Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

dogma wrote:Exactly why we have all those treaties against the weaponization of space.

Because space based arms races are a bad idea?

No, because one destroyed satellite instantly becomes 5-6000 additional satellite destroying pieces of debris; making space-based arms races about 5-6000 times worse than ordinary arms races. Unless you don't find international communication, GPS, weather forecasting, or orbital survey terribly useful.

Doesn't that fall under the bad idea category? I read your post as a question though, and not a statement initially. I apologize. I thought you were being sarcastic in reference.

I think tau Crisis suits would be semi feasable, except for theyr wierd hoof-like feet. that would ahve to be fixed. it just needs a stonking powerful power source and you've got a weapon that's about twice the height of a normal human MUCH more heavily armoured. plus it's jet pack makes it very speedy. pretty good for urban warfare IMO

Largeish power armor is actually not a bad concept. The jets are ridiculous though. Thats not how flight works. The suits would destroy themselves quickly and reliably.

lets say for the sake of argument that the mech idea works.where is the pracdabilty?
why have an expensive mecha fighting inthe air with an assult rifle when you can have a f-22 rapter.
or one on the ground when you can have a tank

Those are the reasons they don't work. They are an illogical and poor design for combat.

Well the logical argument there is Shuma that a mech would be able to utilize the abilities of both and make them obsolete.

I agree totally that the designs we see in video games and anime would be bad though, if they were ever to be utilized we would need to work out a practical design.

Well the logical argument there is Shuma that a mech would be able to utilize the abilities of both and make them obsolete.

The abilities of a tank are fast flat land mobility mixed with heavy armor and an immunity to anti infantry weapons. Mechs won't have that.

The ability of a jet fighter or bomber are maximum operational range, speed, targetting and stealth ability. Etc etc. A mech that could do that would just be a jet.

Adding anything to either weapons platform compromises their strengths and specialties. Mechs in fiction tend to take the role of helicopter gunships, which we already have. There is no practical design to be utilized for the simple reason that they are an impractical design.

How about robotic centipedes?

Cool design? I think robotic arthropods have a lot more potential than robotic humans, personally.

(Okay, probably not more potential than a tank of missile, but they'd be so cool looking!)

Slow flatland movement speed, lack of armor, space for armor and weaponry given over to legs, complication of the drive systems making it difficult to maintain in the field.

You have to be better at a tank at being short, armored, repairable, and fast on flat ground. If you are sacrificing "armor and weapons" for "mobility" then just buy a helicopter.

How about a robotic Mole, or underwater Rock Lobster? They could hide/be inactive till the fighting starts, then pop up on land or in water to attack.

I like where your at on the rock lobster idea.

The US military is testing a four legged robot for the infantry. To act as a mule/dog. There was a video of it on military.com. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004408.html
Found this too. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002138.html

ShumaGorath wrote:Slow flatland movement speed, lack of armor, space for armor and weaponry given over to legs, complication of the drive systems making it difficult to maintain in the field.

I was thinking smaller, AI based, more far future.

Like, Hunter-Killer robots made to go through ruined cities or tunnel networks and destroy/secure anything they come across.

Still probably not going to happen, but more likely to happen there than giant centipede armies clashing on the battlefield. Outside of close quarters/dense terrain/etc, anything too exciting will probably be worthless (going down to more missiles, planes, helicopters, etc).

sexiest_hero wrote:How about a robotic Mole, or underwater Rock Lobster? They could hide/be inactive till the fighting starts, then pop up on land or in water to attack.

I like it!

The US military is testing a four legged robot for the infantry. To act as a mule/dog. There was a video of it on military.com. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004408.html
Found this too. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002138.html

They were testing that. It was part of a DARPA competition between a few firms to create a pedal transport robot. If I remember right the competition ended, not sure if they are still developing that one. A lot of funds seem to have been redirected to Sarcos' and lockeeds assisted exoskeletons. It got a lot of press about a year ago, but then sort of vanished in regular DARPA style.

It's terrifying though.

Well if the exoskeleton proves usable in the field then that mule/dog/packhorse really serves no purpose, unless stealthy supply insertions were needed but of course it would have to be quieter than that.

Then again has noone seen the battlemech that Japan has tested. Its legs hardly moved, but its a step in the right direction.

99MDeery wrote:Well if the exoskeleton proves usable in the field then that mule/dog/packhorse really serves no purpose, unless stealthy supply insertions were needed but of course it would have to be quieter than that.

Then again has noone seen the battlemech that Japan has tested. Its legs hardly moved, but its a step in the right direction.

That was an art installation. Not a government test. It was an incredibly simple design similar to the old wind up walking toys from the 80's. The bigdogs main use was as a packmule for transport across rough ground, it was supposedly able to carry 300+ pounds and still move fairly nimbly. It has a totally different use then the sarcos lifter or the lockheed HULC pack (though I guess the lockheed one could kind of do the same job).

99MDeery wrote:Well if the exoskeleton proves usable in the field then that mule/dog/packhorse really serves no purpose, unless stealthy supply insertions were needed but of course it would have to be quieter than that.

Stealth and supply insertion don't really go together. No matter how you slice it the process inevitably involves some form of airdrop. These are either low visibility, high noise operations that attract local attention, or high visibility, low noise operations that attract theatre attention. The trick is to get in and out as fast as possible so that the intended recipients of the drop aren't around when the observers are.

What if the supplies were carried by a large, robotic arthropod?

ShumaGorath wrote:

99MDeery wrote:Well if the exoskeleton proves usable in the field then that mule/dog/packhorse really serves no purpose, unless stealthy supply insertions were needed but of course it would have to be quieter than that.

Then again has noone seen the battlemech that Japan has tested. Its legs hardly moved, but its a step in the right direction.

That was an art installation. Not a government test. It was an incredibly simple design similar to the old wind up walking toys from the 80's. The bigdogs main use was as a packmule for transport across rough ground, it was supposedly able to carry 300+ pounds and still move fairly nimbly. It has a totally different use then the sarcos lifter or the lockheed HULC pack (though I guess the lockheed one could kind of do the same job).

aye the Lockheed does look like it does the same thing (If i am correct in my thinking the Sarcos one was the one that could be collapsed back into a backpack), don't get me wrong the packmule was pretty impressive I was watching some technical run through and the guys were just kicking the thing and it refused to fall over it always managed to right itself and carry on walking. Considering how well balanced and articulated the legs are whats to stop anyone from taking the basis for the technology and scaling it up?

@Dogma thats un-doubtingly true, what about dropping 2 of those off 600miles from where they need to be and just let them walk, with someone back at base controlling them? Granted its probably completely impractical but its a use I could see them used for. But I doubt it would match the airdrop for precision in this case.

99MDeery wrote:
@Dogma thats un-doubtingly true, what about dropping 2 of those off 600miles from where they need to be and just let them walk, with someone back at base controlling them? Granted its probably completely impractical but its a use I could see them used for. But I doubt it would match the airdrop for precision in this case.

The problem is that 600 miles is a really long distance. As a matter of scale, there's roughly 700 miles between Chicago and New York. Unless those bad boys can keep up a sustained speed in excess of 35 mph we're looking at a travel time of several days. During which the cargo can be easily intercepted by anyone who happens to spot it while walking along.

I think think that those chrome hout i don't know whet nds was lookin' good,
bu

DARN LAGGY COMPUTER!!!
It ruins my writing.

I think the Kaban engine is about as good as things can get.

Yes your shoes are nice but legs are not a better solution when tracks can do much better.

Gorgabonk wrote:I think think that those chrome hout i don't know whet nds was lookin' good,
bu

DARN LAGGY COMPUTER!!!
It ruins my writing.

That sure is strange, because we use the same computer.

For those who are not aware, Little Bonk here is my brother.

BrookM wrote:I think the Kaban engine is about as good as things can get.

Yes your shoes are nice but legs are not a better solution when tracks can do much better.

I still think a bipedal vehicle has some merits over a tracked one, they can traverse more types of terrain more efficiently for example woodland terrain.

Still you pays your money you takes your chances methinks.

It depends on how large this bipedal vehicle is going to be. Something like a battlemech would still get through the woods like a modern tank does: drive through what you can, and clear a path through what you can't.

99MDeery wrote:I still think a bipedal vehicle has some merits over a tracked one, they can traverse more types of terrain more efficiently for example woodland terrain.

Airplanes can do that too.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Like, Hunter-Killer robots made to go through ruined cities or tunnel networks and destroy/secure anything they come across.

Have you been looking at the T2 concept art again?

They had Centurion (4 legged gun platforms) HKs and centipede-like ones (that would worm through holes and frag anything on the other side).

They did shoot some footage of them, but they didn't make the final cut.

Ooh, no, but those do sound cool.

stonefox wrote:

99MDeery wrote:I still think a bipedal vehicle has some merits over a tracked one, they can traverse more types of terrain more efficiently for example woodland terrain.

Airplanes can do that too.

I think the biggest problem with the idea behind mechs is that helicopters exist.

Why not ships with legs that swim instead of propellors?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why not ships with legs that swim instead of propellors?

I think you may be onto something here.

advantage of bipedel tanks over helis
in a dense forets the tanks can not be noticed but a heli can since it will be flying