Do you think technology exists to create something like mechagodzilla

Do you think technology exists to create something like mechagodzilla



Wasn't sure if this was a science and technology thread, but in the dark ages they used giant machines to reach the tops of castles or hurdle soldiers? Do you think giant robots could be utilized in the future.

reply to post by TheGoonies


Of course and there's a reason for they don't create one. Impractiality. If you've noticed, technology is getting more sleak, stealthy, small, organic. You have 150 foot missle toting dinosaur, say bye bye to a few hundred billion dollars and say it in a hurry. A target that big would bring a smile to any pilot's face.

Yes, We have the technology!

But why would we ever need a Voltron?

And so i say that if we have created a large robot,
that its dimentions would be along the lines of actual warfare,
something like 25ft, with dimentional plasma relay,
and maybe Jet propulsion. It would carry Only that which would actually be needed for any given study.

Its Totally this.

This thread belongs on the Weaponry, or Government Projects board.

reply to post by AFX237


Depends on how you interpet the question. I think if the OP makes it more relavante to the Aviation subject its fine to stay here. But on the subject things are getting smaller in avionics and warheads and getting more power out of a smaller engine. So if the question is are we going to see giant planes all over I'd say no. The use for them is very limited to large cargo that can't be broken down and large amounts of people transport like the 380. The age of giantism is fading.

i think a gigantic humanoid would be better that any mechanical giant robot lol watch the evangelion series , it would be cool to have those kinds of humanoids were you would be inserted in their nervous sistem and control them lol just kiding , but i dont think a giant robot or a mech would be good for use in warfare

[edit on 1-12-2007 by dracodie]

reply to post by AFX237


metael gear solid is much closer from what is possibely going to be the future of warfare in respect to the nano suite he uses , but those organic mechs would be good in urban warfare

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by AFX237

 

Depends on how you interpet the question. I think if the OP makes it more relavante to the Aviation subject its fine to stay here. But on the subject things are getting smaller in avionics and warheads and getting more power out of a smaller engine. So if the question is are we going to see giant planes all over I'd say no. The use for them is very limited to large cargo that can't be broken down and large amounts of people transport like the 380. The age of giantism is fading.

Yeah, and if anybody's ever played Ace Combat, they'll know that giant planes amount to massive bulls-eyes with lots of itty-bitty bulls-eyes all over them that a fighter pilot can dissect and pick apart like a high school bio project.

Where I see aviation tech going is something the size of, say, an F-15 eventually being able to take on the task load of, say, a B-52.

OK, OK, that's a bit farfetched, but still.

Thats fair enough, and indeed an F-15, or for that matter 16 could take out a high priority bunker, but to take out a city, 'say' the size of Tehran would require a far larger craft with lots of more simple munitions.

Jensy

Originally posted by jensy
Thats fair enough, and indeed an F-15, or for that matter 16 could take out a high priority bunker, but to take out a city, 'say' the size of Tehran would require a far larger craft with lots of more simple munitions.

Jensy

That's true. Capability was what I was talking about, but payload will always be something to consider.

I wonder what costs less: a fleet of strike fighters or a single modern bomber with all the trimmings?

Originally posted by Reverie Planetarian
I wonder what costs less: a fleet of strike fighters or a single modern bomber with all the trimmings?

It would depend upon what capabilities the bomber needs, something like a tu-95 or B-52 would be fairly reasonable and simple to keep going but if your talking about something advanced, but not quite a B-2, such as a Tu-160 or B-1B it would be cheaper to keep a fair number of F-16s.

Jensy

Fair enough.

While we're on the subject, how much more do you think fighters and bombers of the future'll be able to carry in their weapons bays and fuel tanks? For reference, let's talk about, say...the F-22, B-2, and B-52 as references.

And to stay on the thankfully loosely-interpreted subject, I wonder if aircraft will even have a need to get any bigger...I mean, if you just got more lift out of an existing design and made smaller, equally effective weapons (like guided bombs which don't have as much mass invested in the guidance and control systems), you could carry a larger payload, right?

I gotta say that a humanoid or bipedal mech would be a bad idea, and the more moving parts the setup had the more problems would arise. I don't see it as practical. Even a four legged or more mech would have problems with balance and movements.