Re: Core Fighters: What are there purpose?


Prabal Nandy (nandy@U.Arizona.EDU)
Mon, 25 Jan 1999 00:12:47 -0700 (MST)


> > And the fact that the NT-1 lacked the CF really makes you think that the
> >Feds abandoned the idea entirely (another reason why the GP-01 from 0083
> Now, now. It's nearly impossible to fit a spherical panoramic display

  One wonders why they didn't simply go with VR-goggles or somesuch
simpler display system then giant wraparound TV-screens!

> into a core fighter - that's why the Alex, GP03S, and Z-era mobile suits
> have the one but not the other. The ZZ ostensibly has a partial panoramic

  Though doesn't it suggest that the Feds (and others) believed that a
more ergonomic display-system was more useful than a core-fighter?
(Suggesting, rather, that the CF itself wasn't that useful?)

  I guess, to me the CF always seemed to be like building an M1-tank with
a built-in pop-out Jeep that could be used as an escape vehicle. Yeah, it
has its uses, but it's kinda dorky, (Think Mazinger-Z) adds a whole lot of
complexity and expense to your MS, and doesn't really improve the fighting
ability of your MS (Particulary if the entire MS has to split in half to
deploy the CF!)

> > I think they're supposed to be re-entry capable.... though I don't think
> Nah, core fighters aren't re-entry capable. That takes some pretty
> elaborate streamlining, like that of the Wave Rider, Flying Armor,

  Well, I figgered that the GP-01 CF looked _way_ more streamlined than
the Zeta Wave-Rider mode, and that if the original Gundam (arguably alot
_less_ streamlined than any aircraft shape!) could survive re-entry with
just some coolant-gas to protect it, then something that's made of the
same material and a whole lot more aerodynamic should be able to as well!

                                                                -Probe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 25 1999 - 16:01:22 JST