199 replies to this topic

[Squirtbox]

Gears are more feasible than Mechs but that is still not likely to ever happen. Cost is the most prohibitive factor in regards to the military. Contracts are won on a lowest-bidder basis. OF course this ignores technological issues such as viable power sources, armor, weaponry, and control systems. I don't know how you would accurately translate 3 separate joints into a single joystick, which is the most preferred control setup in sci-fi/anime.

Powered armor/Elementals are the most likely advanced/heavy/mechanized infantry we will see anytime in the near future. Much fewer issues to work out and training would be much easier. Cost is still the most prohibitive factor even here. Its highly unlikely that we would ever see a time in which every soldier on a battlefield is decked out in the most high-tech combat space suit death machine imaginable. It will probably be limited to SF or other such teams outside of maybe supply/maintenance work.

All the stuff about automating tanks is rather pointless as well. Anything you automate with a machine has a chance of breaking down. The battlefield is not a nice clean environment. Its rough, dusty, and hot. Computers don't handle heat well and having to put AC on a combat vehicle so that the systems function is just stupid. People are much better at handling adverse weather and environs than computers. People are also faster than auto-loaders for any large bore cannon.

[KraftySOT]

Fut, on 01 December 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

Give it some more time, we're almost there...

U.S. Navy Deploys Its First Laser Weapon in the Persian Gulf

"The U.S. Navy has deployed on a command ship in the Persian Gulf its first laser weapon capable of destroying a target.
The amphibious transport ship USS Ponce has been patrolling with a prototype 30-kilowatt-class Laser Weapon System since late August, according to officials. The laser is mounted facing the bow, and can be fired in several modes -- from a dazzling warning flash to a destructive beam -- and can set a drone or small boat on fire."

A small drone...or a small boat?

Thats hardly a laser. Thats those "heat guns" with a magnifier. The same ones they use to make pirates "feel uncomfortable" you can also point it at their wooden dingies and light them up.

Not exactly going to harm anything metal.

[KraftySOT]

StandingInFire, on 01 December 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

Plasma was never a feasible weapon idea, you just need a basic understanding of physics to know that, the amount of effort you would have to go through to prevent the plasma from simply not dissipating once it would leave the barrel is silly and is just outclassed by lasers. Laser research also is going along fairly well, heck I think it was just last year a US Navy test used a laser to shoot down a bunch of drones the ship is even deployed in the middle east apparently and also one used to shoot down 3 mortar rounds simultaneously (more than 5 years ago).


Guass weapons sure but the research into rail guns is looking quite good and they are pretty much big gauss (different tech but same core principles).


Seeing as the only combat robots we currently have on anything but extreme prototyping are drones, which are doing quite well, automated turrets, also doing well, and little bomb defusal/reconnaissance bots I don't see how they are failing at all. I would say they are performing the rolls they are designed for very well.

First of all, the test was against a small wooden and plastic drone target, and it took 8-10 seconds to get it to flame up.

Its not very practical and never will be. Gauss are useless beyond the curvature of the earth, (17 miles) which if you cant fire them beyond visual range, a general ballistic or guided weapon will always be better. A sunburn for instance has a 117km range, an Exocet 80km. Ask the Falklands.

And actually:

http://en.wikipedia..../Military_robot

There are dozens, and none of them perform well, or to task, other than the SUAV, which is just a camera drone, and bomb defusal robots that we've been using for 20 years.

You will never see mechs, or power armor, or anything of the short unfortunately for a litany of reasons.

You can dream....but its just that, a dream.

We already have problems now, fighting skinnies with rocks, with JDAMs and Hellfires.

Lets do a mastercard commercial eh?

AK47, 30 USD, Jeans, Tshirt, Burka, 8 USD, Burial expensives, 50 USD.

Blowing him to smitherines with a 570,000 USD Hellfire?

Pricelessly hilarious.

No mechs fellahs. Sorry.

[Water Bear]

Not to be a buzz kill, but how about none. When technology is advanced enough that we have access to a small, portable fusion reactor that creates more electricity than it uses to run, and can store its output effectively, we'll also have military grade satellite weapons that will be able to level a city block in an instant.

AFAIK satellite weapons are already an easy reality; The gravitational potential energy of a few-kilogram mass in high orbit is sufficient to explode the hell out of something on Earth's surface. Given technological advancement there's no reason to assume those weapons would not become more developed and more accurate.

In fact, a good reason battelemechs don't exist right now is that tanks almost have to be far better at the same job. Maybe they couldn't climb the same things a mech could, but in the modern world if one first world country really wants to destroy a tank, that's probably not a problem (to say the least).

Edited by Water Bear, 02 December 2014 - 10:17 AM.

[HlynkaCG]

Alek Ituin, on 02 December 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

You call problems an actual tanker experienced on exercise "largely fictional". The arrogance in that statement is just... mind boggling.

Read my comment again. I said that they "are either largely fictional or effect both platforms equally" Do you really think that a mech's hip or torso actuator wont fail randomly? that a mech's armor wont be subject to expansion shock, and that it's cooling system wont leak? Tanks suffer from severe problems a large amount of the time and mechs will suffer from those exact same problems because those problems are industrial design issues rather than something unique to tanks specifically.

As for all that nonsense about mechs being faster / more agile, more reliable, and better armored, than a equivalent tank that's the fictional part.

Quote

Instead of addressing the fact that a Dragon's foot pad design could easily provide the necessary surface area to avoid sinking problems...

I did address it but it seems I did not make the problem sufficiently clear. Lets do the math...

The severity of sinking problems is dictated by the static pressure equation, P = F / A.

F = Mass * Acceleration due to gravity. which means that a mass of 60 tons will have an "F" value of 533,968 newtons. A M1 Abrams has a "P" value of 103 kPa, using these two values we can solve for "A".

533,968 (F) / 103,000 (P) gives us a foot-print of 5.2 square meters.

Now at first blush 5.2 square meters for a foot seems reasonable, but remember that you have to walk, and that walking is achieved by lifting one foot and pushing off against the ground with the other. As such your mech needs to have at least two feet and that your "F" value will need to be multiplied by your desired acceleration (or deceleration). Even a comparatively sedate acceleration of 1 m/s^2 (0 to 60 in 30 seconds) results in a scalar of 54,431 N. Which means that in order to keep from falling through the ground with each step like a kid walking on snow-crust your mech's feet would need to be 54 times larger than standing pressure would indicate. (even bigger if you want to have any sort of agility)

5.2 square meters of surface area per foot is reasonable, 280 square meters is not. This is why a mech would need to come equipped with giant skis or snow-shoes if you wanted it to move with any alacrity. (the quicker you want to be the bigger that scalar gets)

Quote

you've just skimmed past it, ignored it. Instead of addressing the fact that a Mech could easily be of the same volume as a tank,

I didn't skim past it. I addressed it specifically.

HlynkaCG, on 01 December 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

Any vehicle with legs is going to have more surface area than one of similar mass and volume that does not.

^ right there ^

Quote

Quite honestly, I have neither the time nor the patience for naysayers with nothing useful to provide. You, clearly, do not believe any form of Mech would be useful in combat.

That is a strawman. I already conceded that as a light scout vehicle, or beast of burden they have their uses, but as armored weapons platforms they do not. Have you noticed that none of DARPA's "mech" research projects weigh more than a few tons? If you paid attention during our little math lesson above you should have an inkling as to why.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 02 December 2014 - 01:06 PM.

[Fut]

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

A small drone...or a small boat?

Thats hardly a laser. Thats those "heat guns" with a magnifier. The same ones they use to make pirates "feel uncomfortable" you can also point it at their wooden dingies and light them up.

Not exactly going to harm anything metal.

It's the first trials, man. Just give it some time.

Do you think that people thought that every home would have a computer when the first ones were turned on?
Hell, now practically every person has a computer on them at all times.

Give it time, actual functional laser weapons are on their way.

[CDLord HHGD]

Fut, on 02 December 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

It's the first trials, man. Just give it some time.

Do you think that people thought that every home would have a computer when the first ones were turned on?
Hell, now practically every person has a computer on them at all times.

Give it time, actual functional laser weapons are on their way.

Soon™

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

HlynkaCG, on 02 December 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

I did address it but it seems I did not make the problem sufficiently clear. Lets do the math...

You should not attempt to do math if you have no idea how it works. Your calculations are disgustingly incorrect and make you look like an idiot, especially when you try to boast with your "impressive" math skills. Let's see here:

Quote

The severity of sinking problems is dictated by the static pressure equation, P = F / A.

F = Mass * Acceleration due to gravity. which means that a mass of 60 tons will have an "F" value of 533,968 newtons. A M1 Abrams has a "P" value of 103 kPa, using these two values we can solve for "A".

533,968 (F) / 103,000 (P) gives us a foot-print of 5.2 square meters.

Okay, that's fine so far. However insisting that 5.2 square meters would be a reasonable size for a mech's foot is absolutely silly. The print of each foot would have to be bigger than a 2-meter square for it to not sink into the ground, so with both feet, the mech would have to be 5 meters wide, when it's only 10 meters tall. This makes no sense.

Quote

As such your mech needs to have at least two feet and that your "F" value will need to be multiplied by your desired acceleration (or deceleration). Even a comparatively sedate acceleration of 1 m/s^2 (0 to 60 in 30 seconds) results in a scalar of 54,431 N. Which means that in order to keep from falling through the ground with each step like a kid walking on snow-crust your mech's feet would need to be 54 times larger than standing pressure would indicate. (even bigger if you want to have any sort of agility)

This is wrong. What you calculated there is that the foot would have to support an additional 54 kN of force, meaning its surface area would need to be around 10% bigger than the original 5.2 m^2. I agree that mechs don't work as combat platforms, but you don't need "math lessons" to see that. I suggest that you don't try to base your arguments on your slippery grasp of the sciences in the future, since you will only end up making a gigantic clown out of yourself.

[ManDaisy]

Soon as some country makes automated suicidal killing machines weapons platforms and air drops them into cities instead of occupying them with infantry, we will need (urban) mechs if only make them climb cars and do other ****.

Anything suicidal that has the mobility and fire power a tank and infantry cant handle, will lead to mechs.

Edited by ManDaisy, 02 December 2014 - 02:41 PM.

[zortesh]

The only real use for mechs i see is doubling for combat and engineering roles

But honestly for a firepower platform a high center of gravity just seems really bad to me... not to mention the extra expenses incurred as opposed to building tanks.

[Victor Morson]

Metus regem, on 29 November 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

None, as someone whom works in the weapons industry, a mech is just silly. A tank provides a much more stable platform for weapon systems.

I think if you work in the weapons industry you can agree the future of warfare isn't tanks, though, but drones.

If BattleTech were real life I am pretty sure it would be "huge swaths of networked and mostly automated drones blasting each either to pieces." Which actually sounds like a fun, but very different, game.

P.S. to answer the OP's question, I'd say the UrbanMech. For an anti-riot 'mech being "above" the crowd in a giant stomping robot would probably be effective at breaking it up. So Deptuy Dog Urbie wins.

ED: Power armor, however, is a different story. If we can solve the power issues, that's nearing reality already.

Edited by Victor Morson, 02 December 2014 - 02:46 PM.

[ManDaisy]

More or less likely, things will start off as power armor/drones, then power armor will evolve into mechs like the spider. Then will come the urban mechs to fend off the spiders, and finally the Gundam from alien civilizations will invade.

Edited by ManDaisy, 02 December 2014 - 02:51 PM.

[HlynkaCG]

Piipu, on 02 December 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

This is wrong. What you calculated there is that the foot would have to support an additional 54 kN of force, meaning its surface area would need to be around 10% bigger than the original 5.2 m^2. I agree that mechs don't work as combat platforms, but you don't need "math lessons" to see that. I suggest that you don't try to base your arguments on your slippery grasp of the sciences in the future, since you will only end up making a gigantic clown out of yourself.

Acceleration has a square component and thus get applied to P=F/A as a scalar rather than addition. This was done literally back of the napkin in 5 minutes, I divided by 1000 to convert Pa back to kPa and it's entirely possible that I transposed something somewhere but the numbers did pass an initial google sanity-check.

...and a foot that measures 1.75 m x 3 m doesn't seem that far-fetched if you figure that the mech it's attached to is around 4 meters wide and 2 - 2.5 times as tall.

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

HlynkaCG, on 02 December 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

[/size]

Acceleration has a square component and thus get applied to P=F/A as a scalar rather than addition. This was done literally back of the napkin in 5 minutes, I divided by 1000 to convert Pa back to kPa and it's entirely possible that I transposed something somewhere but the numbers did pass an initial google sanity-check.

...and a foot that measures 1.75 m x 3 m doesn't seem that far-fetched if you figure that the mech it's attached to is around 4 meters wide and 2 - 2.5 times as tall.

Yes, P=F/A is the formula for pressure. But when you have 1 m/s^2 upwards acceleration, that means that according to Newton's second law of motion the total force affecting the object will be 1 m/s^2 times the object's mass, or

N-G = 1 (m/s^2) * M

Where N is the supporting force applied by the ground to the object, G is the force applied by gravity to the object, and M is the object's mass. From there you will get that

N = 1 m/s^2 * M + G

and the pressure on the surface between the object and ground will be

P = N / A = (1 m/s^2 * M + G) / A

Since G = g * M = 9.81 m/s^2 * M,

P = (10.81 m/s^2 * M) / A

As you can see, the pressure here increased only by about 10%. Your logic is entirely wrong, multiplying with the additional force caused by the acceleration makes zero sense.

[KraftySOT]

Fut, on 02 December 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

It's the first trials, man. Just give it some time.

Do you think that people thought that every home would have a computer when the first ones were turned on?
Hell, now practically every person has a computer on them at all times.

Give it time, actual functional laser weapons are on their way.

They arent unfortunately. The niche they have is small. At best, you have a nice way to cook off missiles and other explosive weapons, until such time as people heat shield them. Getting over and around things is the future. Non guided munitions are becoming a thing of the past, as are point targets to use them on. And those double just fine when there are point targets to be had.

A laser will never do what a 80mm mortar can, and will never be as simple. They have a niche, but you wont see "laser weapons" in any conventional "sci fi" sense. No laser rifles. No lasers mounted on planes or tanks shooting other planes or tanks.

They might replace the CWIS with a "Laser AMS" thats about the extent of their use. But its still not as cheap, efficient, or sensible as just shooting ball rounds at the thing.

As well customs might someday operate a laser device in lieu of a .50 to stop drug runners in boats...but were not talking laser hover tanks in the future or anything like that.

Power armor, space combat, these science fiction inventions of the 50s and 60s, were based on what people that the future could be like, usually, while serving during world war two (Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein) and the times have a changed as they usually do. Many of their predictions were correct, many werent.

There wont be flying cars for instance either.

Space arks? Who knows. Time will tell. But sadly you have to accept that these predictions were wrong. There wont be mechs, lasers, space fighters, vibra swords, or power armor with nuclear missiles launchers.

[L Y N X]

Metus regem, on 29 November 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

None, as someone whom works in the weapons industry, a mech is just silly. A tank provides a much more stable platform for weapon systems.

As someone who claims to work in the weapons industry, you should know the US ARMY has been conducting research into Mech like armor and exoskeletons since the 1960's. But then an anti-missile laser weapon has been considered silly before as well.

[KraftySOT]

Space combat makes me more sad that the lack of mechs though honestly. It even existing at all predicates on the literary dues ex machina of "worm holes" or "jump gates" which we know are just that...fiction. Theres no way to practically USE a fleet of space ships to do anything, least of all, fight each other.

The distances, times, cost, physics, all make it basically impossible. By the time a fleet gets somewhere, its out of date. Or the wars over. Or your planet has ceased to exist because the star imploded. When you get back, theres no family, no friends, no anything. Just a neutron star and the remnants of what was your life, millenia ago.

There will be no space empires. No death stars. Starship fleets. Etc.

Even if we find a way to restructure a living thing on the other end of some sort of teleportation device...whatever comes out isnt you. You died when they broke you down. Doubt there will be many takers on that bus ride. Any sort of "warp" theory does the same thing, and of course ... everyone you know died moments after you hit the warp button.

Its great science fiction, but it wont be science reality.

[L Y N X]

KraftySOT, on 02 December 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

No lasers mounted on planes or tanks shooting other planes or tanks.

Just google Air Force and Laser then read up and see if you still stand by that remark or wish to clarify it?

[Brody319]

Lasers are generally not a good weapon for combat. Even in a future where space travel is super easy using warp drives and lots dyson level tech giving near unlimited power for that species, lasers simply are not effective as a weapon against anything. Nuclear weapons are the most effective weapon in any environment,

[KraftySOT]

7ynx, on 02 December 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

As someone who claims to work in the weapons industry, you should know the US ARMY has been conducting research into Mech like armor and exoskeletons since the 1960's. But then an anti-missile laser weapon has been considered silly before as well.

So do steampunk welders at Burning Man...giant robots are a human fascination. For all the same reasons Iron Man is popular. Its the new Beowulf.

However...they arent going to be able to do it. Even if they do...its completely impractical and pointless.

That doesnt stop people from going to combat with impractical and pointless things, but generally they dont stick around very long.

Blackhawk special forces teams were the end all be all force multiplier in my day, right up until someone downed two in the same day with an RPG-7 system. They stopped making new ones in the early 2000s.

The Osprey was the culmination of years and years and years of research and development to make a better helicopter insertion. Not only could they not do it, but they abandoned it not because of the marines it killed, but because dropping a small amount of troops somewhere is the last wars mentality.

These days there are two possibility. You can land at an international airport in 747s in complete safety, or youre moving the old fashioned way on a train, or troop transport, to a large war, which we pray doesnt happen.

The first time a mech goes down from an IED someone made with homemade TNT...thats the last war that ever sees a Mech.

7ynx, on 02 December 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

Just google Air Force and Laser then read up and see if you still stand by that remark or wish to clarify it?

Yeah they shot down a wooden drone. We just went over that at the top of this page.

Let me know when its not a giant apparatus on a 737, shooting down a wooden drone moving 90mph with a concentrated beam that takes 15 seconds to light it up.

It might be a great way to shoot down an ICBM or MRBM someday, but you wont ever see an SU-27 shot down by a laser.

Ever.