Combat Exoskeleton Marches Toward Afghanistan Deployment - CYBORGS!

Rambo could take them out. Just junk.

I think in the near future we are going to see a drastic reduction of "manned" combat vehicles. It is far better to have a disconnected end user, it's less visceral and real.

Until then I think the HULC is the way to go. I am thinking that we already have seen what we need.



It's sorta like a walking Bushmaster. It's giving me a chubby just thinking about it. It looks like they are half way there.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by NoRemorse762


There are some tough design decisions when you're talking about walkers though. They have a high profile and by nature cannot carry as much frontal and other armor as tanks. So you're going to want something smaller than the AMP suits from Avatar; less vulnerable to getting shot by big guns and missiles. It's not the AMP suit's fault though, it was designed as a loader, basically a walking forklift, and the mercenaries had bushmasters built and made other modifications to turn them into combat machines. Really kind of cool.




Have you seen district 9? A bipedal combat platform of that mobility and ability is probably further off, but you get what is basically a larger infantryman who is armored, highly agile, and heavily armed. If the sequel involves the aliens coming back and initiate Operation Prawn Freedom I bet we would see entire large formations of the things acting as their spearhead.

In the movie "Nemesis" They mounted heavy crew served weapons on a "Steadicam" type deal ,they also did it in "Aliens" for the smart guns ,that would be an nifty attachment as well.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
this

is a long way from this

fUNNY STUFF LOL.... These guys will be the laughing stock of the military.... this stuff works in comics but not in real life...at least not yet... Can you imagine a guy wearing this heading towards the front lines while being shot to hell, his exoskeleton keeps marching on and him looking like a walking shredded meat zombie!!!

starwars droids would be the way to go, not this...

Majority will probably laff and scoff over this invention, for we had already been sold on a vison of what the future of 'cyborgs' or 'mechanised utilities' by science fiction writers and hollywood.

What you see today is only the very beginning of contraceptions that will improve and meet our needs, on land, under the sea and into the universe, the all weather, all terrain and all environment outer shell to conduct productive actions across the Universe.

We mankind can only progress step by step and not revolutionary leaps that leaves many far behind. Only by being together can we ever hope to overcome our intellectual limitations, as the sayings often goes 'more heads are better than one'.

This device is but the beginning, and may it inspire our youths of today to IMPROVE upon current technology, as our once youthful ancestors did with the bi-plane that transformed into gigantic energy saving and comfortable passenger air transports that fill our skies today, beyond even what is thought possible today, the way the story of computers did to mankind.

Good luck!:-)

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

What you see today is only the very beginning of contraceptions that will improve and meet our needs, on land, under the sea and into the universe, the all weather, all terrain and all environment outer shell to conduct productive actions across the Universe.

Did you read that off the back of a condom package? I think you meant conceptions or conception. I hate autospell as well.

The way UAV/ROV's are progressing I think we will only see people in a mechanical fashion on the battlefield for a very short time period, if any. By being forced to create these exo-skeletons for humans you are constrained to a specific form factor that may not be the best for making a "war machine". Autonomous computers are getting smarter and our ability to control things remotely is improving. I'm thinking an ED-209 or something out of SW Clone wars is more likely what the military is thinking about. There is no real overhead cost of a robot compared to a human. Robots don't need medical, family, pay, housing, food, education, disability, and VA benefits. Granted Robots are not cheap and have maintenance costs but there is no human factor. I think they will be cheaper in the long run.

reply to post by NoRemorse762


Robots are just only one of the means to obtain objectives, not the sole or even primary ones, simply because robots can never match the processing power we humans can, more so on hostile new environments.

Thus it would be horrific waste of expenditure for a working model based solely on robotic functionality and not superior human intelligence, espacially when it malfunctions and fails on its objectives.

Perhaps when mankind can safely presume a robot can do the job, after years of research and studies, then should humans be replace for such functions. But by that time, we would have progressed beyond those initial objectives, onto something new and would require human oversight.

Point is - there best be caution over the concept using robots as the initial and primary means to obtain productive objectives, or millions will be squandered. One may save on common human overhead costs using it, but the sensory systems and maintenance can bankrupt companies over the long term if not started on the right path.

As for the utilisation of such conceptions as machines of war, it may be negligeable, for ultimately, profits rule corporations. The scope of it will come largely from improvisation of such models for international world wide industries than selling it onto the rather limited military market. Fear must never hinder progress, and furthermore, one can always trust human ingenuity to over come the odds, the way mankind did with planes, tanks and ships. Such ingenuity had been proven since human civilisation began.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by NoRemorse762

 

Robots are just only one of the means to obtain objectives, not the sole or even primary ones, simply because robots can never match the processing power we humans can, more so on hostile new environments.

Thus it would be horrific waste of expenditure for a working model based solely on robotic functionality and not superior human intelligence, espacially when it malfunctions and fails on its objectives.

Perhaps when mankind can safely presume a robot can do the job, after years of research and studies, then should humans be replace for such functions. But by that time, we would have progressed beyond those initial objectives, onto something new and would require human oversight.

Point is - there best be caution over the concept using robots as the initial and primary means to obtain productive objectives, or millions will be squandered. One may save on common human overhead costs using it, but the sensory systems and maintenance can bankrupt companies over the long term if not started on the right path.

As for the utilisation of such conceptions as machines of war, it may be negligeable, for ultimately, profits rule corporations. The scope of it will come largely from improvisation of such models for international world wide industries than selling it onto the rather limited military market. Fear must never hinder progress, and furthermore, one can always trust human ingenuity to over come the odds, the way mankind did with planes, tanks and ships. Such ingenuity had been proven since human civilisation began.

edit on 9-6-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

I don't suggest that robots will soon be ready for an AI to replace humans. Robots deployed today in the military have various autonomous functions while still being remotely controlled. We haven't given robots the ability to make the "kill decision" yet and I doubt we will any time soon. A example are UAV's. They can take off, patrol, observe, and land without human intervention. Humans do however have to create the mission plans for the UAV and humans can take control whenever they want. They are much less expensive to operate than conventional aircraft in terms of human and financial costs. It costs about $1million US to keep one soldier deployed in a combat zone for 6 months. That is crazy expensive. Thus agencies like DARPA regularly fund research into soldier-less systems. The autonomous "google-car" was initially funded by DARPA for purposes of autonomous fighting machines. The internet was research funded by DARPA.

The human factor of a soldier can be a problem sometimes. Soldiers take emotions into battle with them. Robots do not get angry, sad, or vengeful when one of their fellow robots are gunned down next to them. The robots human operator will simply see this as a loss of equipment and not life.

The Government/Military uses a bid process to procure new equipment/technology. The military usually will give each contractor money to develop a working concept of what they want. The Government/Military will choose from those choices the one they want. The contractors are by no means loosing money creating these technologies.

The Military market is by no means small. The largest companies in the world are defense contractors. The next generation technology the government has developed for themselves eventually trickles down to the civilian market, thus making that same military contractor even more money.

Wonder what happens when the battery takes a 7.62 round to the backside

Firstly thats not a cyborg, secondly energy would be an issue, so on base uses where you can hook up the guy is a more realistic use.

reply to post by EvanB


Apparently you haven't heard that they are planning on putting women on the front lines. They can't get enough people to enlist so they are having to rely on women to do the grunt work. This should prove to be quite interesting. I

reply to post by redrose123


Enlistment isn't the problem. The Army is currently downsizing. Women have been tested in combat numerous times for the current policy to stay the same. Infantry, Ranger school, Sapper school and SF is opening up to women because women have proven effective.