It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Weaponized 'Crab Walker' Robots The Future Of Chinese Land Wars?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Are Weaponized 'Crab Walker' Robots The Future Of Chinese Land Wars?




Robotics designers in the US have long gotten their inspiration from both science fiction and biology, and Chinese engineers are no different, most especially those working on walking combat robots. Dai Jinsong and other Chinese engineers of the School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University of Technology, have published three articles in Chinese weapons design journals as part of a long term study into the design of a legged, autocannon carrying robot. The extent of the study indicates a serious effort.


www.popsci.com...

Picture


Essentially looks like it is meant to provide direct fire in support of infantry in mountain areas you wouldn't be able to get a tank or truck into. It looks to be at least a serious look into the issues associated with such a vehicle and not just a paper study. 300 rounds a minute of 30 mike mike could be decisive in an infantry engagement in mountainous terrain, thought I suspect you would be better served with adding mortar sections or crews with the Type 98 rockets. Especially since manpower isn't likely to be an issue for China.

Still very interesting, and quite sci-fi looking.




posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

I think if they'd fly and had cloaking technology they'd be even worse. S + F, I envision these as the precursors to the killing machines in Fahrenheit 451.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

It does have a certain War of the Worlds feel to it, doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
If there going to be a robot army surely they can come up with something more effective and efficient than a humanoid design. Maybe a cheetah with a gun on it's head?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Could a simple pulse bomb, or whatever those things are called, disable it?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Like an EMP weapon? Seems like a waste for something the size of a truck. Easier to hit it with a LAW or something.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

I can see them ending up with extendable legs. Very creepy.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Obviously, the Chinese have been speaking with the Mi-Go. Very bad news.



What A Mi-Go May Look Like



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Interesting, but ultimately of poor design.

Think about the rigors of combat, the importance of mobility under fire, the importance of stable movement, the necessity for stability while under fire...

I have absolutely no confidence that this vehicle would out perform a similarly armed tank in a field trial. I also believe that there are man portable weapons systems that would be capable of totally destroying the vehicle, or rendering it immobile, with far more ease than they would a traditional tank.

Also, what with it having so much ground clearance, the thing is highly vulnerable to being sabotaged from beneath.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Pfft 300 rounds a minute? That's it?! The AT-AT has twin blaster cannons with a fire rate of 960 rounds/min, and if that don't stop 'em it's got two heavy laser cannons. Not to mention it can carry a couple of speeders in case of retreat or if the unit loses mobility.




Up to date military weapons my ass.


edit on 25-9-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Think about the rigors of combat, the importance of mobility under fire, the importance of stable movement, the necessity for stability while under fire...

I have absolutely no confidence that this vehicle would out perform a similarly armed tank in a field trial. I also believe that there are man portable weapons systems that would be capable of totally destroying the vehicle, or rendering it immobile, with far more ease than they would a traditional tank.


I don't think stability would be a problem once it got into firing position. I don't know how mobile it is in the sense of quickness, but with that many legs (two designed only as anchors), I should think it would provide plenty of stability for the 30mm. It would never replace a tank, but provides additional firepower in the mould of an infantry fighting vehicle. A tank has a totally different mission (and would be several times more expensive). There are places where an IFV or a tank cannot go on wheels or tracks. There are man-portable systems that can totally destroy a tank or IFV, but everyone still uses them.
I do think it would be of limited utility. I think there are better ways to go if the only place it really makes sense is in mountainous terrain like I said in a post earlier, but it is certainly interesting.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Everyone knows a snowspeeder and a towcable will totally immobilize an AT-AT. AT-AT's are more than 50' tall. This crab-walker has much smaller profile. Which is going to be important when some backwater upstart tries to slice open it's belly with a light-saber. I don't even want to know what the bill for the Empire was for an AT-AT, but I imagine the Chinese crab will be much cheaper. A critical advantage to the AT-AT is the ability to transport 40 grunts in the back, something this crab contraption could never do. It's designed to a totally different mission requirement.
This is more akin to an AT-ST, providing extra direct fire support, and being a general nuisance for opposing ground forces. A mobile pill-box with a 30mm auto cannon.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

I understand the points you made, but I still think that the potential uses of this vehicle are so limited as to make the entire thing utterly pointless. It may well cover terrain which a tank would have trouble with, but there is no way that it would achieve that goal at a speed which would make it possible for its operators to evade heavy weapons deployed against it.

Simply put, the thing is too ungainly, and has design features which make it vulnerable to far too many rudimentary assault tactics, to make its production worth while. That is not to say that walking vehicles have no place in future military use, because surely, they do.

However, this particular design does not seem to make best use of the lessons already learned about how to create military armoured vehicles. The shape of the main body, the limitations of its intended feild of operation, the unwieldy nature of its limbs... Put it this way, if a layperson like myself can see umpteen ways to successfully destroy a piece of military armour, without even resorting to military specification equipment, then there is clearly some work to do.

Whip up a batch of homemade boom juice, make a shaped charge, run underneath the vehicle, attach it to the vehicle, run away before the timer hits blammo.

Thats just one. Also, if this thing is capable of being deployed from beneath a helicopter, it would be very vulnerable to be knocked over by any ground mounted IED weapon, literally flipped over onto its top, crushing the gun mount against the ground. It would simply lack the wieght to prevent such a fate. Also, to wreck its ability to project fire, all that would be needed is a surgical strike to its rear stabilising legs.

War as it is being fought today, provides us with examples of much tougher vehicles, rendered immobile, by attacks which would see something like this walker not just rendered immobile, but beyond functional use without a significant replacement of key components. This just does not look like a serious bit of kit. It looks like the sort of thing a fifteen year old with no common sense or understanding of battle, even a remote, book learned sort of understanding, would come up with, so inappropriate is its design!
edit on 25-9-2014 by TrueBrit because: Added detail to remove grammatical error.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I think they're better off with increasing the number of mortars or Type 98 rockets available than building or deploying this thing. It has a pretty limited range of use. I wasn't trying to imply the world was going to be overrun with indomitable Chinese Crab-walkers.
Having said that DARPA is pretty much famous for developing things that have little or no operational capacity (Transformer), purely to develop and push applied technology. I suspect that is what is happening here. And of course, occasionally technology matures and material science catches up to the ideas and something useful happens to evolve based on what they learned decades earlier in DARPA projects. It's not much different than something like Cujo which continues to mature.

All in all very interesting.



new topics




 
2

log in

join