Difference between revisions of "Talk:FreeRIDErs (background material)"

Latest revision as of 07:30, 29 March 2017

I'd like to know more about ASA armors. Do they act as their own Forward Observes? What kind of standard equipment do they have? What their sizes range. Anything and everything basically. --Oddoneout

Well, we haven't really needed to work out details like this because they haven't come up in any story. I'm sure the avian RIDES (Light Scouts, Light Mobility) would act as spotters and use comm lasers. Feel free to bring your own ideas to the table. Also, make sure you hit the Signature button when you post. :) --Buck (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2013 (CST)

Alright, I was thinking it would be good if they have a long range sensor suite so they can be deployed without the need for an FO except when targeting at extreme ranges. My brother is in the military and he confirmed for me that this is, to an extent, how artillery can currently operate. If the target is within a certain distance they can target and fire on their own. But most of the time they have an FO or at least someone to call in coordinates for them because they're going for extreme ranges.--Oddoneout (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2013 (CST)

Where did we even mention ASA armors, and what are they? I'm confused. --Robotech Master (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (CDT)

Nextus Military RIDE Designations (122-160 AL)

I was wondering if there is a specific designation for not yet designated models, like in development models that are not yet in a stage where one would decide if it was to be a LSA or a LMA or a RMR. EXP for "experimental" springs to mind, but I havn't yet found any established RIDE that would be that far back in the development stage. -Lin (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2017 (CST)

Our thinking is that the 000-series is the prototype-prototype, the real experimental stage. The 001-series are the "production prototypes" that get field experience, then on up as each major revision is made. Buck (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2017 (CST)

I meant... the desination is XXX(g)-YYY-NNNZ, XXX the phenotype (CTH for Cheetah), g for gender, YYY for the type, NNN for where it is in this development (000 for the first prototypes) and possibly a Z for variant designations. If a RIDE would follow that designation scheme but were made explicitly as an experimental testbed for what is possible (military demonstrator so to say) instead of a real battlefield role, would that get the closest match of an existing type or would it get something different like EXP or MDM (militrary demonstration model)?

I ask, because some big point of the plot I have in mind is, that the RIDE was designed with just matching very few goals to prove it was possible, skipping on any non essential other part. In this case, it is for a cheetah modeled high speed one with the goal to break the 2000 meters in 10 seconds. That would meet the LSA, LMA and RMR brackets, but at the same time the explicit skipping on anythign that would be exra weight (including what was needed to fulfill all the other parts of that role) does make it hard to place it in either of those, so I thought EXP or something to evade something even more civillian sounding, like RCE and FRI (Race or Formula RIDE). --Lin (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2017 (CDT)

This is more-or-less answered in-story: Fritz was the prototypes' prototype's prototype, the first RIDE after Rattigan, and the very first to be a transforming mecha. His model designation was LNX(m) LMA-000. If the record-attempt RIDE was a military project, it would probably be designated a Scout or Mobility Armour (if I recall correctly, RMR stands for "Rapid Medical Response", which would necessitate medical equipment). There is a chance that it would be given a unique code, though. LSR for "Land Speed Record" sounds both apt and military.

--Proginoskes (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2017 (CDT)

I think LSR would work in this context, myself. -Buck (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2017 (CDT)

It's worth remembering that this designation is a specific designation designed by and for the use of the Nextus Military. Given how remarkably fiddly it is, with sections to denote just about everything but favorite color and preferred hairstyle, it definitely fits in with the general Nextus bureaucratic outlook. But there's no reason at all anyone except Nextus government branches needs to abide by it. If the RIDE in question was designed by some private company for uses having nothing to do with Nextus government service, there's no reason at all it needs to use an XXX(g)-YYY-NNNZ designator. It would be like a private aircraft manufacturer deciding to call its plane "F- something." They could if they wanted, but it doesn't mean anything. --Robotech Master (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2017 (CDT)

Lifter Vehicle Designations and Licensing Separator

This article is specified to be "PAAS TX-502-V (Adopted 4 Oct, 152 AL)", so it is the law in 152. But what was the speed limit of skimmers and flyers before? Was it unregulated mostly? What kind of bureaucratic stuff one would have to face in 146 AL? My problem is: how do GEV/Ekranoplans licensed? GEVs on earth are classified as ships: quite some designs are unable to go over 150 meters and achieve true flight and they operate over water most of the time (as it is reasonable flat to provide groundeffect and has little to no structures in the way, but they are capable of operation over land. On the other hand, large GEVs operate in the speed band of slow bombers and propellercraft (caspian sea monster: 650 km/h top). The speed I had in mind though is about Mach 1.4 (476 m/s = 1715 km/h), without true flight but with a ceiling of about 15 meters for this speed.

Now, how would such a GEV-skimmer mode RIDE be classified by Alohan, Nextus and Nuevo San Antonio jurisdition in 146 and 152 respectively? Skimmer (by virtue of being a RIDE and ignoring the speed limits)? Airplane (due to speed and ignoring the service ceiling being practically on the ground)? Ship (analogous to earth)? not registerable at all (as breaking any specification)? Or is it a special vehicle with a lot of bureaucracy to dodge? --Lin (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2017 (CDT)