Post by: Manedwolf on October 07, 2007, 09:30:18 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071006/tc_afp/lifestylehealthtechnologyjapan_071006174844
Except they're still aiming for the wrong market. They need to look at military applications.
The Army and Marines want to meet their recruiting goals? Get Japan to develop hardsuits. Who wouldn't want to wear an armored, powered, bombproof, small-arms-proof exosuit that let you tear doors from hinges and pick up cars? They'd just need to develop the "BFG"-class of rifle to go along with it.
Post by: Kyle on October 07, 2007, 09:48:10 PM
I have this image in my head of a new imperial japan...
"I know our constitution restricts how large of an army we have... And in truth, we only have 37 soldiers in our army. BUT THEY ALL FLY GUNDAMS! BWAHAHAH!"
Post by: LadySmith on October 07, 2007, 10:17:50 PM
Post by: Kyle on October 07, 2007, 11:24:02 PM
What are we gonna do when the japs find their gundamite reserves?
Post by: DustinD on October 07, 2007, 11:32:55 PM
Post by: AJ Dual on October 08, 2007, 06:04:28 AM
Japan has sort of a top-down approach to robotics in general. They tend to just try and make "a robot& any robot" then refine it refine it and refine it& If you're familiar with Honda's "Asimo" and all it's precursors you're familiar with the approach. It's sort of a "concept car" approach to robotics. Quite often, those "amazing Japanese robot" videos are just very expensive puppets making 100% pre-choreographed movements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASoCJTYgYB0
Did Asimo's vision system scan the steps, and then calculate their size and position incorrectly? Or were the stairs simply an inch over from where the programmers scripting Asimo's movements were told they would be? I know Asimo has to have some sophisticated balancing and position control to walk bipedaly, which was a challenge Honda engineers were working on for years, but I also know Asimo's "brain" is running over WiFi, and it's not making it's decisions locally etither.
Here in the States, DARPA here, or a university there is working on all sorts of robotic or exoskeletal problems, very often our prototypes look junky and unpolished, but more often than not, the underlying technology is very, very advanced. There's very heavy emphasis on instilling "reflexes" neural networks that replicate and uncover the reflexes that animal life has perfected over millions of years. Autonomous semi-intelligent limbs that don't need a big "central brain" telling them what to do, just like your own feet and knees need your brain telling them what to do every second so you don't fall over.
Watch this DARPA "packbot" making un-choreographed movements outdoors in unpaved environments.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3G-UE1HwGI take special note at about 0:30 sec where the man walks up and kicks the packbot, and it "stumbles" and regains it's balance. It's eerily like a "real" quadraped animal when it does so. The software and microcontrollers are making those decisions on the fly. Often there even isn't a "central" program at all, just nested series of reflexes that function in a hierarchy. Quite possibly giving insight to how insects are capable of doing so much with so little in the way of neural matter.
And the DARPA grand challenge, the Stanford team won with a modified VW Toureg SUV, which independantly navigated 132 miles of Nevada desert, a mixed courseway of open terrain, and roads, it made it's own decisions and detected all obstacles with it's own scanners and vision systems. http://www.grandchallenge.org/
I'll go out on a limb and say that we all know someone in our circle of friends and family who is a licensed driver, but probably wouldn't have made it&
I think exoskeletal powered armor for infantry is quite possibly an excellent idea. However, we'll probably never see multi-story "Gundams". Even with what will be possible with futuristic materials science, the same engineering problems that limited the maximum attainable size of the dinosaurs will come into play. And perhaps more importantly, a TALL bipedal walking robot will be one primary thing on the battlefield.
A bullet magnet.
A HMMV and a TOW missile could easily take out such a robot from a safe distance, how much did the HMMV and the TOW cost? How much did that Gundam cost? Now, a exoskeleton that could duck behind walls, jump over them, or hide in a building AND fire it's own TOW back at that HMMV, that's another story...
Post by: Werewolf on October 08, 2007, 06:27:49 AM
Quote
A HMMV and a TOW missile could easily take out such a robot from a safe distance, how much did the HMMV and the TOW cost? How much did that Gundam cost? Now, a exoskeleton that could duck behind walls, jump over them, or hide in a building AND fire it's own TOW back at that HMMV, that's another story...
Which is exactly why - as way fun as they are to play - the whole Mechwarrior series of games takes a major suspension of disbelief to play. I mean - come on - 2 to 3 story tall machines, walking on two feet and piloted by a human yet missiles are barely guided, aren't fire and forget and have ranges of only 2 or 3 KM's. And in a society that's capable of interstellar travel... - puh-lease.Still - the whole concept of man-sized combat armor vis a vis Starship Troopers (though not nearly as advanced) does seem like a real possibility. Maybe in the next 20 years we'll see something like it.
As one poster postulated:
Quote
The Army and Marines want to meet their recruiting goals? Get Japan to develop hardsuits. Who wouldn't want to wear an armored, powered, bombproof, small-arms-proof exosuit that let you tear doors from hinges and pick up cars?
If we had it and no one else did? Imagine the possibilities.
Post by: AJ Dual on October 08, 2007, 07:35:18 AM
I can think of an even bigger reason to need exoskeletal armor in the near future.
Look at the work that's being done with "swarm bots". Robot's who's individual intelligence is quite limited, but they have rules for interacting and producing emergent group behaviors to accomplish tasks.
Just like ants.
Now imagine thousands, millions of these deployed on a battlefield, about the size of cats, maybe rats. Each of them has a 1/4lb of C4 in it's belly, and it's programmed to seek out humans and kamikaze. The ammonia in sweat, voice/speech recognition of the enemy's language, image recognition of the enemy's uniforms and weapons, or simply just things that emit IR at 98.6 degrees.
And some factory in Chinostan is turning them out for $19.95/ea in bulk. And there's flyer models, spider models, wheeled jobs like those Segway scooters, really little things that roll around like hockey pucks or tennis balls. They're deployed from the air by UAV's in cannisters like the "old-time" cluster muntions, or scattered behind as the enemy "retreats" from an area.
In essence, imagine a minefield. But the mines are robotic ants, roaches, birds, and rats. And instead of passively waiting to be stepped on, that minfield is talking amongst itself and is hunting for you. All coordinated over wi-fi. The little "spider bots" that swarmed the ghetto in "Minority Report" looking for Tom Cruise, retinal-scanning everyone is kind of close, but imagine 100 X of them, and they're disposable anti-personell devices.
Then there's bigger ones that seek out armor and vehicles, and kill them with self-forging copper warhead disks. And full size UCAV's, with all the technology of F-22's, but no G-limits on it's manuvering envelope, having done away with that pesky fragile human in the cockpit...
Of course there will be swarms of anti-robot-robots too...
Post by: Joe Demko on October 08, 2007, 07:40:17 AM
1. Powered armor suits with integral weapons systems.
2. Lighter conventional body armor and lighter/smarter weapons.
Cool as they are, gundam-type things are basically just another AFV; a light tank with legs instead of treads carrying one guy instead of a crew. An anti-tank weapon that will take out a present-day AFV would almost certainly obliterate a powersuit. Further, can a suit carry enough fuel, munitions, and ammo (plus necessary water and rations for the pilot) for any kind of extended operation? I can easily see these things being so maintenance-intensive that their supply train would be enomous.
Kewlth aside, my big question is what will powersuits do that makes them worth the crazy amount of R&D expenditure? I'm willing to be convinced, but I see them as not much more than tomorrow's version of an armored car.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 08, 2007, 07:48:21 AM
I do, however, see a major reason for personal armor, especially if we're involved in the current theater for the long term.
Suicide bombers.
I just saw an article wherein an insurgent was saying how he had his brother go from a drinks stand with Pepsis in hand, walk over to some American GI's with a smile, offering them the drinks...and then blew himself up beside them.
With a powered, shrapnel-proof exosuit with dampening filters on incoming audio, such an event could just result in a need to be hosed off, not a medevac and lost limbs or bodybags.
CQB in powered, compact armor that was impervious to small-arms fire and booby traps, with sound enhancement, thermal imaging and a "moving map display" of the building and where your squad members are would be a big help to soldiers, I would think. (especially if it kept them comfortably cool as well!) It'd also have a severe intimidation factor to enemies.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 08, 2007, 08:04:55 AM
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 08, 2007, 08:26:42 AM
Powered armor along the lines of that in Heinlein's Starship Troopers is worn, not driven. The cap troopers didn't have to pilot their suits, they just moved as if they were going about their business, and the suits magnified their movements in force and range. The soldier who doesn't have to turn a steering wheel, but can just turn naturally to face a threat while using strength-enhanced hands to bring weapons to bear arguably has a tactical advantage over the guy driving a tankette and using a less-natural interface.
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 08, 2007, 09:05:03 AM
Post by: onions! on October 08, 2007, 09:05:50 AM
The exo-armor thing has a science fiction attraction about it, but I'm not convinced of its real world utility.
Not to put too fine a point on it but,something similar was said about computers a few years back.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 08, 2007, 09:31:48 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on October 08, 2007, 09:35:04 AM
The exo-armor thing has a science fiction attraction about it, but I'm not convinced of its real world utility.
Not to put too fine a point on it but,something similar was said about computers a few years back.
Computers have, since they were still mechanical, been acknowledged as useful for a great many things. That's a fact. I'm still willing to be convinced that the powersuit has some advantage over much less complex (therefore cheaper and most likely more reliable) one-man AFV's. Other than "it's way kewler" what is that advantage?
Post by: Strings on October 08, 2007, 09:51:30 AM
It is ALWAYS easier to make something to punch through the armour, than it is to make better armour. And there are obvious weak points that, the more you harden them, the less mobility you'll have (and you do NOT want to sacrifice that mobility)...
Think of the groin and armpit: both areas have to keep a wide range of motion, or you risk turning the wearers into the old Star Wars figures. In the case of armour meant for the modern battlefield, that can become a HUGE issue: what happens when a projectile with a high enough velocity penetrates one of those weak points? It bounces around...
You also then have to make weapons that are "suit-proof". A soldier wearing a strength-enhancing suit of powered armour, upon picking up pretty much any rifle currently available, is gonna crush it in short order...
Post by: Mabs2 on October 08, 2007, 09:52:24 AM
The mobile suits were MASS PRODUCED.
PS: Zieg Zeon.
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 08, 2007, 10:06:21 AM
Ever watch a kid who's really good at video games play? They don't have to think about what they are doing. The "you wear it, not drive it" advantage of powersuits is largely negated by improving the control interface between the pilot and the tankette to where the pilot is able to concentrate on his goals rather than simply controlling the machine. Powersuits are going to require a high level of AI in order to operate on a "you just wear it" level. Much lower levels of AI will allow a tankette that the pilot essentially intuitively controls while concentrating on his military goals.
True, a non-"just wear it" interface can, over time, become intuitive. I can control Gordon Freeman with a mouse and keyboard without thinking about it. But. Most interfaces other than a suit-type one rely on using manual dexterity to make up for interface limitations. Most of them don't make much use of other parts of the body (for instance, of all of the controls in a car, how many are controlled by your feet during normal driving ops? Three, if you drive standard. Two, if you drive automatic. One foot is dedicated to (and wasted on) exactly one thing: Go faster, or don't go faster. Things like the ability to turn the head and torso as a means of control are often overlooked. (Yes, I'm aware of gunnery seats that track the gunner's head position for aiming purposes. That's a good step in the right direction).As an example, it's possible to control a two-wheeled self-balancing scooter without using the hands, simply by allowing the machine to read subtle cues of stance. This leaves the hands free to do things like manipulate a tool or weapon. So there's no reason that vehicles need to be hand-controlled, but it takes a rather a lot more engineering to get an intuitive interface to work, whereas a steering wheel is dirt simple. But more and more, computrons come cheap. The stumbling blocks to making intuitive interfaces and wearable powered armor are more in the realm of compact power-plants and size-efficient actuators, which are engineering problems, not computer/AI problems.
I think we'll eventually see powered suits and armor for much of the same reason that the Nintendo Wii got a lot of people into video games that had never been interested before; if the interface is one you don't have to think about, even to the extent of being trained in its use in the first place, then you can get on with the business of getting work (or play) done, not learning how to get it done.
Combat aside, a powered armor suit for SAR would be outstanding; it would protect the operator from hazardous environments, would give greater strength for things like lifting and moving debris, and could get to places that a wheel- or track-based vehicle could not, as well as operating in environments that a helo could not.
-BP
Post by: AJ Dual on October 08, 2007, 10:38:27 AM
As to "what's the advantage?" I believe that the four percieved advantages of powered armor would be:
- Kinesthetic battle responses. As Joe Demko said, "point and shoot" interfaces are wonderful, but as BrokenPaw points out your own body is the ultimate. If you've tried any video games (such as the MechWarrior) franchise, or tank simulations where you can control camera (head) movment, independantly of your direction of travel, you know how disorienting it can be. However, we do it with our own body every day without a thought.
- A system that can single-handedly bring crew served, or vehicle mounted weaponry to bear in environments that are not 100% vehicle navigable. A "mini AFV" can't jump over a wall, or dive into a ditch either, nor can it climb out of a hole.
- Dexterous manipulation of the environment. Ripping open doors, moving or picking up objects (or people). Vehicles can batter things down, but they can't pull them apart easily unless you get out and throw ropes on things.
- Enhanced survivability from small-arms fire and near misses from larger weapons than infantry with which it (Should, if it's worth it) be able to keep up with, or exceed.
I don't see there'd be any need for "suit proof" weaponry, in a realistic design the weapons would be built into the arms, not held by the manipulators like in Japanime. They would be kept free to deal with obstacles at all times or push the exo-suit back up if it has to "hit the dirt" or is knocked over.
And as far as armor goes, it needs to be determined how much is needed vs. weight and material costs. If an exo-suit is an RPG magnet like a HMMV and light armor are, then I agree, it'll be an expensive failure. However, if the exo-suit can move like infantry, or better than infantry, (admittedly one of many benchmarks needed to prove an exo-suit is worth it...) direct hits won't be an issue, but survivability from fragments from area fire and near-misses will. And I would then expect any worthwhile design of exo-suit to have much, much higher survivability.
The power supply issue is a tough nut to crack, but I think some who propose this roadblock are thinking about powered weaponry AND a powered suit.
Here at least, I'm still talking about conventional weaponry. Aside from sighting systems and electronics, missiles, grenades, and bullets are "self powered". So no multi-megawatt power sources for lasers or rail guns are being asked for. We need power to move, power to communicate, power for environmental control, and power for sensors. The power requirements for gear on that list that infantry already carries are negligible already, so the two main power requirements are movement and environmental control. And that may be within reach of fuel cells, micro-turbines, or even good old IC engines.
"So what if it runs out of fuel?", is the obvious question then. What is the design's operational envelope? But you could also ask what is the continuous combat endurance of an infantryman NOT in fixed fortifications or positions before he keels over?
Our troops are driven into (and out of) battle, even our tanks are. So it's reasonable powered armor would be as well. As long as it's logistical trail isn't any worse than any other system the military has deemed worthwhile, I don't see it as a huge issue.
Of course, the development of "robust" AI, or even just full-body telepresence might make the need for having a human in the suit unnecessary. And then other form-factors such as "spider/crab", "centaur" etc. for the now "device" (not "suit") are possible.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 08, 2007, 12:44:42 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 08, 2007, 02:14:22 PM
Since they've already got some that can handle telepresence surgery, now, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch.
If you were going to walk into an unknown, hostile building, wouldn't you rather do it with a virtual self first, in the form of a walking, high-dexterity robot with stereo vision, head moment that mirrors yours and weapons?
Post by: Joe Demko on October 08, 2007, 02:27:45 PM
Post by: Werewolf on October 08, 2007, 04:27:50 PM
Quote
Anything that is "just wear it" controllable is "just wear it remotely" controllable.
The end result of that is to make war so safe that no one gets killed or hurt which ends up with war becoming pointless or something that's done all the time or...Well - y'all fill in the blank.
Wasn't it Robert E. Lee that said something to the effect that it is a good thing war is so terrible lest we become too fond of it.
Post by: AJ Dual on October 08, 2007, 04:39:59 PM
Although the ground pressure figure is just a static measure. When stepping it's dynamic. With a peak moment of pressure. Although I'd think that many different kind of animals may do very well in various soft soil environments with possibly higher ground pressure peaks (Hoofed and cloven feet etc...) running, jumping etc.
Collapsing structures you may want to enter for search or CQB purposes would definitely be a concern, but comparing legged locomotion to tracked or wheeled is apples and oranges. You can lift a leg up and reposition it immediately if footing is uncertain, something a wheel or tread can't do.
I do ultimately agree that drones or telepresence may make power armor obsolete by the time it's perfected. Much of the tech would obviously transfer, and confer the weight savings of removing the wearer and all of his support systems from the equation. I think it hinges on how quickly robust AI that's capable evolves. (And if that then drives us to a technological singularity, making warfare moot anyway..) Because the ground combat environment is an exponentially more complex processing task, as compared to what a UCAV must face (even a "crowded" combat sky is a rather empty volume of space...), or say a single-mission/purpose armed swarmbot is expected to do. And in the case of telepresence, robust AI may well still be needed to properly filter the experience for the operator.
If that's not achievable, then a human will need to be in the loop. One possibility I see is having the powered armor wearer being the "king piece" in a chessboard of various drones swarmbots etc.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 08, 2007, 07:35:47 PM
Quote
Anything that is "just wear it" controllable is "just wear it remotely" controllable.
The end result of that is to make war so safe that no one gets killed or hurt which ends up with war becoming pointless or something that's done all the time or...Well - y'all fill in the blank.
Wasn't it Robert E. Lee that said something to the effect that it is a good thing war is so terrible lest we become too fond of it.
Not really. It'd just protect our guys. Suicidal jihadists in various ickystans can't afford that sort of thing, nor would they use it. If they want to splatter themselves all over our guys in exosuits, who would merely be grossed out but not injured, they could go right ahead.
It would give our forces a decided advantage against more primitive, but effective urban guerilla warfare.
Post by: Regolith on October 08, 2007, 10:37:07 PM
Quote
Watch this DARPA "packbot" making un-choreographed movements outdoors in unpaved environments.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3G-UE1HwGI take special note at about 0:30 sec where the man walks up and kicks the packbot, and it "stumbles" and regains it's balance. It's eerily like a "real" quadraped animal when it does so. The software and microcontrollers are making those decisions on the fly. Often there even isn't a "central" program at all, just nested series of reflexes that function in a hierarchy. Quite possibly giving insight to how insects are capable of doing so much with so little in the way of neural matter.
That's kind of creepy, actually. That thing moves TOO naturally. Notice it doesn't like to get its feet wet, though (1:05).
Quote
Look at the work that's being done with "swarm bots". Robot's who's individual intelligence is quite limited, but they have rules for interacting and producing emergent group behaviors to accomplish tasks.
Last year, our university decided to hire a new Computer Science professor. There were two candidates, and both of them gave presentations to the CS faculty and students as part of their interview process. One of the candidate's presentation was on linear math used to control stop light algorithms. The other's was on swarm robotics, which he had worked on while he was at the University of Wyoming. Guess who got the job?
Swarm robots are where its going to be at, is my guess. It substitutes one single, expensive, slow to learn robot with multiples of cheap, agile robots that can communicate with each other and learn from each other's mistakes. Since each is cheap, they are somewhat expendable, but there are so many that the job is more likely to get done than not. Imagine having a dozen or hundreds of those DARPA pack dogs or unmanned AI vehicles out there doing search and locate or search and rescue missions. Or perhaps they could be in the form of aircraft or insects or any other dozens of forms, whatever is cheap to manufacture and still get the job done. Conceivably, you chain together any autonomous system together to form a swarm, so you could even link up dozens of the expensive robots, if you had the cash and need to do it. Lots and lots of potential for this kind of stuff.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 09, 2007, 02:04:20 AM
Quote
An anti-tank weapon that will take out a present-day AFV would almost certainly obliterate a powersuit.
If you can hit it. A tank is a nice, big target. A "powersuit" not so much.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 09, 2007, 04:51:29 AM
Since the armor suits are largely hypothetical now, I can't give specific methods for destroying one. I am confident that relatively inexpensive weapons capable of destroying them will follow hard upon the heels of their deployment.
Given the level of complexity involved in something like power armor my main concern is whether they would offer such an advantage in the field as to make them worth the R&D costs and the cost-per-unit for production. Is something that works out to give about as much advantage as an armed hummer worth spending billions to develop, manufacture, and deploy?
Post by: Mabs2 on October 09, 2007, 05:43:43 AM
Except this time, looks like something from anime really is possible.
Post by: MechAg94 on October 09, 2007, 04:43:53 PM
Closer to today would be wearable light armor that can shrug off most small arms. That would be something to shoot for. Todays army is so mechanized these days, I doubt individual armor suits would be necessary unless they could move pretty fast.
I have seen some robotics stuff on TV showing some of the mass insect concepts. Pretty cool and potentially pretty scary if fully developed.
Post by: MechAg94 on October 09, 2007, 04:46:53 PM
The weapons shows on the military channel are full of so many anti-armor weapons that I would hesitate to put something like that in the field unless it was very fast and capable or armored very well. Much better to focus on conventional armor and weapons that enhance the firepower of the soldier.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2007, 08:08:18 AM
Current power sources are inadequate for the task because batteries are heavy for their power output and have to be recharged often, while internal combustion engines are easily detected. Current actuators, e.g. electrical motors and step motors, have to be made big and heavy to get the kind of force or torque output necessary.
From a military perspective, if the armor is not significantly bigger than a soldier, while offering superior protection and strength without impeding mobility, it is difficult to see how the armed forces would not be all over it. Note that the chief complaint to current armor is that is it too heavy, rather than too bulky. In a power suit, the weight problem will be solved. Also, as best I can tell, losing limbs currently happens due to shrapnel wounds or due to outright tear by the force of the explosion. A power suit with interlocking plates covering almost the entire body would stop almost all shrapnel, while the underlying strong mesh of the exoskeleton will keep the limbs from being torn off. At least as far as the plates are concerned, we know it works, because soldiers have a much higher rate of survival nowadays exactly due to armor protecting the vital organs in the torso.
The counterargument of research expense is not valid, IMO. We spend over 100b per year in Iraq. I think the armor can be researched for a lot less than 1b in total costs. A modern warship costs more than that just to build. Also, the research is a one-time investment, rather than a recurring cost. Add to that the hundreds of patents on enabling and lateral techs and the resulting companies and tax revenue for the state, and the gov may even get out ahead on that.
The counterargument of countermeasures is literally valid but ultimately impractical. There will always be countermeasures. Just because there are shaped charges, RPGs, and kinetic missiles, we have not stopped making/using tanks, and just because there are SAMs, we have not stopped making/using aircraft. Their use is affected by the countermeasures but by no means negated or forestalled. Yes, if the terrorists cram a van full of explosives and ram it into a GI in power armor, the GI will not make it, but so what? If that would be the only way for them to kill our soldier, the armor has been astoundingly successful.
Finally, a tech like power armor has significant benefits beyond the physical. Decreased casualties sap the morale of the army and the society at a far slower rate, while the enemy is both frustrated and intimidated by his shrunken ability to be effective in combat.
Post by: jefnvk on October 10, 2007, 08:25:09 AM
Quote
Everybody always says "the power supply is the problem". unfortunately, it's only one problem...
Hmm, there appears to be hydraulic lines. What happens when those blow, does this thing all the suddenly become a trap for whomever is inside it?
Post by: Joe Demko on October 10, 2007, 08:41:53 AM
When you start putting in requirements like it has to be not much larger than a soldier, relatively light, permit mobility, and so on; I'll be impressed if they come up with something that Johnny Jihad can't punch a hole through with an old-fashioned anti-tank rifle. You want to talk about a blow to morale? How do you think the American people would react to video of their sons (clad in million-dollar armor) getting killed by primitives with big, clunky rifles?
Post by: MechAg94 on October 10, 2007, 08:48:31 AM
I am not really saying that armored combat suits aren't possible or practical, I just think they are a long way off and presuppose a lot of development that isn't there yet. If they could be made independently mobile, strong, and armored well, they would certainly be useful and have a place on the battlefield. If anything, something like that robot mule in the link earlier would be useful for carrying supplies or heavier weapons where tanks couldn't go.
In the end, who knows what will be around in 50 or 100 years. I doubt a lot of the weapons we have today weren't imagined 50 or 100 years ago. Go read the original War of the Worlds book. It predated Kittyhawk. Artillery was the only long distance weapon they had. With today's weapons, we could have kicked their ass except for maybe the poison gas canisters.
Post by: AJ Dual on October 10, 2007, 10:47:39 AM
Quote
Everybody always says "the power supply is the problem". unfortunately, it's only one problem...
Hmm, there appears to be hydraulic lines. What happens when those blow, does this thing all the suddenly become a trap for whomever is inside it?
To me, especially on the back of the legs, they look to be bundles of PC-style ribbon cables, probably for sensors and stepper motors, and it's probably a lot bigger than it needs to be, giving modularity for troubleshooting and prototyping.
There was a story of another Japanese Exoskeleton wearer carrying a paralyzed man on a hike up to the top of a mountain....
Not a lot of robotic applications use hydraulics anymore. Not precise enough for fine work, and not rapidly "twitch" adjustable for the constant "walk by wire" adjustments needed for bipedal locomotion, or the negative feedback systems needed in the exo-suits control interface with it's wearer.
As to all the engineering challenges, power, and mechanical limitations of getting workable combat suits, I agree, they're formidable.
However, it's also possible these challenges will be solved out of the desire to get the suits. And then those discoveries could have extraordinary applications in other fields. Who knows? Perhaps DARPA work on powered armor could solve the "Electric car problem".
Or, it works in reverse too. Someone working on new laptop batteries might, solve the electric car and the power-suit problem.
Perhaps power-armor will come to nothing, but will revolutionize construction, rescue work, and treatment for paralysis victims and the infirm.
"Grandma? I need to change a flat, can you help me and lift the car up please?"
"Why sure sweetie!"
WHIZZZZZ-THUNK
WHIZZZZZ-THUNK
WHIZZZZZ-THUNK
(groaning metal)
"Where do you want it dear?"
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2007, 11:11:21 AM
Countermeasures have resulted in the removal of various military equipment from use.
Only to be replaced with more advanced versions, in most cases along the same line of tech advance.
Quote
When the countermeasures make a given vehicle a death-trap that vehicle (and that's essentially what power armor is) is either upgraded or retired. How many countries started off WWII with armored cars and light tanks? How many were still using them by the end of the war?
You might want to read up on tank tech and tank warfare. Armored cars and even light tanks (if fast enough) were used as recon vehicles until the end of the war. On the "battleline", older tanks were replaced with up-armed, up-armored, up-powered tanks, while the old chasis were used as the basis for self-propelled anti-tank and artillery. Even the appearance of Panzerfaust did not stop or even slow down the production of medium and heavy tanks.
Quote
How many countries still use piston-driven fighter aircraft? Etc.
To be replaced with jet-engine upgrades and swept wings.
Quote
When you start putting in requirements like it has to be not much larger than a soldier, relatively light, permit mobility, and so on; I'll be impressed if they come up with something that Johnny Jihad can't punch a hole through with an old-fashioned anti-tank rifle. You want to talk about a blow to morale? How do you think the American people would react to video of their sons (clad in million-dollar armor) getting killed by primitives with big, clunky rifles?
If the only way the jihadists could harm our soldiers would be with a single-shot bolt-action 2-meter-long rifle that weighs 40 pounds and near-dislocates their shoulder every time they fire it, I think we should be jumping with joy. Then again I would not underestimate any pinkoliberal's capacity to shed crocodile tears...
Post by: Joe Demko on October 10, 2007, 11:17:31 AM