Nashoba you haven't followed this thread as intently as I have in the past two hours so let me elaborate as well.
In SARP, you're going to have an imaginary reason to back any disposition you retain all of which do very nicely in a world that isn't real. now in some cases designers must actually stop to consider the fact that you have basically replaced practical combined arms military doctrine with nonsense laced with that disposition I referenced and sell it as adept science fiction. But making something that is supposed to be by request actually "good" in the air does require true aerodynamics. But since as I said you've replaced all combat doctrine with basically
"Power armors, aether, power armor support"
Even though my hypothetical machine doesn't conflict with any of this, in fact if anything it coincides using effective tactics for delivering weapons then getting down on the ground and laying the close fire.
So maybe you also don't understand why something while flying in the air properly even briefly can have a particular advantage on other units, but hypothetically speaking the tactic would go as such against purely PA units in simplistic form before I let your paws touch it.
The machine will be able to get to the power armors faster than one not aerodynamic in the atmosphere, it contacts the power armor squad it will support, the squad if containing a JTAC provides information and perhaps even a data link to the power armor systems for a combined sensor point of interests. This gets conveyed to the squad of mechs. They fly in and go silent to first disable any anti air defense before providing CAS on the SPI (Sensor point of interest) with a strike from above. Nothing in this dicussion states that the machine had to start fighting next to the troops after all. Then after the heavy payload is expended the pylon laced skeleton is released and the machine unfolds in the middle of the drop into the presumably bi-pedal form based on your referenced designs, the skeleton loss is probably only comparable to the loss of material in a space vessels torpedo, you loose many materials in war and so this is acceptable in real life combat doctrine just like fuel tanks. But once on the ground it is basically just going to be a mech to act as I said in my first post, a giant unit to support your overpowered PA squads with close fire support.
What you stated isn't a contrast to the aptitude in my design, rather your lack of willingness to even read that the majority of It's purpose is to support ground forces in numerous scenario and also brushing aside actual aerodynamics in something that was demanded from your site owner to be good in the air. This design isn't about anything but adding a mech to your forces because people want to pilot one in RP in truth; and others will choose to dictate exactly what that entails down to the T simply because they have a bias or are a suck up.
Guess what guy, in reality we can make an object fly without wings too.
And you can blow up power armors without a mech too in your simplified battle doctrine
Does it work better is the question.
Maybe what you need is more power armors if you don't want to accept that your machine doesn't have to just walk around the whole time for it to be a mech and god forbid I go against the grain with actual design sense you can relate with any modern mechanized military.