User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/2/2013 8:51:40 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You got it, OP. energy is the limiting factor...and cost. Somehow I don't see us finding funding for even 10,000 suits of power armor these days, no matter how bad ass it is. It seems like there would be more to it. If two men can move 200lbs of weapons and ammo on the battlefield faster than 1 man in a suit, are not those two men more effective? There seems to be more than just strength required. This looks, in it's current form, like a great idea for people arming aircraft, moving heavy parts around, etc. But there is more than just power consumption keeping this tech off the front lines. Humans tend to sell themselves short in terms of their physical capabilities. We may not be particularly bullet resistant but not many machines really are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2013 8:52:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I'd be willing to bet that the research will get rolled into ground drones instead. Autonomous ones that require no operator, and therefore will not question or report orders to fire upon civilians. http://static.pagenstecher.de/uploads/8/87/879/879b/normal/terminator.jpg How long before they realize that their carbon based overlords are full of shit, before or after watching the terminator? Somewhere it figures out: "Hey these dipshits intend to pull the plug on me when they are done rounding up the opposition." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2013 9:02:20 AM EDT
[#3]
 Or something in reality:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2013 9:15:07 AM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2013 9:16:21 AM EDT
[#5]
ALET! The AI and Drone lovers are trying to take over this thread!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2013 5:15:12 AM EDT
[#6]
The correct question is how many DECADES are we from this science fiction wet dream.
The answer is: nobody knows, because we aren't even close to having that technology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2013 10:47:39 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
The correct question is how many DECADES are we from this science fiction wet dream. The answer is: nobody knows, because we aren't even close to having that technology. If futurists (fake job) and others can make wild projections about a singularity event by 2050. Then I am confident we can make guesses about what is a much more mature technology then sentient AI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 8:56:50 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
The correct question is how many DECADES are we from this science fiction wet dream. The answer is: nobody knows, because we aren't even close to having that technology. An exo-skeleton for logistics support is a few years from being fielded. I would call that close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:09:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
I totally read the thread title as "How far are we from a flaming armored suit?"  Flame on: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:09:45 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
I totally read the thread title as "How far are we from a flaming armored suit?" Flame on:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:10:36 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:13:47 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
The tethered XOS suit is supposed to enter service in the Army in 2015, and an untethered version around 5 years later. While these suits are designed for moving heavy items, you can bet someone is attaching weapons and armor to it. I think having a good power source is the limiting factor. Give a young soldier a suit that gives him super strength and you're guaranteed some shenanigans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:14:54 AM EDT
[#13]
I don't know how long it will be, but I'm looking forward to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:17:25 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:17:48 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16608216/huntercom.gif I don't know how long it will be, but I'm looking forward to it. Heavy Gear is not welcome in this thread. This thread is for the true kings of the 23rd century battlefield. Battlemechs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:24:24 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Sounds fun...sign me up I want one too! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:27:38 AM EDT
[#17]
We need effective batteries or a cheap fuel cell first.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:29:14 AM EDT
[#18]
I don't think it matters too much, it's so much easier to create destructive energy than it is to create a machine that can withstand it that it doesn't matter.
High-energy technologies, superbatteries, microfusion, warp drive, all have a serious drawback in that regard, the destructive power they represent is far easier to employ than their positive use. So long as people are prone to murder , mayhem and terrorism we're probably better off without, which is a huge shame. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:39:38 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Heavy Gear is not welcome in this thread. This thread is for the true kings of the 23rd century battlefield. Battlemechs. Fuck this! I'll start my own giant robot thread, with blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the robots! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 10:01:13 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You got it, OP. energy is the limiting factor...and cost. Somehow I don't see us finding funding for even 10,000 suits of power armor these days, no matter how bad ass it is. It seems like there would be more to it. If two men can move 200lbs of weapons and ammo on the battlefield faster than 1 man in a suit, are not those two men more effective? There seems to be more than just strength required. This looks, in it's current form, like a great idea for people arming aircraft, moving heavy parts around, etc. But there is more than just power consumption keeping this tech off the front lines. The difference is that one armored suit could employ weapons and armor that 2 men could not, (ie hand held m2, minigun, mk14, with enough armor to withstand small arms fire. It wouldn't replace those two men but it would be a highly useful fire support unit. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 10:06:42 AM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 1:49:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Have you seen Iron Man II?
Drones are better...to a point. To have to carry a weak fleshling around in the suit is a waste of a lot of resources and places severe limitations on what a drone suit MIGHT be able to do. The human is a limiting factor. Or it WILL be. A very SERIOUS limiting factor on performance, range, endurance, weapons load, agility, speed, and ability to take battle damage while remaining mission effective. Additionally, humans can change their minds and decide NOT to follow a mission plan. But, there's also a benefit to having a man along for the ride to make decisions a machine can't make and interpret information that is meaningless to a machine. The IDEAL scenario puts the man in control, with full sensory input, but without his PHYSICAL presence in the suit. Remotely piloted suits, assuming the data link can be made robust and jam-proof in a hostile combat environment, gives the best of all possible worlds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 2:02:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Why a bipedal design?
Because it doesn't need a larger turn radius area. Imagine if you had the rear of a horse and trying to move around your house. might work if you were mounting heavy weapons, but for light infantry type units in areas that are developed your going to want the bipeds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 6:11:19 PM EDT
[#24]
when you look at it from the point of view of the elites that run things, suits make no sense.
why bother, when you have as many naturally produced twenty year olds as you care to sign up? if the supply gets low, you tank the economy a bit, and you have more candidates. you give them cheap rifles, body armor, and radios to call up the apaches and artillery. lots of low maintenance, low power units beats a few powerful, expensive manbots. it worked for most of the twentieth century. this policy, at it's most cynical in WW1, used uniformed bodies to soak up enemy ordnance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 6:12:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Which, of course, is why nobody fields main battle tanks or high-performance jet aircra--
Oh, wait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 6:22:45 PM EDT
[#26]
This is my favorite:
 Of course, you have to be (mostly) dead to operate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 6:25:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Zeig Zeon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 6:27:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
This is my favorite: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121126045036/warhammer40k/images/5/53/DeathCompanyDreadnought000.jpg Of course, you have to be (mostly) dead to operate it. We have to go deeper. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 7:13:59 PM EDT
[#29]
How about those spider tank dealies from Ghost in the Shell. Those things were cool, I'll take a couple of those.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 7:17:27 PM EDT
[#30]
The prawn mech suit in District 9 sets the standard, so far, for a movie prop suit that looks like something real and workable.
Obviously not optimized for the human form, however.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 7:35:46 PM EDT
[#31]
Nothing compares to the classical sauce:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 9:37:53 PM EDT
[#32]
Tony Stark made it look so easy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 10:21:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Juan Rico called.
Said y'all 're faggots.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 10:25:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
a potential problem with super batteries - you absolutely have to prevent accidental release of all the power at the same time. Image the fun if it got shorted out? Reminds me of the blowing up the electric car in Demolition Man. As it is today, there are plenty of cases of people being burned with lithium batteries shorted in their pockets - they burn quite well when shorted. In the book Armor, you flip the relays the proper way (discovered by accident if I remember correctly) and you get a nuclear explosion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 10:29:37 PM EDT
[#35]
Am I the first to get a metal gear pic in?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 10:32:56 PM EDT
[#36]
Lockheed suit is called HULC.
SMASH!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 10:33:49 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
This is my favorite: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121126045036/warhammer40k/images/5/53/DeathCompanyDreadnought000.jpg Of course, you have to be (mostly) dead, too tied up with your looks, and insane to operate it. FIFY in regards to the exact version you pictured. It does beat Power Armor with nipples though, so better than other bits of that chapter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 10:37:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Why would you put a human in there? you'd need life support and all that other crap.
Look at all the unmanned aerial vehicles coming up. The future is with unmamned vehicles, that includes air assault drones and ground assault drones. Of course, that's also humanity's downfall. One day, the internet will become sentient, and self aware, and will take over the control of the drones, and you already know the rest of the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 11:41:35 PM EDT
[#39]
I agree with the power system being the limiting issue.
Did you see the news article about the tiny little flying robot the size of a mosquito? The only problem with it is - the power source is external and conected to the flyer via wires. I hope you understand the problem with that. There are no miniature batteries and even if there was, they'd be to heavy to lift with the "mosquito". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 11:52:52 PM EDT
[#40]
I'm still not seeing a tactical need for them anyway, can't clear a house with it, you'd probably fall through the floor... Wheeled or tracked vehicle would still be better for patroling streets (more armor, still can carry bigger guns and more ammo AND spit out dismounts for clearing houses, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2013 11:55:19 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Why put meat in it? Why make it bipedal? Envision something like a heavily armed spider operating autonomously, maybe in support of infantry or armor. Of course, nothing could possibly go wrong with this scenario. Enjoy your nightmares, GD   |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 12:01:25 AM EDT
[#42]
I'll settle for unpowered, lightweight body armor with an ac built in thanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 12:37:06 AM EDT
[#43]
I would wager 5-10 years. At least for something that aids logistics(loading,hauling). Look at some of the machines the japanese use for demolition and building. Also the logging industry in europe.
Also what is this whole "has to be batteries" mindset? doesn't the four legged Darpa hauler use a weedwhacker engine to run an alternator of some kind? So, take that to another level, two or three of those micro v-12 motors, one for the computers, one for the hydraulics, one backup. Slap a ten gallon armored fuel tank on the back. Those little motors sip fuel so...say 12+ hours combat time. Plenty to push into a city before refueling is needed no? Sorry haven't had my coffee yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 1:15:51 AM EDT
[#44]
Bunny Mech FTMW.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 1:30:18 AM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 2:00:18 AM EDT
[#46]
Any one build a Puma I would pilot it as long as it came with ppc's .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 2:03:14 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
DARPA's Legged Squad Support System Raytheon XOS Gen2 Exoskeleton What is the greatest technological challenge to overcome? Technologically speaking we seem to have the computing power and hardware needed to control these machines. Existing armor and weapons are small/light enough to use. Is power source the greatest challenge? They haven't learned yet to stay the fuck away from anything Cyberdyne. Cyberdyne's HAL suit is still unquestionably, the most advanced exoskeleton on the planet |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 2:35:17 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Somehow I don't see us finding funding for even 10,000 suits of power armor these days, no matter how bad ass it is. I'm sure DHS will have them. Then, they'll start giving them out to every SWAT team interested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 3:18:50 AM EDT
[#49]
A suit armored to defend against ballistic projectiles solves the wrong problem, because the assymetrical warfare tactics we most often face no longer involve the use of ballistic projectiles. The thing we need to armor ourselves against are blast injuries. TBI from concussive blasts the number one cause of casualties and bodily injury concussive blast is number two. Our enemies no longer try to go toe to toe with us. They use IED's and suicide bombers and try to blow us up. Traditional armor protects only against shrapnel from these types of blasts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2013 3:23:25 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Why would you put a human in there? you'd need life support and all that other crap. Look at all the unmanned aerial vehicles coming up. The future is with unmamned vehicles, that includes air assault drones and ground assault drones. Of course, that's also humanity's downfall. One day, the internet will become sentient, and self aware, and will take over the control of the drones, and you already know the rest of the story. ECM/Jamming is surely a threat to drones when you aren't just fighting goat herders in Afganistan. If we had true AI to "drive" these things would we want them to? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
