Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
The low range was due to a loss of advanced targeting equipment. The fact AC20 shells are also literal pancakes doesn't help either haha
That is my opinion about the matter.
There's a problem with your argument, the A-10C can't function without air superiority and it can't gain air superiority by itself as it is solely CAS (Close Air Support).
The F-22 on the other hand was solely developed to gain air superiority and can carry long range air-to-air missiles as well as short range and medium range, depending on loadout.
When engaging an enemy to gain air superiority there are multiple rounds of engagement, firstly there's the long range engagement at 80+ nmi (nautical miles), this usually generates the most kills due to the surprise factor and relies solely on who shoots first, hence stealth being the focus for the F-22. Most of China's losses during war games with countries like Thailand, come from the long range engagement. Then there's the medium range engagement which is around 50+ nmi, this is again a high Pk (kill probability) engagement simply because the loser of the first engagement is at a severe disadvantage due to losses and being out of formation. Then there's the short range engagement and this isn't like Top Gun, short range is around 5-15 nmi, it's rare you get within range to use your 30mm, it's better to cover your squadron with countermeasures than fly into a gun fight, using the 30mm is a last resort or for ground strafing runs. At this range you're relying on catching the stragglers mid manoeuvre, usually by tag teaming them with a wingman, an aircraft mid manoeuvre is an easier target to hit with a missile as it has less ability to alter it's trajectory.
Then there's the other engagement that started prior to the above, the air-to-ground engagement, this is where your F-35's come in or your B2's and B-21s, they'll hit radar sites, SAM sites, SPAAG's, SAM vehicles, airfields, etc, alongside the TLAM barrage to overwhelm their anti-air network. Now the A-10, despite being CAS, can't do this job either because it is A) too slow and B) too visible on radar, they'd be dead before they could launch a single AGM, period. This is why the USAF keeps trying to mothball the entire fleet, it is an obsolete piece of military hardware and this is coming from someone who loves the damn thing, being boots on the ground in two tours alongside the US.
Now the F-15EX Eagle II can do the job of an F-22, albeit with less efficiency and a higher casualty rate. This is why the USAF's current fleet of F-15's is being upgraded to this newer refit because as you rightly said, the F-22 costs way too much, $350 million whereas the F-15EX Eagle II costs $97 million. A full fleet of F-22's is too costly but supplementing the 180 or so F22's with 300 F-15EX's is a smart move as you can whittle them down with the F-22's at long range and mop up with the F-15EX's.
The F-16 was designed to be an air superiority fighter that was easy to manufacture in large quantities, be reliable and manoeuvrable, it only has the one engine compared to the F-15 though so it's outperformed by the F-15 once you reach short engagement ranges due to a lack of thrust, as such it has evolved into a multirole fighter instead. While it will be used to help initially establish air superiority due to its numbers and ability to mount long range air-to-air missiles, it is primarily a multirole fighter now and as such it's primary use is mostly electronic warfare to screen the initial advance towards the enemy before engaging and CAS, it's better to leave the air superiority to the aircraft best suited to the job and provide them with EWAR support instead.
You can't use Battletech's, meat is cheap rule either, pilots are harder to replace than aircraft so you want good aircraft to keep the pilots alive. It's better to have a fleet of 800 or so great pilots than 1600 mediocre ones. A good pilot in a good piece of hardware will stay alive much longer than a good pilot in a piece of cheap junk or a mediocre pilot in a sixth gen fighter.
The same counts for ground vehicles, which is why NATO prioritises crew survivability for its MBT's because it's cheaper and more time efficient to build a new MBT than train a new crew up to competent levels. It's better to have a pricier, more deadly, more survivable tank who's primary purpose is hunting other tanks than it is to have something cheaper, mass produced and can fill many roles. This is because it's no longer WWII, the philosophy of more is better, as was the case with the Sherman and T-34, is almost obsolete due to the complexity of the technology currently fielded. Yes you want some cheaper options but you want them for other roles, your battlefield superiority roles are left to your more expensive options, the rest of the roles are left to cheaper options, like, in the case of ground combat, IFV's or mostly just good old boots on the ground.
Metal Gear Rex can fire traceless, untrackable conventional projectiles and nuke warheads to any pinpoint location from anywhere on the planet or even into space against incoming warheads / orbital targets with it's railgun. It's also equipped with 2 GAU Avenger gatling cannons, 4 large auto-loading racks of Hellfire anti-tank missiles, and what is essentially a high powered laser for defence.
It can climb any terrain easy, can run at about 140km/hr and it can jump and leap to new positions in any direction. It uses a reinforced compound armour and only requires a single pilot.
Similar in the SEED timeline of gundam, though there it was Neutron Jammers(which also cancel out nuclear power). That one even interferes directly with ALL communications, to the point where they brought back using colored flares to signal pilots to return to base and stuff. There WAS some ships trying to use detachable guns to fight the mobile suits, but they proved too hard to control, and simply not as able to adapt to a battlefield.
Front Mission even outright says tanks are the superior weapons for mass combat 9 times out of 10, as you can train crews to operate them faster, and they cost less. The issue is that Wanzers, the mechs of the setting are only slightly more expensive, and have a utility, such as customization via limbs and equipment, that the tanks lack. It's BS, but it's attempting to explain it. Helps that they ARE continuing to develop other sorts of weapons, as we see in front missions 2, 3, and 4, so Wanzers are more platforms for them, than the weapons themselves.
Yes actually. Considering all armor in Battletech is Ablative rather then "Penetration/Non Penetration". Machine guns can even put the hurt on a Battlemech. The problem is, the amount of *Damage* those things can put out in about a ten second period- isnt appreciable enough to win that fight. Even the first Battlemech won a 1v4 and curbed the last tank in the process.
Sidebar, to add onto the "Political" nature of the war, the amount of drop tonnage is a factor here too. True, Tanks would be more 'cost effective', but Mechs are force multiplers per pound. When you can bring say. A Dropship of several tanks, or several mechs? The Mechs are more valuable. In BT- transporting war machines is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥' nightmare.
In an interstellar future where material concerns are less of a thing? A mech might be more 'wasteful', but your really not hurting to the resources of war to get the back into function. Like slapping on ♥♥♥♥ tons of armor (Using Myomer to carry more armor per pound) on a Mech. The tank is more compact and efficient, but when you print thousands of tons of 'armor' in a day, across a massive empire? You can afford to be wasteful.
But in end, it's mostly for fun and entertainment. Old fans, older people, and smart people should aware of this for long time. I guess new fan or young people might not aware of that till later that it's not work like that in real life, but it's all come down for fun and entertainment.
Beside we don't want war machines in real life, enough of trouble in real life, we do want high fantasy where no death and lot of love, not war and death in real life.
It's like people know nothing of the lore, Battlemechs are designed with myomer artificial muscle fibres and the pilot is connected directly to the mech via a neurohelmet which lets them control the mech as if it were their own body. Can a main battle tank climb up a cliff face to gain a tactical advantage? No. Can main battle tanks easily traverse forest, jungle, or city combat zones, not really.
Funny thing in Battletech, Spaceship warship is very deadly yet ban or not build anymore due forgot tech and airstrike is very rare yet deadly than Mech in world of battletech, but airstrike do help keep environment less damage and far more deadly than Mech, where Mech walk all over and damage whole environment unnecessary so in that regent. air is more efficient than ground, due able to carry deadly weapon and not damage any environment on the way to target plus lot faster and get job quicker, unlike mech where much slower and had to walk all over ground to damage environment.
I am petty sure I don't want Mech in real life, it's just stay in game for fun' sake but real life, that is would not fun if it real life, it's more harm than good, I dare said.
Now android or robet, similar shape as humankind side, that is whole other story but it's should not be war but for love and service to humankind, although guard, and enforce is questionable but we don't want android/robet like those The Terminator or marvel sentinel, that is big no, that is far scary and worse than Mech, I think.
But A.I. Artificial Intelligence Movie 2001 or Robot & Frank is great and good because it's based of love, compassion and service to humankind when done correct.
Whole thing Mechwarrior is just fun gameplay, but it's won't work in real life and better off that way. It's cool but no thank in real life due massive unseen consequences more than benefits.
(Noticed, I was talk about huge size of war Mech on based of battletech game, not smaller mech like worker use Mech to carry or lift goods (not war mech, worker mech, smaller size like car size, might be ok and work for labor thing, I guess)
Honestly if we ever hit Gundam or armored core style mechs ♥♥♥♥ would be nuts, Near perfect sync with a machine, weapons the size of skyscrapers and the insane top speeds that can be done at G forces that would paste a human.
My last big point toward mechs, is pray we never make Energy shields Mechs get a lot more Viable if they have a BIG generator with a shield that could block anything but massive battleships, then all they need is basic plating and some big f off cannons.