Tomonaga (Tomonaga@xtra.co.nz)
Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:44:59 +1200


Blackeagle wrote:

> >Regarding Gundam's eyes. They are for targeting and ranging. The stereo
> >vision gives the depth perception necessary for accurate targeting and
> >ranging. The main camera+eyes system used in the Gundam is
> >technologically inferior to the more sophisticated all-in-one system used
> >in the GunCannon and the GMs and probably the Zeon monoeye.
>
> I'm not sure that I would buy the concept that the main camera+eyes system
> is inferior. If it was, why does the Federation keep using it in all their
> very expensive, high quality prototype units?
>

Because otherwise it wouldn't be a Gundam? : ) Seriously though, it is a
published fact. The camera+eyes system is definitely used in the RX-78 line but
the later models probably use a different set up due to the 360 panoramic
screen and there the eyes could just be decorations.

Also the cost and quality of the units isn't an indication that all the
equipment are superior. There are other factors such as how labour intensive it
is to build, and an inferior item can still be made of more costly materials
etc...

Ofcourse there is no way of really knowing the performance and characteristics
of each of the RX-78's components and comparing it with the alternative system
in the Gun Cannon/ GM but with the main camera+eyes system you have two
independent systems which work together to produce something the integrated
alternative system can handle on its own more efficiently.

If it came down to it, I might even suggest that the alternative set up can
simply see better because of the greater possible optical surface - bigger the
lens the better it can see, allows more light, greater field of vision (not
restricted by positioning of the eyes), greater resolving power etc...

> I thought that the PSB explanation of the Minovsky particle's effects is
> that it absorbs radio waves. In that case, wouldn't the effect be a
> weakened signal rather than interference?

In order for Minovsky particles to block out the em waves in question, it has to
either absorb it or disperse it in all different directions. It acts like an
filter or a convex mirror. If it acts as a filter then the thinness of the
filter would not make much difference. If it absorbs those wavelengths then it
absorbs those wavelengths. A weakened signal will imply that it managed to pass
through but that's not possible in this case. The dispersed signal however
would be weakened but it will never reach the intended target.

This brings up an interesting point. If the Minovsky particles absorbs all the
signal, then it will never show up on radar since there will be no return signal
and it will make whatever hiding within it completely invisible to radar.
However if it disperses the signals then it will show up on the radar and if
it's in an isolated area, although you won't be able to pinpoint the location of
the target, you could be sure that there is something hiding there.

>
> > > There is a big
> > > difference between radar being useless, and radio transmissions being
> > > useless. Stealth technology makes radar useless, but that does not
> > > mean that a stealth airplane does not need a radio.
> >
> >Current modern stealth technology (i.e. stealth fighter/bomber) doesn't
> >really make radar useless. They are not really 'invisible' to radar.
> >Their designs minimise the cross sectional area detected by radar. From
> >the point of view of an operator using conventional air defence radar, the
> >stealth aircraft are not distinguishable from birds/model aircraft etc.
>
> Most radar systems are not sensitive enough to pick up objects the size of
> birds/model airplanes. If they were it would be easy to detect a stealthy
> aircraft. Just track all the bird sized objects and have a computer
> eliminate the ones traveling less that 100 knots.

It all ofcourse depends on who has what capability.

> Only very powerful radar
> systems (like the American SPY-1 and APY-1/2) have are able to track targets
> this size, and then only at a very limited range

Unfortunately for stealth aircraft pilots that's no longer the case. Stealth and
the cover of darkness was their only means of defence for those pilots. (The
aircraft being slow with poor manoeuvrebility and lacking armament).

Now, air defense radar with sensitivity to detect stealth aircraft are available
and have been so for some time, and in the hands of Eastern bloc countries. (No
doubt the development was sped up after the Gulf War). If I recall correctly
Saddam even tried to acquire some a few years ago from the Czech republic.

No doubt though that there are newer top secret aircraft that are closer to
being truly invisible to radar than the publicly revealed ones.

Tet

-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Apr 25 2000 - 13:45:47 JST