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.

 

Why not make Moble Suits?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Informata,

>>
The first "mecha" will be neither mobile, nor piloted. In fact, you probably wouldn't even consider them a mecha except for their artificial intelligence. The first "mecha" are likely to be .50 cal machinegun "sentinels".
>>

Indeed, the //Sentry Gun// (remote firing post) systems whose concept you are stealing from 'Aliens' have much merit given that they can service box volumes or point targets with equally unflappable accuracy. But I doubt if they will be fielded because they effectively remove the 'lowest common denominator' from the field of play and thus, by eliminating the slaughter dawg (who would _not_ be survivable on a field defined by sniper-grade shooters able to reach out and touch to 1,000m in anything from single rounds to full auto without ever fearing 'dying' themselves; i.e. you could wait to open up until overrun had already /happened/ and the enemy controlled the battlefield with sufficient confidence to expose 'really valuable' materiel and C2 elements).

Moreover, I don't believe .50 is likely to be of use against personnel targets in the most dangerous of broken-LOS, 1,001 elevation angles, conflict zones of MOUT. Simply because of the overpenetration and limited LOS ranges that are typical. Even if you choose to go into wholesale ambush fighting with throwaway systems replacing 'real men'; the question becomes WHO WILL EMPLACE THEM. Since men will once again be too huge, slow and soft so that, if you DO want to employ these systems, you had damn well better have a fast method to leave the firing position as you put it up (the weapon mount, suitable only for use against equally robo-mechanized forces, now being the 'high value' asset which must be conserved).

People who get into festung mindsets typically end up doctrinally constipated until 'bypassed' by forces which choose to control the routes and resources to and from the strongpoint.

At which point, 12.7 may be laughably /short/ of range in a maneuver dominated fight over the horizon.

Humans have no place on the battlefield. But UGV and 'Mecha' may.


KPl.


P.S. Consider the idiocy of said movie btw. You have a station that is (presumably) environment sealed against both hard vac and noxious atmosphere. Yet there are hung ceilings between rooms without contiguous walls. You have chokepointed access yet the bugs don't bleed out and create a chasm by which further approach is difficult if not impossible. You have a _trained_ infantry team which chooses to waste full-auto fire on targets they see at 'smile' ranges. Instead of hotwiring one of the construction vehicles to push the APC out to kill zone a 1,000m across where they could presumably take AIMED shots with single-round kills and the Sentry Guns as a last ditch CIWS type weapons system. Indeed the entire /notion/ of a SQUAD + Heavy Weapons Section sized tactical element 'rescueing' anything is itself ludicrous.
Sounds like (at a minimum) they need a Catlike UGV that can navigate human surrounds while datalinking back imagery.




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Raideur,

>>
#1 Everything you said was totally out of the realm of reality in terms of combat effectiveness.
>>

And you are wrong for the very reasons I originally said. Trying to hit a PACK of creatures moving at you at 60-90mph with military grade weapons designed to be used en-masse against a 'like sized' enemy (mass X velocity inertial effects on rapid changes in velocity vector) is like trying to hit a flight of quail with a highpowered rifle. Or a flock of mosquitoes with a sledgehammer.

The difference is that these 'vehicles' cost perhaps 5-10 grand whereas your MBT runs an average 4-6 million. And so they can (with utter bravery) exploit their own casualties to more effective weapons (linear mines like Claymores) to DEPLETE said fires. While continuing to stage compass point attacks 'at speed' that obviates more conventional area denial systems to.

The ONLY worry for such legged systems is that of environment protection (dust and debris as well as heat becomes a real problem when you are running through 'ground effect' at 2-3ft off the ground) and close-in protection where personal weapons /might/ be able to spray wildly enough to obviate short range evasions.

And we can easily armor a vehicle with 10hp on it's side to the extent required to defeat 5.56 thru 8mm.

>>
#2 We're fairly off topic.
>>

Why? War is evil. Mecha /as a mythos/ seeks to agrandize it by replacing man with a man-shaped vehicle so that, using it's heavier mechanized anthropomorphism, we can continue to maintain a knight-like stance as being a race of 'honorable warriors'. There is no honor in war. Something we should have learned in 1918 if not '45. If you make war a criminal act, and then /punish those who take their wars outside their own borders with the death penalty for all involved/. You can start to adopt the same tactics as cops do. Which is to lock down a threat and then send in SWAT.

Man has no place on the battlefield. He is utterly incapable of chasing down and decisively engaging even his own 'guerilla opposite' without taking /monstrous/ casualties from small ambushes and general COE assymetry tactics. It is time we turned the false fantasy of knight warfare towards something more realistic so that man can watch man hunted down like an animal. And thus see how little coup-psychology applies to a world seeking to exit the barbarian phase of our shared civillization.

>>
For the record, a mounted .50 cal has very quick traverse and can defeat many APCs armor at various angles.
>>

Try shooting trap with it.


CONCLUSION:
EVERY one of my systems exists today. Hybrid vehicles with electrorecoverative brakes. Microminiaturized powerplants from various autonomous 'rover' concepts for areas as diverse as space exploration to resource and SAR missions. Microstabilized navigation packages inherent to the FOG systems used in JDAMs. Scanning LIDAR to develop REAL TIME terrain navigation adapative algorithms. Even datalinking using civil broadband cell modem techniques. Ironically, it is in the weapons that we need to move away from 'hand held or crew serviced' concepts to lighten the weight and change the feed/ammo concepts by which a small, perfectly accurate, ROBOTIC firing platform exploits on-the-move combined evasion and point-accurate suppression vs. mission fires. And as soon as we unseat the establishment of 'I can command a man' military leadership in the wake of their obvious incompetence in Iraq; the quicker we will begin to establish a new way of fighting that doesn't depend on an escalatory cycle to sustain the lifestyle. Because these systems are designed to END warfare. Forever.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
ch1466,

You obviously know your stuff when it comes to battlefields and systems of war. However, that is no reason to be so condescending toward those of us who are more naive in this area.


Indeed, the //Sentry Gun// (remote firing post) systems whose concept you are stealing from 'Aliens' have much merit given that they can service box volumes or point targets with equally unflappable accuracy. But I doubt if they will be fielded because they effectively remove the 'lowest common denominator' from the field of play and thus, by eliminating the slaughter dawg (who would _not_ be survivable on a field defined by sniper-grade shooters able to reach out and touch to 1,000m in anything from single rounds to full auto without ever fearing 'dying' themselves; i.e. you could wait to open up until overrun had already /happened/ and the enemy controlled the battlefield with sufficient confidence to expose 'really valuable' materiel and C2 elements).


Besides, while I may have watched the 'aliens' movies over 15 years ago, this is not the inspiration for the idea. I happen to be working on a machine vision application, and it occured to me how simple the algorithms for controlling a weapon with a mounted camera and actuators would be. I see your point about the .50 calibur. Perhaps a better solution would be the mentioned sniper weapons. The system could incorporate enough sophisticated equipment to detect shifts in wind speed/direction and would be far more steady and accurate than a human shooter. You would not need 2 man teams. Imagine the humans (special forces) only role to be deploying sniper sentries every 1000' in gridlike networks.

I understand your concept of the pack-hunting catlike vehicles. This may very well be the future, but I was trying to come up with something that is likely to be deployed within a couple of years. Those cats sound expensive, and it is MUCH more difficult to create an artificial intelligence that self-navigates.

IMO you are right about the battlefield. Humans have no place on it anymore, and humanoid mecha will never see a real battlefield. Only the arena of videogames and other adolescent entertainment.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
The main method of movement in modern infantry combat is fire and maneuver, having other groups cover you while you quickly find a new area of cover.

Your idea for mechs is devoid of the idea of using cover in any fashion but rather a blitzing effect. However, that has been tried by soldiers many a times, and I believe it was proved very costly and pointless by the Americans against the Japanese charges, cavalry charges, and Russian wave attacks against germans. It simply doesnt work. You can spray fire into the group from multiple angles and slaughter it from dispersed cover. MG fire is very deadly even to quick moving objects. This is why you have that covering fire, otherwise the enemy is free to track you, and hit you.

And what your describing would, like I said, require some fairly advanced robotics to make real, and even if it was to become real, a squad of infantry could be able to take cover and lay down enough firepower to silence them, because they are in fact vulerable to small arms, and if they arent, they will be moving fairly slow.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
IMO www.sakakibara-kikai.co.jp... would be a great thing for the moon in the future since we all know the super powers will be fighting over the rich resources of titanium, aluminium, uranium, helium 3, and god knows what else, were found on the Moon. And the anchient structures on the moon which are said to be up there lol.

My belief is mobile suits and mechs would be great for outer space like battles in the astroid belts and such. Because it would suck crashing a 560 million $ space fighter into a rock when you can just send a 12 million $ hunk of metal that weighs nothing in space and can hide behind roids and stuff. just my 2cents



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Informatu,

>>
You obviously know your stuff when it comes to battlefields and systems of war. However, that is no reason to be so condescending toward those of us who are more naive in this area.
>>

No condescension was intended.

>>
Besides, while I may have watched the 'aliens' movies over 15 years ago, this is not the inspiration for the idea. I happen to be working on a machine vision application, and it occured to me how simple the algorithms for controlling a weapon with a mounted camera and actuators would be. I see your point about the .50 calibur. Perhaps a better solution would be the mentioned sniper weapons. The system could incorporate enough sophisticated equipment to detect shifts in wind speed/direction and would be far more steady and accurate than a human shooter. You would not need 2 man teams. Imagine the humans (special forces) only role to be deploying sniper sentries every 1000' in gridlike networks.
>>

The point of the Aliens reference is that the guns were used in a very poor fashion. And thus the sentry gun mission was both extremely simplified (narrow entry control point, limited range and distance) and grossly misrepresentative for things like ROE effects and downrange ballistics. If you were to take them to Iraq, you would /instantly/ face massive 'overkill, overkill!' complaints about remote sniping systems being used against 'defenseless civillians' and to protect the sentry gun itself from attack would indeed require very heavy calibers which would pose extreme overpenetration and 'extended' (3,000m for 12.7) distances. Microwave/Sound Projection weapons have equal 'herding humans' (dehumanization) objections, even though they are a direct result of irregular forces refusing to treat cities as safe zones, free from combat.

A 'bot which brings pistol sized weapons to a patrolling platoon, whether vehicle or footborne, can limit it's lethality if only via the option of /non lethal/ (tazer or toxin darts) options. Most importantly, whether used as a close escort or sweeping scout, it can stay with the unit in question which means it you don't have to develop either a cueing network of widearea sensors nor multiple (undefendable) firing positions to cover a given area.

This being one of the few advantages of infantry in that, while they are 'occupation' units whose low value for numbers requires comparitively little support system investment. They can also 'sweep thru', limiting the period of their overt=overbearing threat as well as the hostile response vulnerability deriving from it.

>>
I understand your concept of the pack-hunting catlike vehicles. This may very well be the future, but I was trying to come up with something that is likely to be deployed within a couple of years. Those cats sound expensive, and it is MUCH more difficult to create an artificial intelligence that self-navigates.
>>

I agree. But I think our current posture of SWORDS/TALON as 'ride along' specialist systems is little better. And thus our willingness to take the next step ($$$$ In = Technology Lead Out) will dictate our dominance of the battlefield.

Just as with stealth, if you motor along for a couple decades with median level investments, you get minor improvements (SR-71, Buffalo Hunter, etc.) over those of say a late WWII U-Boat. If you then increase funding by an order of magnitude, both the baseline capability and the /range/ of tactical systems to which it is applicable will increase 'by scale of newly apparent need' as well.

The ultimate 'capability drives needs' being civillian.

My ultimate goal is a situation somewhat like I-Robot. Because when our mercantile (gaping consumerist maw) subsistence economy comes to a screaming crash, we will need to have an option to compete with slave labour driven markets in the East and once again, IN A HUMAN DESIGNED ENVIRONMENT, only mobile (take the labour with you), configurably flexible, automatons will be able to literally do the jobs which we no longer have the competency or economic will to do ourselves.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Raideur,

>>
The main method of movement in modern infantry combat is fire and maneuver, having other groups cover you while you quickly find a new area of cover.
>>

Yes and where your typical running infantryman is carrying anywhere from 50-70lbs of water, interceptor vest, first aid kit, blanket, 8-12 clips for his primary weapon and probably bits and pieces of someone else's, you are looking at speeds of 10mph /tops/.

This is why 'Flanders Fields' came to be because assault troops were carrying massive packs and the MG gunners had easy access to them.

>>
Your idea for mechs is devoid of the idea of using cover in any fashion but rather a blitzing effect.
>>

It all depends. Doing fire and maneuver is largely impossible in a short range autofire engagement because rounds will go THRU cover and your ability to bring covering fire to bear on restricted LOS angles to suppress the enemy is equally uncertain. Now add in explosive/booby trap and suicidal players and the 'old rules' just don't apply.

F&M worked in WWII when we had a /few/ SMG/LMG autofire weapons supporting a BUNCH of semiauto Garand shooters against KAR-98K or Arisaka bolt action guns. It's ability to be effective died the moment the USSR started pumping out AK's by the hundred-thousand lot for every 'war of liberation' it chose to send a dozen cases too.

>>
However, that has been tried by soldiers many a times, and I believe it was proved very costly and pointless by the Americans against the Japanese charges, cavalry charges, and Russian wave attacks against germans. It simply doesnt work.
>>

Again, move at 100+ feet per second with a 3ft tall target silouhette and your odds go up. Especially since you can send in those units as sacrificial assets themselves, dropping a cassette of microgrenades WITHOUT aimed fire intent and slaughtering infantry from WITHIN their (MOUT) cover. It should also be noted that the use of linear fires (MG in cross covered arcs) is very dependent on 'bump and nudge' limited azimuth tracking as clusters of men walk through the streaming bullet column. Now, again, look at the DISTANCE BETWEEN BOUNDS of a running cat. A Mountain Lion for instance has one of the longest bounds of any known animal and often will touch down only once every 20-25 feet.

So that tracking the target becomes a fully three-dimensional, ACTIVE, muzzle swing process or it will just bound over your bullet stream.

>>
You can spray fire into the group from multiple angles and slaughter it from dispersed cover. MG fire is very deadly even to quick moving objects. This is why you have that covering fire, otherwise the enemy is free to track you, and hit you.
>>

And you want to send men into this kind of a killing zone?

No. Better, by far, to put the weight, replaceability and /options/ (close in or stand off, maneuver /above/ the threat or around it, lethal direct fire, explosive banzai or non lethals useage) into a weapons system which can navigate a set of stairs, at speed. Or simply come through a second floor window.

>>
And what your describing would, like I said, require some fairly advanced robotics to make real, and even if it was to become real, a squad of infantry could be able to take cover and lay down enough firepower to silence them, because they are in fact vulerable to small arms, and if they arent, they will be moving fairly slow.
>>

Blitz tactics work where you don't have to worry about individuall assets ability to fire accurately while taking fire or to save itself so long as it exposes the threat shooter to counterengagement.

Just watch a SWAT team mobilize against 'criminal insurgents' in a building. Once you start, you don't stop. You hold the rate of advance and keep moving, trusting your armor and your accuracy to keep you ahead of the other guys SODAR (See Observe Decide Act React) loop. Where the weapons are military grade, you have other options (Saddam's sons) of bringing in heavier weapons with more armor.

But the one thing you must NEVER do is be so afraid of boobytraps and continual small-ambush style running fights that you let the enemy score desultory attrition 'for free'. And only a system of highly responsive, human-interactive, 'combat scouts' can make that kind of pursue-to-a-pin fight happen. As an alternative to sweeping ahead of the main force and suppressing the threat's /intent/ to stage said attack, altogether.

The Japanese are doing this. They are taking the first step into a world where combat is less about flying 30,000 feet overhead than dominating a personal battlespace. And if we don't SEE what the potential of their ASIMO type 'toys' is, we will be the ones left playing catchup.

Whether or not a squad of infantry would know that the Gun-Firing-Puma threat was even /there/ before it sprang in their midst and slaughtered them all. Whether or not they would be able to lay down a standing-order reaction fire to kill it on the approach (90mph = 100yds every three seconds) if they saw it watching them from atop a building or under a debris pile.

Is not my concern. My concern is that if you make this system a military one, it will be so expensive that only military forces will be able to employ it. Against increasingly 'unacknowledged' civillian/criminal threats which do not have the training to stand up against either. But who can slink away from an explosive or small-ambush type threat without ever having been engaged at all.

COE= Contempt Of Engagement.

It is the heart of assymetry. And it is equally the ONE THING you can never ask a regular force to just 'stand there and take it' do. Because dying for something is one thing, right or wrong. Dying for nothing is...unencompassable. To a mortal mind.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
This is something scetched out of ch1466 ideas, not really asimo type, but more suited for outdoors operations... (quick CAD image by SolidWorks, had to make a 3d model since i'm a terrible with other types of drawing
)
20mm gun (or 12.7 or 7.62, how ever do you like it) and Rocket Launcher (3 tubes) for obstacle removal) The height is about 1.5-1.8m...













posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
This is something scetched out of ch1466 ideas, not really asimo type, but more suited for outdoors operations... (quick CAD image by SolidWorks, had to make a 3d model since i'm a terrible with other types of drawing
)
20mm gun (or 12.7 or 7.62, how ever do you like it) and Rocket Launcher (3 tubes) for obstacle removal) The height is about 1.5-1.8m...












One anti tank missile hit on one of those skinny legs and the whole thing goes down and it becomes an immobile casualty. Later, the enemy can finish it off with the rest of the target, with the legs still moving in the air.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Its a very high, and large target, I must say. You'd have to be a pretty bad shot not to hit that, even if its moving. Its bulk is exposed, high in the air lighted against the sky. To put it mildly "what a bullet magnet"

The principle method of maneuver even today is covering fire. You cannot deny it. That is in fact an effective means to use all those automatic weapons to today, fire supression and movement. As you said, you dont send into into enveloping defensive fire. You set up your own enveloping fire and supress the areas that pose the most thread to movement.

You mentioned that a mech of this type would be used to demoralize and supress an unorganized group of fighters or light infantry. However, as you said before, the spread of automatic weapons, and those wonderful RPGs means any large target, without its own screen of infantry, will be destroyed by light infantry who effectively use cover.

Any vehicle like the one modeled here would, as I said, be an excellent target, but also have severe limits on its abilities, like protection, use of cover, weapons that can be mounted, range, and its remote control, because this will not have an AI system effective to outsmart humans and deal with every other function on the mech.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Raideur]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
That image is just an quick illustration, if anyone has any better consepts i can try to model them too

And it's about a size of a standing man... not too big of a target, but making it any lower would severly limit it's top speed... you have to compromise... but i could move the "hull" to a "dropped" position like a crouching cat type, any better that way?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
First off,

My thanks to Northwolf for his efforts. He did a good job based on a quick verbal description and his camouflage is particularly impressive as a texture.

However; someone asked for a 'second idea'. And here it is:

s92591114.onlinehome.us...

www.cinefex.com...

www.cinefex.com...

www.modelbank.com...

Note that this is NOT a 'six foot tall' critter. It is 3-4ft tall /until/ it stands (to walk up stairs or look over a wall). Something that is no-reverse-pelvis possible in a mechanical ungulate thanks to discretely separate actuator technology.

Speaking of which, let's take another look at this design via a system elements study rather than some block-generated whole.

To begin, there has to be some kind of skeletal armature to support the weight of the add on systems and to _self contain_ the propulsive system.

I propose that it be based on electropneumatic or hydraulic (self telescoping, like the shocks on a car) cylinders with the REAR legs naturally semi-crouched (like a Saber Tooth Cat or Bear). At the walk, these lead to a semi-swaggering or tiptoe motion. But in the run, they hyper EXTEND to get cheetah or puma like push off acceleration and lateral divert force.

The forelegs should be taller to support a headsup ability to look over obstacles and this should be further aided with both UAV remote link and a masted popup (periscopic) sensor. And the principal 'hips' (socketed joint) should actually be between the shoulders so that fore and aft legs can operate individually.

The spinal column, like an ungulate animal should operate like a second (massive) hydraulic ram and indeed should include a recoverative braking. It's function is to both stabilize inertial diversity of motion between fore and aft body segments. And to recover electrical capacitance to reenergize the running lope.

Wrapped around both sides of this center spine mount should be something like 'saddle tanks' of fuel storage. Each separate and able to feed the buttocks engine mount through self sealing lines and explosion suppressive foam liners. A further (third) 'combat tank' should be on-mount with the engine itself and act as both a negative orientation/G fuel injection and sump. Further systems mounts (hydraulics etc.) should also be dual channel/dual feed and cross-feed separated while being layered in damage tolerant levels of intermediate insulation as much as isolationg.

ALL these systems are isolated behind the big shoulder pauldrons. Which is where your principal frontal armor protection is going to be. So scoring a frontal hit on armor which is canted as much as 40-50` and THICK (to remove all vulnerability to 7.62 class 'AK' ammo at least) should effectively not mean a thing to a kitty whose guts are protected.

The head is wrong. You want the turret to be here because the heavy steel in it's design will further protect the CPU/combat AI behind it -if- you isolate all turret functions (elevate, traverse, ammo selection and feed) to within it's own mass. While there will be COG penalties, they should be offset by the rear systems enclosure and the leg stance. While accepting a 210` traverse arc rather than a full 180` one allows for the total height to be reduced by a good foot or so, even standing.

KEEP IN MIND, that like a tank with a hydro pneumatic suspension, killer kitty can also further crouch to reduce it's topline silouhette to little more than 2ft -and- it can explosively LEAP into action from this posture without the 'roll over and scramble to feet' phase of an infantryman. Or the white-face looky-looky vulnerabilities of eyes restricted to an eyes-forward skull restricted posture.

Principle combat vision will be through distributed optical apertures something like this-

www.northropgrumman.com...
www.deagel.com...
www.jsf.mil...

With the optics imbedded in the surface of the creature, possibly as 'striplines' of photosensitive strips rather than discrete apertures. This removes problems of spatial stabilization and articulation of turreted enclosures while still providing at least 4 times the visual acuity of man AND a 'spatial memory' algorithm by which the total target field is continually refreshed and integrated together by multiple sensors rather than just one point of vulnerability. What's more, because the _baseline_ of these optical strips is so long, they can measure angular range to a target, designate it and engage without necessarily being able to see it directly.

The exception to this rule of fail operative distributed aperture optics is going to be the mast mounted optics which should extend vertically from a protected well behind the frontal glacis and gun turret for long range surveillance and thus must have additional (auditory and powered telescopic zoom) functions.

The 'missile tubes' are unlikely, IMO. I prefer to think of them as smoke mortar launchers. An air (painball) or sling-spinning (DREAD) microgrenade cassette system able to dispense either vertically along the flanks or as projected launch, should also be included, keeping in mind that, IF you have 100 of them, they don't have to be 6-8lb pineapples or cylinders. But rather can weigh a few ounces (blasting cap with fragmenation enclosure).

I would also propose that this system be able to deliver non-lethal weaponry in the form of tranquilizer or tazer based stun attack.

The key is to rebuild your creature in modules. Starting with the self-actuated skeleton and then adding systems as you go while keeping in mind things like the need for the telescoping spine (must clear back end mounted systems at full compression) and 'forward hips' joint (which must have enough torsional freedom to slew the creature at speed).

Make everything mount in rapid remove layers with quick disconnects or better yet on pull-out slide rails so that you can QUICKLY replace entire electrical generation, hydraulics/utility circuits or weapons packages _without_ violating the external shell of the robot. In this, armor packages which are spaced from the principal innards can serve as work platform 'shelves' when folded or rolled down as well as mounts for cellular venturi/gridded/forced optimized cooling and environmental protective enclosure functions. But must never be considered 'block segments' of design in which systems are irretrievably imbedded. Think of them more like shields on the arm of a knight than aesthetic covers for the guts of the vehicle.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I don't know wether this has been mentioned, but you have to consider the technologies that would make mech-units feasible.

Lets face it, tanks and artilliary are built to traverse fairly even terrain and it's not that efficient in doing it either. We need to look to nature for examples of efficient modes of transport and what is the most common? Legs of course. The most agile and cost capable seem to be insects and the most speedy are Felines.

We could come up with a low profile unit that blends the two into an 3-5m tall mech design(including the spider-leopard like legs). Enough space for a crew with a slightly larger profile then a tank mutiple feet(like maybe a dozen or more that have many many degrees of freedom with variable length spokes with nano-gecko tipped "feet" to possibly give it the ability to climb(they have made nano-gecko adhesive 1000 times stronger then that used by the gecko itself))

It's hull will be made of some sort of ultra-strong lightweight Carbon-Nanotube based composite "skin" with electro-reactive sheilds samwitched between the inner hull which should be made out of a triple layer system each designed to stop different threats. The drive system will consist of biomechanical "muscles" melding bioengineered muscle matter with magnetically stiffening goup to create ultra efficient,strong, agile and speedy legs. With a dozen legs it would be very very hard to immobilize.

My point is when thinking of "walker" units look to nature and then shameless copy and improve upon its design.

EDIT: Also more about the climbing thing, they could adapt suits that the Air Force uses to keep blood out of the brain while upsidedown.

We could make much smaller infiltration units piloted by midgets to go where not even a soldier could go.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
DB and Raideur,

First, unless those are the only targets you are given, you /never/ aim for the legs of any target in a combat situation. You see (in a haze of adrenaline bright-dark shadows) a 'center mass' and you try to hit that which is inevitably chest-torso more than legs. OTOH, how many people have you seen /shot in the face/ by a 'ricochet' which their PRONE position bounced off the ground to still kill them? This is what 'beaten zone' in an MG engagement area means in terms of where you SEE the bullets land as a function of where you KNOW they have flown through to get there. If the enemy sends infantry through this zone, at human locomotive rates, entire platoons (50+ men) can go down in one engagement. Not so a creature whose legs are high grade steel. And whose bound interval is equal to or better than that of the longest-leaping cats in the world.

Second, if they are shooting 'anti tank missiles' at my beastie, I've already won. Because a Hellfire runs 40-60 grande, by model. And even inventory finalized TOW II are 10 grande a-pop. An RPG-7/14 (or really, any LAW) is just an unguided rocket however and as such has _very_ finite aimpoint control. Indeed, the RPG-7 is actually very difficult to operate, particularly in a built up fighting condition, because it has a dual impulse rocket motor and safing system which makes the first half of it's trajectory flyout MUCH different from the second. Essentially a double curve parabolic arc. It is why the system is issued with such complex optics for an infantry weapon and why it is so often 'swing and a miss!' /missused/ (realistically) in movies and the like.

Bluntly, if you cannot hit a target with a rifle because it is moving at between 50 and 100 FEET PER SECOND, you cannot kill it with an RPG which is not even tucked up into your shoulder properly and has 'one and only one' shot option.

Go have someone drive you down the highway at 50mph and then pick a given visual point on the side of the road and count '1 Mississipi, 2 Mississipi' as you track a virtual rifle to the point where you don't think you could hit a garbage can sized object. Now envision that those same forces are acting on YOU as a sitting duck while not one but 10 or more enemy come at you from all sides and even multiple /stories/ of intervening obstacles.

Blitz tactics work. The reason they work is because shock of onset multiplies the difficulty and fear of the target adversary due to both surprise and collapsing engagement zones (ideally, you should never spend less than 1.5 seconds per target see-aim-shoot-reengage interval, even with a full auto capable weapon). And since we are no longer fighting at distances for which a 1,000yd, artillery pocked, gassed and mined killing zone is WWI baseline, the notion that 'cavalry' cannot work is misconstrued on that alone.

Even the Banzai charge /works/ so long as everyone has equal weapons and similar tactical finesse. It is when you don't have a supporting LMG or RT in overwatch to put their heads down. You are stuck with a bolt-action Arisaka rifle and perhaps 1-2 bullets. While fighting an entrenched enemy that has semiauto or better on EVERY MAN that things get ugly.

My system changes the rules on a pure physical combat prowess basis. Wherein bravery without question is the principal guiding ethic (except for the combat observer whose relay comms allows you to adjust tactics too) because the VEHICLE was never alive to begin with. This removes both the first-over-the-wall precursor inhibitor as well as in-action aversion to slaughter of a horse and the rider. It also allows YOU to use less than lethal (incapacitant or obscurrant gas and stun-to-interrogate) weapons without undue fear of being fragged by an underling who doesn't understand why the bad guys get to kill and he doesn't.

Ability through SHEER HORSEPOWER and superior-to-biology combat systems design redundancy to shrug off 7.62mm and grenade fragments. Again, if you have ever tried to swing an M2, you should know that Ma Deuce is a heavy b**ch at 84lbs and that swinging the weapon through a tip-inertial arc of motion that is 60 odd inches from where you sit on the back of the M3 tripod is ALSO _not conducive_ to rapid, well adjusted, _aimed_ fire.

Not to mention the difficulty of getting to or away from a fight where you have no real ability to disengage free from observation by airpower (in a vehicle mount, it being impossible to tuck any HMG under a coat).

Then there's the cost. 14 grande for an M2. Even if you halve that for 'in circulation surplus' reasons on Soviet manufactured DShK or equivalent, there is NO WAY that even an Arab is going to dump his cache'd weapons to 'just walk away'.

Because I'm not gonna let him. And when I find gunpowder residue on his hands and he panics, my kitty is going to literally tag and bag his stunned ass for interrogation which roles up the entire cell of all his friends and associates.

IMO, the same can be done with fielded main forces as with irregular ones, simply because the kitty removes the principal obstacle to SOF style 'wait for it' opportunism in that it can keep up with an enemy ground force and CHOOSE the time (morning brief, everybody gathers around the commander's tank to B&M while looking at maps) to stage an ambush wherein all it has to do to decapitate the entire mech team is survive long enough to lob mortar rounds if not itself with a suicide-satchel into the laager.

Assymetry means COE. COE however does not mean inability to gambit force elements. It is rather, the refusal to put meat on the field where it can get shredded for weeping mothers and CNN's benefit. As soon as you start to kill meat with silicon chips, IN NUMBERS (cheaper than infantry training and salary/housing), you will find that war as an institution becomes 'unfun'. And we can begin the process by which a global society is built on the rule of law rather than personal rebellion in the face of monolithically applied external force.

THAT is something 'worth designing for'. Piloted Mecha which simply amplify the literal shape of man's ego while secretly acknowledging his fear of combat obsolescence 'personified' are not.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Any mech like the one you describe would cost millions of dollars, and would vulerable to any explosive rounds. It simply isnt a effective means of engaging infantry by blitzing them at close range. Firefights, unless in dense urban terrain, virtually never get that close, even with blitzing.

The M2 will defeat up to 20mm steel plate. Your machine is gonig to be very heavy, and thus very slow, if it has that kind of armor, and if it doesnt, its just another soft bodied target, like an infantyman.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Raideur,

>>
Any mech like the one you describe would cost millions of dollars, and would vulerable to any explosive rounds.
>>

No it would not. In mass production, it would cost about as much as a modern day motorcycle. And just like nobody believed in the motorcycle (or bike for that matter) at a time when 'horses were in' (and took a /huge/ amount of logistic leverage and prep time to keep useful), the robot would prove more loyal and capable because there were no living parts to get old, get wounded or get out of the service once it's time was up.

In terms of explosive rounds, SURE! Just like an infantryman.

Except an infantryman marches at 3-4mph and cannot 'take that hill' as a function of navigating a terrain scape _deliberately_ looking to avoid being channelized into predictable transit zones.

And it does it at between 50 and 130 FEET PER SECOND. A Puma can spring straight up a 10-15ft rock face to land on a ledge which it treats as a hunting perch. Leopards do the same thing with trees and have been known to kill /giraffes/ from them.

If you aren't /there/ to be shot at. You don't get hit. And a robotic killer kitty uses it's energy to determine the where and when of being engaged.

Furthermore, you view things as absolutes. I do not. I realize that, for every measure X there is a counter Y. And I fight my battles based on the LOGISTICAL factors of Loss Exchange Rate by which limited achievable political goals are still 'worth the effort' because nobody is saying it's a waste of _time_ (20 years and all their hopes and dreams are what really is lost when a parent buries a child soldier.) killing a robot.

>>
It simply isnt a effective means of engaging infantry by blitzing them at close range.
>>

Of course it is. Because you can choose the point where it attacks. And it fires on the move with the same accuracy as they do standing still. And because if it is carrying 2lbs of self destruct charge in a 150-250lb body, just to die at their feet will slaughter it them too.

The one thing you must NEVER DO in infantry combat is lose contact. Because it is by /reclosing/ the distance between whatever 'last known' and 'next killsac' ambush point that you take your casualties.

And that is _exactly_ where (10-50m out) you HAVE TO be able to take a round or two and then SPRINT to either overrun them or exit their field of fire. Something which current infantry can no longer do. Because they are too slow. Too overweight. Too huge. And too soft.

>>
Firefights, unless in dense urban terrain, virtually never get that close, even with blitzing.
>>

'Firefights' in Vietnam were decided at anything between 10 feet and 1,000yds. The difference being who fired first. And most accurately. We _never lost_ a company sized or greater action because the Charles couldn't kill them more than the van force before the main body linked up and overran or called for help over radio from what became efffectively an overwatch position.

But the VC were not using IEDs as much as the 'new threat' of suicidal morons are. And so long as you insist on doing things the old fashioned way (giving meat to a predator) they will never break their teeth trying to take down something that was _never alive_ to feed to coup-psychosis of warfare as a sporting art.

>>
The M2 will defeat up to 20mm steel plate.
>>

First Mistaken Assumption. Because _again_, an M2 weighs 84lbs. It's tripod weighs another 60+. You _Cannot_ manpack it /anywhere/, at speed. Nor can you swing it like a shotgun at a target which may be deliberately generating lateral motion which covers 10-20ft _per second_ of aimpoint evasion. You don't defeat your enemies bullet. You defeat the accuracy and speed of finesse that is his muzzle tracking.

Furthermore, if you engage a target carrying 20mm of armor plate it is because it is assumed _valuable_ enough to be worth the effort. And so it may be /further/ 'worth it' to have a 25mm Bushmaster cannon and TI stabilized sighting optics. NOW who is in trouble? The .50 machine gun nest with a 1,000m effective range. Or the tank which sees and engages is from over 2,500m?

>>
Your machine is going to be very heavy.
>>

Another mistake. Because most human adult males, even in prime condition don't weigh more than 180-185lbs. While a big leopard weighs maybe between 80 and 110. Yet the leopard has such biomechanical efficiencies that it can cover a hunting range of 40-60 miles _per night_. While a human, who is so incredibly biologically inept outside of tool use that he must carry /another/ 70-120lbs of 'body armor and camping gear' is lucky if he can march 20 miles in ONE day with little or no combat capability thereafter.

i.e. between the weight of a man and the weight of what he carries, I have the difference in technology scaling to accept MAJOR price differences inherent to 'leopard vs. lion' total system packaging costs.

And I will still be more capable than the soldier is. Because I will make that machine cost 20 grande. Or exactly what that soldiers basic plus infantry school training would run the U.S.. NOT including his three years of salary. Or his 100 grande life insurance when some can't-read-a-book 15 year old from BFE blows his head off with a 1,000 dollar AK-47.

>>
and thus very slow, if it has that kind of armor
>>

An 'Interceptor' soft vest with ceramo accrylate + aluminum hardplate inserts weighs 40lbs. At ten feet, it will slow an AK-47 round /just enough/ so that, if they drop everything and get your sorry butt to a hospital in the next 30 minutes, maybe they can stitch your guts back together.

Don't diss me about weight sonny until you can point a 7.62X39 weapon at your leg from a similar distance and shoot where the armor /ain't/, while continuing to fight.

My kitty can take that kind of punishment because all the actuator 'muscle' assemblies are internal and it's aluminum or steel 'bone' is a double sheathed tube wrapped around the air or hydraulic fluid and thus very resistant to shatter-force cracking.

And that's just the basic structure. Not the deliberate ballistic shielding around it's frontal arc.

>>
and if it doesnt, its just another soft bodied target, like an infantyman.
>>

Except that, unlike an infantryman, it can run to and away from it's battles at speeds which defy accurate tracking engagement by other humans. And allow it to take 'the long way round' to avoid preset ambushes.

And unlike an infantryman, it's not in uniform 'just for the current emergency and college fund', only to be replaced three times per decade when it gets old or it's term is up.

And unlike the infantryman, it doesn't need a squad's worth of (20X10= TWO HUNDRED THOUSANDS DOLLARS OF COMBINED TRAINING COSTS) backup, only to die clumped together /anyway/ when somebody explodes an IED under the belly of the 4 million dollar APC which they have to have because they cannot even withstand small arms fire.

And of course, most importantly, my killer kitty's momma was named IBM.

Not Sheehan.

Which means if I need 100,000 K2s to win a war that will start and end in six weeks, I can build them. And if I need to kill 70% of those K2's, nobody is going to scream butcher on my side as well as the enemy's.


CONCLUSION:
You reuse the same old arguments because you don't have anything valid to add to your originally postured errors. That's too bad because there are some very real moral and social questions about engaging in an activity 'too important to humanities' outcome to be left entrusted to men's hands' that need resolution. Before the reality of robotic systems on the battlefield becomes that of real slaughter by opfors that do not have our own restraint.


KPl.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Just one fix to your estimates an infantry can march ~50Km/24hrs cross country and elite units can do about 65km, while carrying around 40kg of gear (this is based on my own experience in FRDF recon)

But i like the idea, especially if the "kitty" is in full contact with artillery/mortar/CAS elements and a computerized "HQ" is given full intel from kittys to use the support in an optimal way.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
So ch1446, its better to make a walking four legged tank than a two leg tank or mech?

Like this one?




Or this one?




posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Hmm, though the first model looks useable, its design is full of bullet traps. It needs to be more "streamlined"



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Those are both insanely large targets. You could spot it miles away and dispatch it with a missile or tank round, from cover I might add.

Ch1466, you mentioned how your advanced composite smart robot would only cost what a motorcycle does....which I find rather interesting, considering the mechanical cost of a single slow speed traversing robot arm.

If even a HMG is not enough to defeat this robot, assuming you build it that compact and tough, infantry will simply use larger weapons, grenade launchers, mines, mortars, IFV cannons, etc. All from cover I might add. Your blitzing critter would not be very effective against a platoon of entrenched men.

I simply must ask, why do you put so little faith in the ability of a platoon of infantrymen to defend themselves from a melee weapon? Which is what your proposing.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join