there's much of a speed cap in space, so a mobile suit could naturally accelerate to 7G without the assistance of a catapult. Of course, that just means that a catapult could do it without burning any of the mobile suit's limited propellant on the way there.
>>11215867
Microgravity can have deleterious effects on the human body even in the short term. They probably figured that since people would be living on the Argama for potentially months at a time, it wasn't worth cheaping out with velcro floors and risking their pilots' bones becoming porous or something like that.
>>11215981
>could naturally accelerate to 7G without the assistance of a catapult
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
>>11215981
>could naturally accelerate to 7G without the assistance of a catapult
>>11216023
>>11216057
Ah fuck me, gs are a measure of acceleration, not speed. I meant that it could eventually accelerate under its own power to match the speed it would have started at if it had been catapulted.
It's a copout, but whatever, it's 10 in the morning and I didn't sleep.
>>11215941
Stop both of you, there was a misunderstanding because someone used the wrong term.
It was said :
>mobile suits will always dwarf any acceleration gained from it
when it might be clearer to say :
>mobile suits will always dwarf the amount of added velocity gained from it
So you there >>11216023
>>11215981 is right but not using the best term.
As you suspect I'm the one always talking about "deltaV".
A catapult can give up to 10/20G (because of pilots) for a few second but MS can accelerate continuously at 1G for entire minutes.
Now, I think only a few token MS from late UC or after can accelerate up to 7G (instant acceleration). But they can accelerate at 1G for 7seconds.
>>11215967
well, that's for the idea of a light unobtrusive catapult (nearly optional). The way some UC ship does it now is like installing mine-flay on all tanks.>>11215981
>>11216141
>well, that's for the idea of a light unobtrusive catapult (nearly optional)
I personally think the White Base did in right.
It was a short pult, that served as a maintanence bay and could be accessed from either the front of the back.
The Argama with the retarded longer-than-a-747-runway launcher was just retarded. But then again, so were most of Zeta's Mobile Suit designs.
>>11216183
If I had to guess the Argama's were intended to act as runways for aircraft after entering the atmosphere.
>>11212872
Can you still get those?
Archangel and Nahel Argama are my picks.
Albion gets points for being the most beautiful of the Pegasus-class battleships.
>>11201057
This, and the Argama.
>>11201180
Man, looking at that model. Some of those turrets have *atrocious* sky arcs.
>>11216775
HLJ has them on backorder, so it's not "officially" discontinued yet. http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN934060/Gun
I still love the superfluous ship prow like extensions. It's typical early UC.
![[Kamigami] Kidou Senshi Gundam UC Unicorn - 04 [BD 1920x1080 x264 FLAC(5.1ch,JP,CH,EN) Sub(JP,EN,FR,SP,CH)].mkv_snapshot_01.58_[2014.08.07_18.44.07].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BQEy9WH.jpg "[Kamigami] Kidou Senshi Gundam UC Unicorn - 04 [BD 1920x1080 x264 FLAC(5.1ch,JP,CH,EN) Sub(JP,EN,FR,SP,CH)].mkv_snapshot_01.58_[2014.08.07_18.44.07].jpg")
