Debate and Discussion

The future of warfare
imshard at 6:46PM, Sept. 9, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
seventy2
back on topic. the near future is guys in trucks with awesome guns that fit in the back. it may or may not already be here.
if it continues to fight militias, and not military's, then it will stay that way, and evolve from there.
or if china starts some junk, it'll be epic tank on tank action.

Yeah, the Hummer is being replaced soon hopefully. It was never meant as a front-line combat vehicle or for any of the dozens of other roles its been sucked into.
That is where the JLTV and MRAP come in. The MRAP has already seen widespread use and is now actually being cycled placed as top priority. They often feature a lot of the remote sensing and weapons systems already mentioned. Its was a custom fit solution for the asymmetric war scenarios in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its main drawbacks is its bulky stature/low mobility and high program cost. Light weight MRAPS are in the works alongside the JLTV as replacements for the HMMWV

If China starts junk though I think their biggest advantage is massive numbers. See Korea, and the Sino-Indian war for references. They could hold out a war of attrition if they needed to and they have few inhibitions on using a nuclear arsenal. Though really neither of those options would be needed as they are more than capable of of fighting and winning a conventional war with just about anybody, even the USA.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
blindsk at 8:11PM, Sept. 9, 2010
(online)
posts: 560
joined: 5-5-2010
imshard
class 4 in Oklahoma, USA. I even checked with a lawyer. All it took was a visit to that link and a credit card

Ah, I guess that makes sense. Well, it's just that I live in California, and I keep forgetting that we're one of the few states that outlaws everything that's fun to do. :(

I will compromise a little myself and say that the industry is progressing much more rapidly than I've given it credit for. Maybe today it's not perfect, but in two, maybe three months? You guys could very well be right on the money. I mean, I've only been at this company for about a year now. ;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:25AM
ozoneocean at 2:58AM, Sept. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,965
joined: 1-2-2004
Rafen
Another reason why I don't like UAVs for anything other than recon.
As fighters they have a lot of potential- no need to worry about pilot safety and survivability, so that's a LOT of weight they no longer have to carry. You could manoeuvre them a lot faster since there's no worry about pilots blacking out… And did I not mention the cost of a pilot? Losing a fully trained pilot is a bigger blow than losing a jet… and losing a $100 mil f-22 is a lot worse than losing a $10 mil remotely operated fighter.
seventy2
ozoneocean
Valid concerns but hardly major ones or they'd never have been fielded.
Oh ho ho hahahahahahaha hah hahahahahhahaha ha. Hahahha oooohohohohoho sigh *wipes tear away from eye*
You're a riot and a half, no wonder you're the favored admin at DD.
No need to be facetious. I'm fully aware problems exist with the use and operation of drone craft, as it does with any weapons tech. As it has always done. But they're hardly at the level when they can be so easily defeated that they would be practically useless in the field, are they? This is what Bravo was implying.
imshard
I beg to differ: the T-50 is a 5th generation Russian fighter that is currently undergoing final trials before 2015 deployment similar to the f-35 and at the least a match for the canceled f-22.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is now 7 years old but makes a minor contender since its used by so many countries now.
China has been keeping their new superiority fighter under tight wraps and should see deployment by 2018. (and no, not the JF-17)
Thing about military might and technology is most of the people with the best toys are all on diplomatic terms right now. Conventional war is never far off or far fetched though.
Out of all those jets, the only true F-22 rival is the PAK. Don't know about the hidden Chinese one obviously. The point is though that the F-22 especially was designed with a cold war competition level state of mind; to overreach and be the “very best” no matter what it cost.

But costs matter a lot now. The USA's top spot is not guaranteed and cannot be maintained through force of arms and forcing an arms race like it was during the cold war. The world isn't divided that way anymore. Economic strength is what really matters, not arms investment at all costs. So while BIG project arms programs will still exist, they're going to have to limp along for a while.
imshard
Actually there have been a lot of advancements in laser tech over the last couple years. (I'm a bit of an enthusiast)
I've been following that too, but you have to wonder- just how much of that is fluff released to the press in order to get a bump in the share price, or extra investment for the company?
It reminds me of the tactics of the drug companies: releasing info about “promising studies” about drugs that will cure cancer or AIDS (always in a few years), and it never happens for some reason. This stuff is big, BIG, big business with government clients that offer unlimited funds, if only they get the investment and can win political and public support behind their projects.

seventy2
back on topic. the near future is guys in trucks with awesome guns that fit in the back.
Militia or military? It doesn't matter, that's not the future or the past, merely a current constant. A truck with a gun on it is pretty bog standard fare.
Interestingly though, we know that man portable weapons that can easily eliminate vehicles are getting smaller and better to use. If any troop can neutralise a light vehicle from long rage, that would severely limit their application.
imshard
Though really neither of those options would be needed as they are more than capable of of fighting and winning a conventional war with just about anybody, even the USA
I'm not sure. China doesn't have that great a history of winning wars and they have very little real experience of them. They're untried.
They might be very capable… but could they actually do it?

If I were to guess, I would imagine that China would probably make a lot of the same mistakes that Imperial Russia used to with her numbers. I would guess that China would lose in a major world conflict, if it was opposed by Europe and North America (because of superior tactical and strategic experience), and the cost would be monstrous for all sides.
…Perhaps NATO and allied countries haven't showed great tactical efficiency in Iraq or Afghanistan, but large scale conflicts are quite different.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:37PM
seventy2 at 7:45AM, Sept. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,953
joined: 11-15-2007
ozoneocean
No need to be facetious. I'm fully aware problems exist with the use and operation of drone craft, as it does with any weapons tech. As it has always done. But they're hardly at the level when they can be so easily defeated that they would be practically useless in the field, are they? This is what Bravo was implying.
sorry i thought the stereotype of the general being all eager to release his new weapon and it crapping out on him was widely distributed.
in the military, things are released on their release date. period. no last minute pushes to fix a minor or even a major problem.
Normally things will be released with 2k page document stating exactly what's not finished where that might cause problems. however, if it's something super major like, there are no wings on the plane well, then they might push it.


ozone
Militia or military? It doesn't matter, that's not the future or the past, merely a current constant. A truck with a gun on it is pretty bog standard fare.
Interestingly though, we know that man portable weapons that can easily eliminate vehicles are getting smaller and better to use. If any troop can neutralise a light vehicle from long rage, that would severely limit their application.

The military (regardless of career field) is being trained in precision tactics. we are currently training to be a surgeon. we want to get in. take out a few people, and leave.
we're aiming for small militias, 50 man groups that control an entire state, rather than tactics based that the enemy has three batallions between us and victory in an area.
facara
Running Anew an exercise blog.
I'm gonna love you till the money comes, half of it's gonna be mine someday.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:31PM
imshard at 12:30PM, Sept. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
seventy2
sorry i thought the stereotype of the general being all eager to release his new weapon and it crapping out on him was widely distributed.
in the military, things are released on their release date. period. no last minute pushes to fix a minor or even a major problem.
Normally things will be released with 2k page document stating exactly what's not finished where that might cause problems. however, if it's something super major like, there are no wings on the plane well, then they might push it.

You're half right, plenty of things ship with lots of faults but not always because of the release date. What you find a lot more of is programs that are indefinitely delayed, canceled or experience cost overruns. A good current example would be the F-35. Because of things like this its hard to tell what tech is next merely because it hinges on what is going to actually make it past prototype.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
bravo1102 at 3:09PM, Sept. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
I keep forgetting that first hand experience always has to take a back seat to the arm chair expert (ACE). All those years at military and model shows you'd think I'd learn. I've seen a Pentagon analyst like Steve Zaloga take a back seat to a guy who read some articles on line. Then there's a let alone an old dumbass tanker like me. ;)

To me The F-22 is like the XB-70. So far beyond what is out there until someone sits down and designs something to counter it. The handful of F-22s available are more than sufficent to counter whatever possible threat is on the horizon. They cancelled new field artillery for the Army to get a handful more F-22s.

It's political games. I know too much about them. Get the manuals and preparation information for new equipment and then read in Army Times it's been cancelled/diverted/postponed etc. Then get a milksop out of nowhere because some lobbyist got his program through Congress. No HMMWs but we got kevlar helmets! I saw Pentagon Wars on HBO :) (the true story was even more convoluted) and followed the development of every weapons system in the news in the 1970s- 90s. I gave up after the Crusader was cancelled. Too heartbreaking. The US Pentagon plays these games rather than getting what they need for real warfighting. Instead they get cool toys and have to make end-runs on the fly to get what they need when the shit hits the fan. Want to read about heartbreak? Hunnicutt's Abrams: The American Main Battle Tank all about the MBT-70/XM803 debacle and then the uphill fight to develop the M1.

For counter insurgency you don't need speed. Never have. An A-10 flies over the battlefield at the speed of a P-47 or IL-2 Sturmovik. An A-1 Skyraider is just fine though I admit the airframes were past worn out when they were retired, that's why there are so few flying today versus the older P-51s and Bearcats which were not flown as long and as hard. Among the most used fighter in the War on Terror is the F-18 not exactly the speed queen of jet aircraft being only marginally faster than the A-10 with a payload. It can break the speed of sound… barely. Navy flyers wouldn't complain if the F-14 came back. Still a lot of Tomcatters out there. They want their A-6's back. Instead it'll only be a few more years till the F-35 arrives and at last report it's performance matched that of the… A-6?

On the HMMW, did you know that as of this writing it has been in service longer than any of its predecessors? It's already outlasted the Jeep in US Army service. The M37A2 Jeep of 1960 was nothing like the Jeep MB of 1940 and the M151 of 1970-80 was of an entirely different lineage, yet the HMMW has been around nearly unchanged since the late 1980s. It was never supposed to be a light armored car. It got shoehorned into that because the US Army has never invested in wheeled light armored vehicles and the US can never buy something off the shelf even if every country under the sun has gone out and developed and ironed out exactly what we needed.

The Marines had to go around the Pentagon to get the LAV and it took over a decade to get the Stryker even though the US Army knew it needed an armored car before Desert Storm. The US Army dumped every M113 even though the M113 ACAV had performed the same mission as the armoured HMMW admirably thirty years earlier in Vietnam. We'd done the whole armored convoy thing before and very well, then promptly forgot all about it, and dumped what had proven so successful just before we started that mission again. Laughable. That's the Army for you.

Enough out of me, I'll let the ACEs go back to work I have an F-18 model to finish and I'll do what I really know about; the right paint to match the modern color scheme. :)

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:34AM
ozoneocean at 10:54PM, Sept. 10, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,965
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
I keep forgetting that first hand experience always has to take a back seat to the arm chair expert (ACE). All those years at military and model shows you'd think I'd learn. I've seen a Pentagon analyst like Steve Zaloga take a back seat to a guy who read some articles on line. Then there's a let alone an old dumbass tanker like me.
Rather a cheap shot Bravo, and not quite accurate… might need some laser guidance on that one? :)
You're an “ACE” here too, unless we're discussing you're own particular field of military expertise.

A “handful of F-22s”? What about resupply? What about accidents? Training? Maybe they need their own special superhero squadron of crack pilots fly them and just race from hotspot to hotspot, ready to handle whatever comes their way, like Team America! ^__^
You contradict yourself constantly- you tell us that whatever the technology, it's the man behind it that counts. And then it's stuff about having the "mast advanced' fighter tech in the world that counts, and just keep going back and forward over those two positions.
I think you might have a little bit of a flame for the F-22 itself. ;)

That sort of thing isn't rare though, go to any real military forum, with actual experienced fighter pilots and things discussing stuff like that and many will have the absolute hots for certain equipment and philosophies and exult that over all others-
"The F-22 is the best EVER“ ”no, the f-22 is a hopeless waste of money, the design approach of the cheaper, simpler F-16's was FAR better, that's the way of the future“ ”You're all wrong, The Mig-29 is a versatile, durable, efficient craft…“ ”No, I've flown a Mig-29 and it was an outdated, crude piece of shit…"
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:37PM
bravo1102 at 7:55AM, Sept. 11, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
ozoneocean
Rather a cheap shot Bravo, and not quite accurate… might need some laser guidance on that one? :)
You're an “ACE” here too, unless we're discussing you're own particular field of military expertise.


You contradict yourself constantly- you tell us that whatever the technology, it's the man behind it that counts. And then it's stuff about having the "mast advanced' fighter tech in the world that counts, and just keep going back and forward over those two positions.
I think you might have a little bit of a flame for the F-22 itself. ;)



Sorry, you're right. I had hoped to intimate that I'm just as much an ACEs here as anyone that was the supposed point of that grammatically garbled statement at the end. Outside of US Armor I'm as much an ACE as anyone. That's also why most of the post is about the US Army. :) The thing at the end is my admittedly back handed way of admitting that most of what I know about aircraft is from building models and that honestly I might know more about FS numbers than capabilities.

Since I write between the lines sometimes you gotta read between them. The sure sign of someone who doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. lol!

I'm not a fan of the F-22. I'm more of a Tomcatter and Phantom Phanatic. I'm beginning to think stealth may be overrated and I'm afraid one day we'll get a rude awakening after putting so many eggs into that basket. There's also this annoying tendency for the realities of combat to ruin the beautiful intentions of the designer. I see the F-22 as a specialized interceptor not a jack of all trades because though it is a multi-role aircraft there just isn't enough money to build the force necessary to replace all the older aircraft. The current production block of F-16s are pretty amazing especially those Belgian Tiger meet schemes. There I go back to paint schemes again. ;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:34AM
imshard at 4:55PM, Sept. 13, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Speaking of the army I'd say they're the least upgraded branch right now. The F-35 is going to serve the AF, Navy AND Marines. The Navy has a line of new ships hitting the water including the LCS vessels. The AF is going berserk with new projects and UAV operations. Looking at the list of canceled projects and it seems the grunts have gotten the biggest shaft and had to learn the hardest lessons. Packs and kit that are too heavy, lack of appropriate or modern vehicles (Abrams tanks aside), even the few things they have gotten under the current BCT modernization program are still provisional and could go away at any time. All the big Army projects keep getting canceled. The Comanche Chopper, the Crusader artillery, Land Warrior, any of the dozens of projects that were under the FCS program (which included vehicle, armor, and gear/kit improvements). Most of the infantry upgrades and improvements like body armor had to be bought third party by troops or come out of the marines programs (like the MRAP). I find this baffling considering that its the infantry doing the majority of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
bravo1102 at 9:28AM, Sept. 15, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
The Abrams and Bradley are nearly thirty years old. Now I know the M1A2 is quite a beauty and will last a long time longer and hopefully the long gun 120mm will be adopted as in the Leopard 2A5. But it took the Army forever and a day to adopt an anti-personnel round the the Bundeswehr had developed for the Leopard 2 back in the 80's. I saw it at a Arms Expo at Fort Knox when I was in Basic Training in 1988. It doesn't take more than 10 years to develop tank ammunition.

You're right nearly all the new stuff the US Army has is US MArines inspired (or copied) Even the latest US Army weapons system the Stryker armored car is the Product improved development of the same vehicle the Marines adopted as the LAV-25 twenty years ago. (LAV-I piranha versus Cougar/Wolverine LAV-II) And both of those were developed by the Swiss and the Canadians.

It used to be the Marines who were the red-haired step child of the Pentagon. Now it's the Army. Forutnately they finally figured out that 2 1/2 ton truck originally built by Studebaker in the 1950s has no more rebuilds left in it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:34AM
ozoneocean at 8:37AM, Sept. 16, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,965
joined: 1-2-2004
The American military organisation is bizarre. It's hard to understand the thing with your marines.
The idea of having soldiers on ships is completely understandable to an extent and nations have called their army soldiers travelling on their ships “Marines” for a few hundred years or so, but to make that another whole complete service is strange.
They're like an air-force and army combined, riding around on ships!

One can't help but think the situation stems from pride and military politics in some part originally, with all that famous inter-service rivalry and the navy wanting to maintain its pre-eminence by upgrading its infantry arm, gaining a march on the budding air-service by operating all those planes and increasing their effectiveness as an army strikeforce with full access to armour, gunships and all the rest…?

But then Australia's armed services are so small that we don't even have marines, let alone as a separate branch. We have army, navy, air-force, and special services.

The main role of SASR (special services) is that surgical, tactical strike stuff Seventy was talking about, but they've always done that.
The future of warfare for Australian armed services is to copy the Americans as much as they can afford to do so (financially and in manpower), as they have been doing for the past 35 years or so since they stopped copying the British.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:37PM
bravo1102 at 10:11AM, Sept. 16, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
We have the British to blame for the mission of the US Marines. They were once ship borne soldiers and elite soldiers for the extension of imperial power off the fleet like the RM. After the debacle at Gallipoli the USMC spent the inter-war years studying amphibious warfare because of the US Pacific island empire. The US knew the Japanese would challenge them for the islands so the US had to learn how to re-take them and the US Marines set out to become the experts on amphibious warfare.

Once upon a time the Royal Marines were everything that the US Marines are, but they were cut back to just the Royal Marine Commandoes after World War II. The US Marines never lost their role as elite infantry because there was a Department of the Navy and Department of War that were more self-sustained than the War Ministry and Admiralty. The Marines had to be totally self-sufficent because the Army would never help them and the Navy is just a shipping service. The Navy like the Air Farce never went in for close air support, so the Marine Air went all out to take over that mission. Close air support of their troops on the ground because no one else would do it for them and they're totally integrated in a way that seperate services could never be.

The British learned that the minute they cut the RAF free. The RAF hobbled the Fleet Air Arm until just before the eve of World War II when the two were finally split apart. There is a lot to be said for one small totally integrated force like the Japanese Self Defence Forces or the United States Marines, even if in the end they are Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

The Army has been edging towards this with the helicopter elements of the various units. One of the best integrated forces is the old Armored Cavalry Regiment. Amazing how the Army keeps coming back and reinventing the integrated armored force they developed in the 1960s.

As for the Aussies imitating the US Army? You know as well as I do that historically the military always imitates the most successful nation's forces whether it's the French, Prussians, Germans or Americans. Even down to uniforms ;) Everybody loves a pickelhaube (actually a Russian invention) or copying the national dress of irregular Hungarian horsemen of the late 17th-early 18th century no matter how impractical it is in practice.

As for uniforms the 1980 US Army woodland BDUs camouflage was a copy of the USMC ERDL camouflage of the early 1970s with only a slight change in one color and size of pattern. Compare the new US digital uniform and the MARPAT…

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:34AM
kyupol at 7:19PM, Sept. 16, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Most of the war is the info-war. As it has been proven time and time again that if you are the first one to resort to violence, you will look bad. If you are the villain in the eyes of the people, you are destined to fail. Your technological advantage becomes irrelevant. See Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, etc.

That is why propaganda and staged terror attacks / inside job / self-inflicted wounds are the new methods of warfare in the 21st century.

Before physically destroying your enemy, you must first destroy his reputation.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:27PM
bravo1102 at 1:29PM, Sept. 17, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
Kyupol you should try reading one of the oldest writings in the world chronicling the first battle we know anything about; Meggiddo (in another language and another time Armagedden) The hyperbole for the winner is extreme and for the enemy is pretty vile.

It's always been that way, we just have ways to do that are more effective than a stele set up in the capital city. Every army does bad things during the march and it is so easy to pick up a few tales of them or make up a few typical stories and spread them around to prove how bad your enemy is. It's a given.

You might as well say that this Nathan Bedford Forrest saying is a brand new revelation about warfare “War means fighting and fighting means killing”

He also said that you should respect your enemy but never miss a chance to say bad things about him.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:34AM
ozoneocean at 9:02PM, Sept. 17, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,965
joined: 1-2-2004
To be fair Bravo. Kyo is talking about what happens before hostilities commence, not really during or after. I'm sure he implied that as well of course but his main point is that the first and most important strikes aren't actually physically against your enemy.

I'm pretty sure there's a subtext there about how 9/11 was an inside job or something too… :(

I disagree with Kyu. I think the “inside job” thing is mainly a product of people who feel paranoid and powerless about conflicts. … although the Germans did stage some things to justify their bombardment of Poland at the beginning of WWII, but that's the only instance I can think of right now.
Pretexts for wars are generally pretty flimsy and don't justify those wars. They don't HAVE to be fake to be unjustified. 9/11 didn't justify Afghanistan. WMD didn't justify Iraq. Saddam claiming that Kuwait had more than its fair share of resources didn't justify his invasion… at least in the Case of the Original president Bush, he knew when to limit HIS war.

And we always make our potential enemies look horrible before we begin, which is just part of the whole spiralling into war process anyway.
That's one of the main reasons people should pull back and see that people like the Iranians and the North Koreans are just normal people too, before they get too caught up in the moronic dehumanisation process.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:37PM
bravo1102 at 11:59AM, Sept. 18, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
I am quite aware of what Kyupol was saying. That stele about Meggiddo does chronicle an exchange of insults and demands before the armies marched. That's why I closed with that other quote from Forrest, which is also paraphrased in Sun Tzu. I only used examples from during wartime as they were easiest to come up with. I'm lazy. Ideally no one is your firm enemy or friend until the conflict begins and that isn't necessarily a clash of arms. But still never miss a chance to say bad things about your enemy.

Look at how Prussia manipulated the French in 1870 into declaring war or the diplomatic games throughout the nineteenth century. Russia, Prussia and Austria staged incidents to justify the dissolution of Poland in the 18th Century. Britain staged or provoked incidents or issued intolerable demands to start many of their colonial wars. It's a very old game. You isolate your target by saying bad things about them and continue to say bad things until they give you what you want.

There was Japan and that bridge incident they used as an excuse to invade China, Tonkin Gulf was manipulated to give the US government a legal excuse to start offensive action in Vietnam. The US was already at war, LBJ wanted congressional approval so he latched onto a case of mistaken identity and itchy trigger fingers and started a war where 50,000 Americans died and the USA turned Southeast Asia into a moonscape usually pumping ordance into empty jungle (empty of enemy combattants that is, but often full of people) At least now the US does surgical strikes and expends very little ordnance. But we still have a problem with idenifying enemies and goals. The military officers study Forrest and Sun Tzu but the politicians making the real decisions never did.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:34AM
imshard at 9:53AM, Sept. 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Saw this and couldn't resist posting it here.

http://gizmodo.com/5648756/xos-exoskeleton-goes-to-mark-ii-with-more-superpowers
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
ozoneocean at 10:52AM, Sept. 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,965
joined: 1-2-2004
imshard
Saw this and couldn't resist posting it here.

http://gizmodo.com/5648756/xos-exoskeleton-goes-to-mark-ii-with-more-superpowers
Wow, they're still going on with that thing?

Heh, it's a great example of what a gigantic cash-cow government military expenditure is for defence contractors :)
Everyone wants to get on the money train with some new project or other…

Personally, I can't see a useful human scale version of one of those in the field any-time soon, even if it was incorporated into an armoured suit of some sort- because even with the sort of armour that would allow you to carry, it still wouldn't provide that much protection.

It could be pretty cool in a Masuume Shirrow style practical armoured battle-suit though :)
He's good at designing useful, practical mecha, even when it's piloted primarily by semi-naked, extremely nubile women… You could make a bigger than man-size battle-suit, on a scale that could carry enough armour to provide comprehensive protection without affecting manoeuvrability and flexibility, as well as enough mounting points for a selection of weaponry, sensors and places to carry extra equipment.
- Or even something like the suits in Gaseraki.

 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:37PM
Hawk at 11:26AM, Sept. 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Yeah, I'd imagine the man-sized suit would be better for work-related stuff like moving heavy things and clearing away rubble. I can't think of much the suit does for you in combat that a tank can't do, besides being more agile and maneuverable.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
imshard at 10:03AM, Sept. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
I think the point is to give soldiers enough strength to carry and use all that gear (I think current full kit weighs in over 300 pounds), and possibly the bigger/heavier next-gen weapons (weapon weight has been the failing point of contention for many proposed weapons like the OICW). If they aren't struggling to carry their backpacks and gear they can operate longer farther and faster. Not to mention reducing weariness, and increasing readiness and alertness hours. Even without any additional armor the relatively compact exos would gain an enormous advantage just as enhanced infantry. Some consideration has also been given to weapon accuracy as the suit could help hold even full auto weapons steady while firing.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
bravo1102 at 12:35PM, Sept. 29, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,303
joined: 1-21-2008
imshard
I think the point is to give soldiers enough strength to carry and use all that gear (I think current full kit weighs in over 300 pounds), and possibly the bigger/heavier next-gen weapons (weapon weight has been the failing point of contention for many proposed weapons like the OICW). If they aren't struggling to carry their backpacks and gear they can operate longer farther and faster. Not to mention reducing weariness, and increasing readiness and alertness hours. Even without any additional armor the relatively compact exos would gain an enormous advantage just as enhanced infantry. Some consideration has also been given to weapon accuracy as the suit could help hold even full auto weapons steady while firing.

You'd have the regular infantry fire team with one or two tasked heavy weapons types with the exo-skeletons. They got that right back in Aliens as the heavy weapons guy is always the most overloaded sucker-eh soldier in the fireteam. And that fireteam will always have to go someplace beyond the reach of the heavy stuff without having to level the whole block. Yeah it's so much fun ot knock everything down with the wonderful 70 tons of pure intimidation and it's just silly using a cannon to kill a wounded mosquito. (Monty Python mosquito hunter skit?)

It'd allow for a single soldier to carry an automatic light cannon or grenade launcher without mounting on a vehicle that can't go all the places an infantry man can go.

Sometimes you want to use something that doesn't need to demolish walls and level buildings to get heavy firepower at what is inside.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:34AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved