Robot suit for humans

[ligertiger]

and mecha cant be far behind.

And then we'll have Gundams. I want mine to have wings.

 

[blackheart]

So basically we could have a one man army.

 

[Winner]

Umm, Power Armor Fallout, here I come

 

[Vietcong]

serusly tho, mechs.. thay whold be extreamly impratical for millitary aplications. think about it.. think of the cost of one, and think about how vanrauble it whold be. something as large as a mech whold make an easye target for any abu silam ishmar who ran around a corner of a ally way and throw him self on its foot joint or poped up in a windo with an rpg.. let alone any airfract with a missel or tank... i think it whold be much to impratical in reality, makeing to much of an easy target.

if ther are robotic war machiens, thay will be robotic controled tanks, small. havly armored and fast. alowing it to be a hard target to hit. or robotic aircraft.. but i dont think ther will be any mechs, if ther was thay whold be decimated by any wood be gurrila army with a few land miens, rpgs, trip wires and what not.

 

[Suki]

there's also BLEEX, the burkley university lower extremity exoskeleton.. google it, it's prety cool.

the idea isn't to eventually build mechs it's to build better infantry. the whole advantage of infantry is that they can go where no vehicles can, move fluidly through anything.

A soilder equiped with the most advanced stuff we got cost on averge 10grand

that's with equipment these days this stuf will cost a lot more but keep in mind that the soldier himself is worth a lot more as a human being, and quality troops cost big bucks to train, protect your investment.

and it's not the kind of thing that I'd see them equiping everyone with, it would be a specialist thing at first, then it would get more and more common until it's one per platoon, one per squad...

 

[Hotpoint]

The real question with Powered-Armour is the cost and how easily it could be taken down. If you're in a situation where some poor unarmoured grunt can still take out a very expensive Powered-Armour Infantryman with something like a Gauss-Rifle, or even an old RPG, then you need to consider just how many of each both sides are willing to lose.

 

[Winner]

The real question with Powered-Armour is the cost and how easily it could be taken down. If you're in a situation where some poor unarmoured grunt can still take out a very expensive Powered-Armour Infantryman with something like a Gauss-Rifle, or even an old RPG, then you need to consider just how many of each both sides are willing to lose.

Well, Fallout-style Gauss rifle is a nonsense, so there is just artillery and RPG's to worry about. What we must realize is what would happen, if the soldier without Power armor was hit by the RPG

 

[Evil Tyrant]

We are the Borg, resistance is futile .

 

[blackheart]

Well, Fallout-style Gauss rifle is a nonsense, so there is just artillery and RPG's to worry about. What we must realize is what would happen, if the soldier without Power armor was hit by the RPG

The Red Ryder BB Gun will take care of everything.

 

[Hundegesicht]

In reality half of this stuff is unlikely, due mainly to the cost. A soilder equiped with the most advanced stuff we got cost on averge 10grand.

On average, it takes about $90,000 to properly train a U.S. Army infantryman, so it all boils down to statistics, really. If full power armor (weighing in at your $10,000 estimate) lowers casualty rates in a given situation by 12% of more, it's a cheaper alternative to training a new soldier, or repairing a damaged one.

And speaking of which, kills isn't the only thing being prevented. If you can either stop or lower the damage of a wound, you can lower hospital bills significantly. Hospital bills for heavily injured soldiers can frequently exceed $100,000, and that's not taking in account the amount of money you'd have to spend to retrain them.

I think 10 grand is a reasonable investment, all considered.

 

[blackheart]

On average, it takes about $90,000 to properly train a U.S. Army infantryman, so it all boils down to statistics, really. If full power armor (weighing in at your $10,000 estimate) lowers casualty rates in a given situation by 12% of more, it's a cheaper alternative to training a new soldier, or repairing a damaged one.

And speaking of which, kills isn't the only thing being prevented. If you can either stop or lower the damage of a wound, you can lower hospital bills significantly. Hospital bills for heavily injured soldiers can frequently exceed $100,000, and that's not taking in account the amount of money you'd have to spend to retrain them.

I think 10 grand is a reasonable investment, all considered.

It's either short term or long term planning, and I think the government has shown trends to save money in the short term rather than the long term.

 

[Hotpoint]

Well, Fallout-style Gauss rifle is a nonsense, so there is just artillery and RPG's to worry about. What we must realize is what would happen, if the soldier without Power armor was hit by the RPG

The problem for the Gauss Rifle is really just the power-cell, solve that and the rest of the engineering is easy... Okay so it's a big problem but we haven't got Powered Armour yet either

The point is really how many more Infantry without armour you could afford for the cost of one wearing it... well that and the obvious limitation of small numbers of high-tech troops compared with large numbers of guys with AK-47s and RPG's, the latter can be in a lot more places at once.

Quantity has a quality all it's own.

.

 

[ligertiger]

I think that with the rapid economic rise of multiple world economies, their militaries will also gain counter points to what America is developing. Terrorists will find a way, they always do.

 

[blackheart]

News Link

In the article, they talk about liquid armor using sheer thickening fluid (STF) which will condense the moment something with enough force hits it. I think if they refine the process, there goes the worry about bullets. Anyways, if this is whats public, think of what they have under wraps.