Replying to Katana Fleet
Topic Summary
Phoenix Rising
Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:08 PM
Reedek
Posted 09 January 2010 - 09:46 PM
Kaleb Graff
Posted 23 December 2009 - 06:00 PM
Ghostrider
Posted 23 December 2009 - 05:50 PM
Isn't that the version that BAE fixed, and was scheduled to go into service 6 years ago? I know the Raptor looks similar in delays, but at least that's a new aircraft. I get your point, but it's obvious they could afford something better in those hundred years.In fact, they are about to go into production of the MRA4 - so we are happily building a 55 year old design.
What's really sad is the fact that I'm pretty sure that if you used a dreadnaugt in the Clone Wars TV show, everyone would rush out and buy the toy as the latest new thing, not realizing it originated 20 years ago.
Yeah. 2.3 billion- no 3.8 billion later and it still hasnt gotten off the ground. - and yes - you can't avoid the lemming factor.
Kaleb Graff
Posted 23 December 2009 - 03:38 PM
Isn't that the version that BAE fixed, and was scheduled to go into service 6 years ago? I know the Raptor looks similar in delays, but at least that's a new aircraft. I get your point, but it's obvious they could afford something better in those hundred years.In fact, they are about to go into production of the MRA4 - so we are happily building a 55 year old design.
What's really sad is the fact that I'm pretty sure that if you used a dreadnaugt in the Clone Wars TV show, everyone would rush out and buy the toy as the latest new thing, not realizing it originated 20 years ago.
Ghostrider
Posted 23 December 2009 - 02:48 PM
I missed the Tomcat being nerfed! It doesn't make the news over here.
We are dumb enough to keep the Nimrod going, and that design goes back to the deHaviland Comet!
In fact, they are about to go into production of the MRA4 - so we are happily building a 55 year old design.
Perhaps I shoud rephrase my original point.
The best reason for building a 50+ year old design is that you cant be bothered to design something new (or can't afford to)!
Ghost
Kaleb Graff
Posted 17 December 2009 - 08:03 PM
Basically, stuff stays in service until replaced. However, just because we've used the B-52 for 55 years doesn't mean we've built any in 45.
Ghostrider
Posted 17 December 2009 - 06:16 PM
In outbound flight it said that dreadnaughts were Rendilli's "Newest present to the militarily obsessed," which I interpreted to mean that they originated around 27 BBY. Also, why would you build a fleet with 60 year old ships. Blast the prequels. None of this makes any sense.
If it's a good design - you keep it. If i'm right , the US Tomcat is 40 years old and still going strong. That 's why you build with old designs, cos you know they work. New designs have hidden flaws in them.
Fundamentally the Dreadnaught Heavy curuiser is an excellent design. Retro-fitting modern shielding and adding base fighters still kept in in the running in the Thrawn Era. and they may be old by 200 dreadnaughts pack a punch, especially if you have an unlimited source of crewers!
Kaleb Graff
Posted 17 December 2009 - 02:18 PM
feld
Posted 17 December 2009 - 01:55 PM
heh. I thought the same as you until I realized that I was thinking like a modern person on Earth. To us, technology is advancing ludicrously fast and five years is an eternity (in information technology - it's nothing in propulsion or power). But I don't think that the space technology of the GFFA changes because people discover new ways of doing things. Rather, technology changes like a fad. It's a wierd mix of high technology and Lord of the Rings. Most reasearch appears to be digging into records to finding out how some other race chose to solve a particular problem in the past.Also, why would you build a fleet with 60 year old ships.
Put another way, the people of the Star Wars galaxy have had hyperdrive for 25,000 years. 25,000 years ago, the human race was painting pictures on cave walls. We didn't even have writingyet. 25,000 years from now, we may just have pushed up against some fundamental physical limit or other on what is "knowable" of the universe from within the universe.
Anyway, that's how I learned to stop worrying and love the non-intuitive way Lucas does tech. There's alittle more on the idea at Saxton's site.
v/r
feld