Rodrick Su (
Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:37:47 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On
> Behalf Of L. M. Lloyd
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 7:50 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [gundam] Questions for Mark Simmons (and everyone else)
> Hash: SHA1
> I think that your analysis of military development is a bit skewed by
> its reliance on a naval analogy. Naval vessels are far and away the
> largest, most expensive and time consuming single vehicles
> constructed by any military force, and as such their development
> usually takes a very different path than things like aerospace,
> cavalry and infantry weapon development. For example you will notice
> in Gundam the rate of ship development does not move at anything near
> the rate of MS development.

True. Currently, the newest fighter/interceptor in USAF is the F-22, which
features vector thrust engines, radar stealth, unheard of maneuverability,
fly by wire. It's pretty much a revolutionary improvement over the plane
that it is replacing, the aging F-15 and the slightly newer F-16. Navy and
Marine are also getting a similiar upgrade in plane in the JSF, a carrier
based stealth fighter that looks to be a cross between F-16 and F-22 frame.
And the Navy/Marine have no backup plan if the plane failed. JSF will be
replacing the aging F-14, F/A-18, the Harriet Jumpjet, A-6. Compare that
with the carriers design, whose frame basically haven't change much in the
past 30 years.

> It seems to me that MS development is most analogous to aerospace
> development. By that I mean that you can certainly get some minor
> improvements by increasing the power plant, or upgrading the weapons
> systems, but any major performance improvements pretty much
> necessitate a new frame.
> Using the aerospace analogy, it seems to me that there are very few
> nations, east or west, that employ an evolutionary model. Sure,
> pretty much every nation has one or two airframes that have proved so
> versatile that the will keep it in service for 20 years or more in
> some role with occasional performance improvements. But as a rule,
> most airforces the world over seek revolutionary solutions for
> mission critical tactical solutions, provided the nation in question
> can afford to research such a solution. The reason for this is that
> any major increase in the maneuverability of an aircraft, almost
> always requires that you redesign the airframe (and usually flight
> control system as well), and once you are redesigning the airframe,
> you might as well undertake a redesign of all the other systems as
> well. This seems to me to be pretty much how MS would work as well.
> To get faster reaction times out of a mech, you would usually have to
> redesign the entire joint structure. By the same token, getting a
> more maneuverable MS would require a new configuration of thrusters,
> verniers, reactors and a new control system. Once you have changed
> all of that, it seems kind of silly to spend the extra engineering on
> figuring out how to shoehorn all this into an existing unit.
> All this said, the mobile frame was an attempt to allow evolutionary
> development of MS, unfortunately then the introduction of the
> variable frame pretty much shot that to hell.
> I am not saying that revolutionary development is innately superior
> to evolutionary development, what I am saying, is that in some cases
> (such as aerospace) evolutionary development is not particularly
> feasible. For example, if any nation ever fields a capable, field
> serviceable, air superiority helicopter, it is highly unlikely that
> refitting existing helicopters or airplanes will provide a credible
> solution for other nations. By the same token, America's current mini
> remote tank development program, is likely to necessitate
> revolutionary solutions by the other military powers, as their
> introduction, will most likely undermine the basic survivability and
> deployment tenets of all modern tanks.

Well, there had been example of evolutionary improvements in a the plane
design. Witness F-15, which has receive continous upgrade. I believe we
are now in F-15F model. And the warhorse of USAF for many many years F-4,
which I believe is still in service in some capacity somewhere in the world.

[ Rodrick Su [ ]
[ [ I might be crazier than you think. ]

Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jul 20 2000 - 22:29:50 JST