Would Science Fiction MECH-Walkers make any sense?
- Thread starter TrangleC
- Start date
I know, but we were looking at a mechanized alternative. Also, I'll hazard the guess that camels are used because they are cheaper.good point! but in rough dunes and stuff even lighter (shorter) tracked vehicles might be cumbersome. thats why we use the camels remember?
Something like that. Fit it with a larger engine, and maybe some wider tracks, preferably rubber since those are better in loose sand and won't tear up local infrastructure, larger fuel tanks, fit it with one or two HMGs/GPMGs and you're all set.
Increases in weight could be overcome by using aluminium instead of steel. Since this thing will be used mainly for chasing smugglers and camel thieves, armour isn't going to be needed.
There was a movie out a few yrs ago called appleseed it was a anime but the mecha in it are probably some of the best thought out ive seen.
I can see walkers 2 or 4 legs used as light but very powerful shock or reinforcment troops. Got a problem in future downtown (inscert name) that is difficult if not impossible to get to because of rough terrain but cant use a airstrike etc. Enter something like those mechs fast manuverable but able to take alot of punishment from small arms. Comes complete with more firepower than a infantry company. Plus this also puts the driver out of IED range or atleast most of em.
Something like that could be flown in on a osprey hook or something.
Machines can ballance quite easily if you use the right programing. Heck just look up big dog on youtube. Add to that we can now control machines with our minds. (No thats not scifi anymore but real.) Plus theres ALOT of new energy storage tech being developed.
I can definatly see legged UGV for maybe firesupport for infantry squads platoons and for logistics.
Dont see anything replacing the MBT on the field of battle though atleast not in any kind of open terrain.
Oh hey look at the terrain were in now......:dance
I can see walkers 2 or 4 legs used as light but very powerful shock or reinforcment troops. Got a problem in future downtown (inscert name) that is difficult if not impossible to get to because of rough terrain but cant use a airstrike etc. Enter something like those mechs fast manuverable but able to take alot of punishment from small arms. Comes complete with more firepower than a infantry company. Plus this also puts the driver out of IED range or atleast most of em.
Something like that could be flown in on a osprey hook or something.
Machines can ballance quite easily if you use the right programing. Heck just look up big dog on youtube. Add to that we can now control machines with our minds. (No thats not scifi anymore but real.) Plus theres ALOT of new energy storage tech being developed.
I can definatly see legged UGV for maybe firesupport for infantry squads platoons and for logistics.
Dont see anything replacing the MBT on the field of battle though atleast not in any kind of open terrain.
Oh hey look at the terrain were in now......:dance
Been a long time since I saw Appleseed, but the mechs didn't strike me as particularly realistic.
Send in an MBT with infantry and a helo or two in support. They are less specialized, easier to maintain and operate and they are armoured heavily enough to shake of IEDs.
Not really. In order to keep weight down at a usable level, it'll have to be build largely out of light weight metals like aluminium, and not a whole lot of it. It'll be less bulletproof than your average school bus.
You'll never be able to strap a couple of GPMGs, a couple of dozens of assault rifles, a handful of DM rifles and the odd grenade launcher on to it.
Yes, but in most cases the IED will render it completely defenceless. Even if immobilised, a tank can still fight back.
Notice how small big dog is? A walker-esque mecha will be far heavier and will have to deal with far more mass and inertia.
There's a seriously big difference between making a ball roll across a table and controlling a complex machine.
But none of them are dense enough. Even the most modern SSKs use as much as a third of their displacement on batteries.
A big do with a GPMG/HMG strapped to its back or as a backpack with legs, perhaps. Anything bigger, no way.
:type
Most of your reply can be countered by simply this.
Technology advances.
Made of aluminum? Not so much. Carbon fiber, CARBON NANO TUBE and other materials even i dont know of yet yes.
At the moment we have the ability for a person to control a prosthetic arm. As technology advances so to will this. Think about it this way.
In 1984 2 GBs of storage was around the size of a large closet and cost thousands of dollars.
My desktop computer which is around 4 yrs old and was cheap has 454GB. When the computer learns how you respond it gets even faster and better.
-------------------------------------
You mentioned tanks surviving IEDs and they do. (though ask the Israelis Anything can be blown up just takes more firepower.) But a tank also weights over 50 tons atleast. And is big and difficult to manuver in confined areas (cities, forest, other areas where visibility and manuverability are limited).
As i said i dont see them replacing tanks mearly enhancing military operations.
And i dont see e packing 40 assualt rifles either however i do see one mounting a .50 and a gernade launcher in a rifle configuration like our current M16/m203? for infantry.
Technology is not an end-all response to this. You have to understand that the inherent impracticalities and limitations of bipedal platforms persist through technological advances, because those limitations are RELATIVE to other platforms, eg tracked or wheeled platforms.
You cannot chart the passage of technology as justification for the practicality of a military application and at the same time ignore the differences those technological advances will make to countering said capability. And would a bipedal walker really be all that more practical than a tracked vehicle for movement-impeding areas, like cities or forests? If you make it small enough to have an edge in agility, how are you going to armour it sufficiently against threats like RPGs and IEDs? If you make it big enough to survive anti-vehicle threats (which are routinely designed to kill tanks, which WILL be harder targets than a bipedal walker of similar weight simply by virtue of their design), how do you assure that it doesn't become a lumbering, easy target in urban or forested environments? Also, seeing as this will be a platform for tomorrow, rather than today, countering today's weapons alone is useless. How will it perform in the face of anti-vehicle weapons with ever increasing levels of accuracy and lethality?
I get just as excited as the next man about the march of technology (and if you do as well, as you seem to, I highly recommend the book "Wired for War" by PW Singer, if you haven't already read it, I think you would find it interesting), but you can't just state "technology will prevail" as an argument, because technology works both ways. You might be able to build a bipedal walker with future advances, but those same future advances will go towards building not only the next generation of armoured vehicles, but also anti-armour weapons, unmanned ground and air systems, and everything else. In that context, what gives the bipedal walker an advantage in capability?
Yes, we have that ability, but unless you're willing to chop of the pilot/drivers limbs, it's not terribly rellevant.
The prosthetics are controlled by small sensors attached to the skin over one of the breast muscles that used to move your arm. With rigorous training, you can learn to twitch seperate parts of that muscle, and with the help of the previously mentioned sensors, turn them into control signals.
And no, you can't teach people who still have both arms to do that, due to the way your brain controls your arms.
Bonza does make an excellent point about the limitations of technology and the concern of parallel developments of counter-technology. Some technology does develop at a rapid and exponential rate, exceeding our wildest expectations and predictions. But in other cases, it moves far slower than we anticipate.
Now, to sound off on the crewing/control issue.
In my mind, a UGV will be the best route to take in designing a mech/walker. (Obviously exoskeletons are a completely different story, but their purpose and employment would iffer from a hypothetical combat mech/walker).
A walker is going to require a tremendous degree of computer support to balance, navigate, and move; but even with automization in these areas, the pilot still faces a difficulties. He's going to be piloting a comparatively large, unwieldy vehicle. It will move, handle, and perform differently from his normal body, and that's going to make the lerning curve very steep.
Plus, if the mech/walker design has an atypical structure and/or an unusual means of locomotion (e.g. multiple "elbow/knee" joints, six legs, walks non-bipedal etc.) , the pilot's challenges are going to be even greater.
From a designer's standpoint there's also a compelling reason not to crew it. For starters, it saves huge amount of trouble working out a control scheme, which is in my mind one of the more mind-bending obstacles to walkers (although if the walker was only semi-autonomous, a ground controller would still be needed.)
Secondly, not having to crew the walker gives the designer the ability to cut weight, have more options in choosing the shape of the walker (no need to include a man-sized cockpit).
Now, obviously, autonomy and the UGV concept certainly have room to grow; but in my mind, they are the best control structure for future walkers/mechs (the DARPA Challenge a few years back showed us how far things had gotten and how far they still have to go)
Now, for a question of my own.
What kind of armor technologies would be suitable for a mech/walker?
They're going to be major targets on the battlefield and protection is going to be essential. The sheer range of weapons which will target them and the structural limitations of the mech/walker will make protecting it a challenge.
I can see the joints, external sensors/windows. and the engine compartment being key weak points.
Now, to sound off on the crewing/control issue.
In my mind, a UGV will be the best route to take in designing a mech/walker. (Obviously exoskeletons are a completely different story, but their purpose and employment would iffer from a hypothetical combat mech/walker).
A walker is going to require a tremendous degree of computer support to balance, navigate, and move; but even with automization in these areas, the pilot still faces a difficulties. He's going to be piloting a comparatively large, unwieldy vehicle. It will move, handle, and perform differently from his normal body, and that's going to make the lerning curve very steep.
Plus, if the mech/walker design has an atypical structure and/or an unusual means of locomotion (e.g. multiple "elbow/knee" joints, six legs, walks non-bipedal etc.) , the pilot's challenges are going to be even greater.
From a designer's standpoint there's also a compelling reason not to crew it. For starters, it saves huge amount of trouble working out a control scheme, which is in my mind one of the more mind-bending obstacles to walkers (although if the walker was only semi-autonomous, a ground controller would still be needed.)
Secondly, not having to crew the walker gives the designer the ability to cut weight, have more options in choosing the shape of the walker (no need to include a man-sized cockpit).
Now, obviously, autonomy and the UGV concept certainly have room to grow; but in my mind, they are the best control structure for future walkers/mechs (the DARPA Challenge a few years back showed us how far things had gotten and how far they still have to go)
Now, for a question of my own.
What kind of armor technologies would be suitable for a mech/walker?
They're going to be major targets on the battlefield and protection is going to be essential. The sheer range of weapons which will target them and the structural limitations of the mech/walker will make protecting it a challenge.
I can see the joints, external sensors/windows. and the engine compartment being key weak points.
Yes but lets get real i dont see all the technology coming together for this for another 20yrs. By then such control should be possible threw other means. There are already people who have altered there bodies to be able to control machine with there minds without having to lose limbs.
And anyways i see something more like the Armored suits in starcraft or some such than a MASSIVE mech anyways. As ive said before i just dont see a mech replacing a tank.
What other means? Currently there's three technologies that can sorta do what you describe.
The first one is the one used to control robotized prosthetics.
The second one consists of chips that are surgically implanted into the pilot near major nerves.
They read the nerve signals and transmit them to a computer that makes the robot move. Unfortunately, the machine will be very limited in terms of shape and capabilities, and the even routine motion will cause the pilot to look like a contender for the Dance Dance Revolution World Championship.
The third option is to read brainwaves. In order to get any kind of complex readings, you'll need a machine the size of a CAT scanner. (And no, you can't make a miniature CAT scan, the magnets have to be that large)
Note that people have been working on these technologies for as long as we have known about electrochemical signals.
There is a sytem out now for personal computers or well its soon to be out that lets people use a headset that reads brain activity to operate the computer. And im pretty sure in 20 to 30 yrs we can have a system that essentualy as needed its just a matter of getting it all together.
chihuahuense87
New Member
well it would look awesome, but effective i dont know
Jack Johnson
New Member
18-meters-high "classical mechs"? Definitly not
3-5-meters-high "small walkers" like in the movie "Avatar"? Propably
2-3-meters-high "powered armor"? Already in development.
EDIT: Many think of Mechs as an replacment for Main Battle Tanks, that will never happen. But a use in an enivronment where MBTs have problems, like a city or the mountains, they might make sense.
3-5-meters-high "small walkers" like in the movie "Avatar"? Propably
2-3-meters-high "powered armor"? Already in development.
EDIT: Many think of Mechs as an replacment for Main Battle Tanks, that will never happen. But a use in an enivronment where MBTs have problems, like a city or the mountains, they might make sense.
In the mountain forests of Switzerland they have 4 legged harvesters.
They are slow but with future technologie one might be able to make a good scout/weapons carrier for difficult terrain out of it like in your idea.
Image search for Plustech Oy,Oh, come on, all LoggerMechs can mount are MGs with tinfoil for armour...
Now a Scorpion might be interesting...
-Cheers
to see where the commercial (rather medium) tech world was ~ 15 years ago
Just for visual about the logger mechs
You guy's might be interested in this website, also look at the youtube clip. Food for thought, its called Big Dog Enjoy
Boston Dynamics: Dedicated to the Science and Art of How Things Move.
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJJQ0zNNOM[/nomedia]
EnjoyBoston Dynamics: Dedicated to the Science and Art of How Things Move.
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJJQ0zNNOM[/nomedia]