Powered armour combat

[Coyote]

Some other things about powered armor use in the field... the biggest advantage it will offer won't be the "armor" so much as the "powered". The PA suits would likely go to specialized soldiers who need to concentrate on carrying & lifting things while under fire-- so, pretty much field combat medics and combat engineers; maybe CBRN troops can use them for protection, and possibly forward observers might find them useful. Beyond that, for reasons already stated, there is no need to equip each individual grunt with PA.

There are, of course, the load-assisting exoskeletons being experimented with, that allow a soldier to carry a heavier pack and ammo without straining his back, but a superior work-around to that is the robotic gear-carrying servant, like Boston Dynamics's Big Dog program. An exoskeleton and a big pack will still limit your mobility through sheer bulk alone, which is not helpful if you are attacked. Better to have robo-doggy carry it, and let the troops move as freely as possible with minimal supplies weighing them down.

But a lot of the things that powered-armor assisted troops can do, robots will be doing anyway fairly cheaper. Medical-recovery robots are already being worked on, and drones can go into an area to test for CBRN, and may be doing forward observer duties soon, too. A combat engineer robot is being experimented with as well. Some of these jobs still require dexterity and things like "instinct" and "fieldcraft", so for awhile we may see medics and sappers with exoskeletons that have some ballistic protection bolted on to rush out and do a job, but any use of PA will be limited, specialized... and an interim solution until better 'bots are made.

[Simon_Jester]

Hmm. Coyote has a point which tends to undermine what I say below; my only response to that is that I'm not entirely clear on which 'reasons already stated' make power armor unlikely to be issued to the average rifleman.

Whereas power armor will remain vulnerable to insurgent RPGs the same may no longer apply to future tanks. Active protection systems are maturing fast and it looks like they are going to become standard part of tank defensive suites. Meanwhile even the piddliest vehicle mounted 20 mm autocannon is going to swiss cheese any power armor it hits. Since ATGM lobbing is going to be lot less effective in the future a Power Armors ability to inflict damage on a tank is also going to be limited.

So it seems like power armor that we can envision with present technology is going to be a specialized anti infantry unit that dominates conventional soldiers with bulletproof armor and heavy weapons. Expecting them to be vehicle killers seem to be rather too optimistic.

That depends heavily on details- whether ATGMs will be able to come up with effective penetration aids to get past a target's active defenses, for one; I don't know if it's safe to rule that out. Beyond that, there's the possibility* that power armor formations will be able to lug around heavier automatic weapons, into the 20 mm and up range, as squad support weapons... at which point they become a threat to light armored vehicles without needing to bother with antitank missiles.

This could also be modified in light of Coyote's point; another possibility is to have the robot pack mule(s) haul a crew-served autocannon and its ammunition, though setup will be very difficult.

Either way this won't help much against main battle tanks, but those are thinner on the ground compared to the lighter IFV-type vehicles in any event.

*I wouldn't rule this out; something like a Bushmaster tips the scales at around a hundred kilos. It may seem unlikely at the moment, but I don't think it inconceivable that we could design a powered exoskeleton capable of handling that kind of weight...

Personally, for combat roles, I see powered armor being very specialized. To take the MG example from my first paragraph, if the armor suit can do the reloading for the wielder, hold larger ammunition belts, and provide extra protection, then it is essentially a mobile, easily set-up MG position. Just have the guy hunker down behind some cover, set up, and you have a heavily armored, heavily armed position that only requires one man. I can also imagine one made for IED or mine disposal, or made for hazardous environments, e.g.: fire, gas, radiation, anthrax.

I don't know if you'd see a specialist "mobile MG position" type, simply because it forces you to distribute unique equipment at the squad level that the average soldier isn't trained to use. But other types, like the 'hazardous environment' example, square well with what others are saying.

[Coyote]

Hmm. Coyote has a point which tends to undermine what I say below; my only response to that is that I'm not entirely clear on which 'reasons already stated' make power armor unlikely to be issued to the average rifleman.

Well, bear in mind that armor worn by PA troops will most likely not be as tough as armor used on vehicles, and man-portable AT weapons are already quite common, so powered armor offers no real advantage. It has, in fact, a disadvantage, in that it makes the troops larger, bulkier, and heavier, so their ground pressure is greater and they cannot squeeze into tight areas that unarmored troops can squeeze into-- a problem in urban warfare.

The only real advantage that powered armor has is the ability to carry heavier weapons like traditionally crew-served machineguns or 20mm autocannons. But then you have to ask this question: what is the difference between that, and a tankette? A tankette has light armor and heavy machineguns, and would be cheaper to build and have lower ground pressure, making it more maneuverable in snow and mud. Powered armor would be an expensive and complex re-invention of the wheel-- and bear in mind, when a tankette loses a tread in combat and cannot move, it is still a pillbox. When a powered armor trooper loses mobility in combat, he's probably either frozen due to mechanical failure or lost a leg, in either case he won't be useful as a pillbox.

...another possibility is to have the robot pack mule(s) haul a crew-served autocannon and its ammunition, though setup will be very difficult.

Perhaps-- but remember, a machinegun, mortar, grenade launcher or rocket launcher on a vehicle is capable of engaging the enemy already. A walking robot can freeze in place and essentially becomes your tripod (or more likely, quadruped) gun mount. But a stabilization system on the gun can work just as well. The robo-packmule can have legs, wheels or tracks (look up the 'Ripsaw' UGV for a nice kickass concept chassis).

As for using PA troops against insurgents, it is true that the insurgents have access to heavy machineguns and RPGs, but if you take the long view, right now insurgents have MGs and RPGs as squad support weapons, like we do. But with Powered Armor Infantry, I suppose it means that AK-47s are no longer that useful and it will require all insurgents to have RPGs, heavy MGs, grenades, IEDs/mines, and .50-cal anti-materiel rifles in order to be a relevant threat. That would actually put a serious strain on their logistics, something insurgents probably don't have a lot of, and will require them to lug around larger, heavier weapons in teams, limiting their mobility and ability to hide somewhat. So I suppose PA troops vs. insurgents would have some advantages for the PA guys, but not necessarily in the expected sense. And again, robots supported by troops might be just as good at forcing the insurgents to expand their logistics footprint.

[Sea Skimmer]

The only real advantage that powered armor has is the ability to carry heavier weapons like traditionally crew-served machineguns or 20mm autocannons. But then you have to ask this question: what is the difference between that, and a tankette?

It might not be that different from a robot tankette in firepower; but a manned tankette is going to require a two man crew and weigh a lot more. The German Wiesel is neat and all; very useful for its intended role as an air assault anti Soviet tank hoard system, but the armor is thin hell; so thin 7.62mm AP ammo from an SVD can defeat it at 300 meters as I recall. It can't stop 7.62mm ball under all situations. As good as the agility is its still pretty limited compared to any powered suit we'd actually accept. That just makes it a way better target.

If you bring air mobility into play then even a 1 ton suit could still allow four men to be lifted by a UH-60, you'd be limited to two Future Wiesels; more likely only one. A more plausible 1000lb weight limit would tip the balance even further; but I think the main difference would be you can go inside buildings. Killing bad guys inside of houses also occupied by good guys is a major hurdle right now. I've never been in combat or shot at; but its pretty obvious that in close combat self preservation is going to triumph over trying to save noncombatants. If combat is intensive enough you couldn't even try. Even if all the enemy crew served weapons can still kill you in the open; we've got plenty of ways and means to fight and protect outside. The concepts we can dream up are endless; the infamous sniper blimp proposal for example. But indoors right now you've got a lot fewer options and its hard to design a fully mobile robot that can non destructively enter and search rooms without just destroying everything. Indoors its also much easier to use a compact small arm then a big weapon like a .50cal rifle. Bombs and similar traps are also very likely and power armor could protect against crushing by building debris as well as blast-trauma. So the remaining vulnerability of power armor to stuff like an RPG-7 or missile doesn't matter nearly as much.

I think Big Dog BTW and similar scale robots are going to take over a lot of infantry tasks and generally work to destroy and create fixed defenses of all sorts, but I don't see a realistic way to take away all human infantry. As long as we need them for anything power armor has a place, if it can work. Maybe hundreds of years from now when robots are commonly accepted for personal interactions even in the poor third world nations we fight over this won't be true. But I'm only speculating in the 10-50 year timeframe myself.

A tankette has light armor and heavy machineguns, and would be cheaper to build and have lower ground pressure, making it more maneuverable in snow and mud. Powered armor would be an expensive and complex re-invention of the wheel-- and bear in mind, when a tankette loses a tread in combat and cannot move, it is still a pillbox. When a powered armor trooper loses mobility in combat, he's probably either frozen due to mechanical failure or lost a leg, in either case he won't be useful as a pillbox.

A stationary tankette isn't likely to survive very long though, and it would be harder to recover when damaged.

Perhaps-- but remember, a machinegun, mortar, grenade launcher or rocket launcher on a vehicle is capable of engaging the enemy already. A walking robot can freeze in place and essentially becomes your tripod (or more likely, quadruped) gun mount. But a stabilization system on the gun can work just as well. The robo-packmule can have legs, wheels or tracks (look up the 'Ripsaw' UGV for a nice kickass concept chassis).

Yeah I think everyone would favor a series of modular very light remote or robot vehicles for jobs like that. I'd always expect that stuff to happen. But hell we aren't that far away from a guided 60mm mortar bomb either; and an 81mm version already exists so who knows how much we will even need direct fire. If you have a bunch of camera robots that cost 200 bucks each and lots of UAV coverage the main power of the enemy can be wiped out before you even come within assault rifle range. Infantry combat will (hopefully) become more and more a mopping up and occupation operation. That's where I see the power armor fitting in, but only for a very small fraction of personal.

[PainRack]

Stealth I can get (man in power armor is smaller than a tank afterall and can go prone). But superior mobility and protection to 50+ ton monsters in a mansized package ?

In Dale universe, the Tin Men is a strike force that could be rapidly airlifted and deployed into combat within a single day.

They didn't have light tanks that could be airlifted that rapidly, but they did have Tin men suits.

[[R_H]]

That depends heavily on details- whether ATGMs will be able to come up with effective penetration aids to get past a target's active defenses, for one; I don't know if it's safe to rule that out. Beyond that, there's the possibility* that power armor formations will be able to lug around heavier automatic weapons, into the 20 mm and up range, as squad support weapons... at which point they become a threat to light armored vehicles without needing to bother with antitank missiles.

How well is that going to work considering that those vehicles would likely have better sensors than the PA?

*I wouldn't rule this out; something like a Bushmaster tips the scales at around a hundred kilos. It may seem unlikely at the moment, but I don't think it inconceivable that we could design a powered exoskeleton capable of handling that kind of weight...

Power for the AC becomes an issue then too, but there are gas powered ones. So would the bulk, and possibly the weight, of the ammuntion.

[Sarevok]

Regarding ATGM penetration aids I would point out even anti ship missiles don't employ them. Even though they can carry lot more payload than a ATGM. I have never heard of penetration aids being used in contexts other than ICBMs, they simply may not work in other circumstances.

There is also the fact that an ATGM needs to devote every kilogram possible to the warhead to punch through ever more effective armor. Reduce warhead size to fit in penetration aids and the missile may no longer work against heavy armor at all.

[Simon_Jester]

Hmm. Coyote has a point which tends to undermine what I say below; my only response to that is that I'm not entirely clear on which 'reasons already stated' make power armor unlikely to be issued to the average rifleman.

Well, bear in mind that armor worn by PA troops will most likely not be as tough as armor used on vehicles, and man-portable AT weapons are already quite common, so powered armor offers no real advantage. It has, in fact, a disadvantage, in that it makes the troops larger, bulkier, and heavier, so their ground pressure is greater and they cannot squeeze into tight areas that unarmored troops can squeeze into-- a problem in urban warfare.

Aside from argument you mention farther on about logistics strain, I'd think you'd gain another advantage by making your troops very resistant to shrapnel wounds: a whole category of weapons that can be used against them become useless that way.

The only real advantage that powered armor has is the ability to carry heavier weapons like traditionally crew-served machineguns or 20mm autocannons. But then you have to ask this question: what is the difference between that, and a tankette? A tankette has light armor and heavy machineguns, and would be cheaper to build and have lower ground pressure, making it more maneuverable in snow and mud. Powered armor would be an expensive and complex re-invention of the wheel-- and bear in mind, when a tankette loses a tread in combat and cannot move, it is still a pillbox. When a powered armor trooper loses mobility in combat, he's probably either frozen due to mechanical failure or lost a leg, in either case he won't be useful as a pillbox.

Fair point; you're probably more likely to see a drone tankette armed with a heavy weapon, rather than a power-armored heavy weapons crew. A lot of the problems with a tankette would be greatly reduced if you didn't need to put a human crew inside, which increases the minimum size of the vehicle and therefore makes it more difficult to armor.

I was thinking too much in terms of "how do we make this useful," and not enough in terms of "how do we optimize usefulness."

As for using PA troops against insurgents, it is true that the insurgents have access to heavy machineguns and RPGs, but if you take the long view, right now insurgents have MGs and RPGs as squad support weapons, like we do. But with Powered Armor Infantry, I suppose it means that AK-47s are no longer that useful and it will require all insurgents to have RPGs, heavy MGs, grenades, IEDs/mines, and .50-cal anti-materiel rifles in order to be a relevant threat. That would actually put a serious strain on their logistics, something insurgents probably don't have a lot of, and will require them to lug around larger, heavier weapons in teams, limiting their mobility and ability to hide somewhat. So I suppose PA troops vs. insurgents would have some advantages for the PA guys, but not necessarily in the expected sense. And again, robots supported by troops might be just as good at forcing the insurgents to expand their logistics footprint.

Fair enough. Though there does come the question of what happens if a lucky shot from long range kills the soldier directing the robots. If you have a fireteam-equivalent group of robots and the only soft target in the group is the team leader, you may have a problem. Because everyone from high-end professional militaries to Joe/Jose/Ivan/Abdul the Villager is going to know to shoot the team leader first, and he will be easily identified by virtue of not being a robot.

Suddenly, the idea of offering the team leader better protection becomes appealing to me, but this may just be me thinking "how do I make this useful again?"

That depends heavily on details- whether ATGMs will be able to come up with effective penetration aids to get past a target's active defenses, for one; I don't know if it's safe to rule that out. Beyond that, there's the possibility* that power armor formations will be able to lug around heavier automatic weapons, into the 20 mm and up range, as squad support weapons... at which point they become a threat to light armored vehicles without needing to bother with antitank missiles.

How well is that going to work considering that those vehicles would likely have better sensors than the PA?

The vehicles have better sensors, but they have a correspondingly bigger sensor cross-section, and they can't hide behind walls while setting up their weapons as easily.

It's possible that you could design an IFV with a sensor suite so good that it can spot a guy sticking his head out to aim a heavy machine gun or autocannon from five hundred meters away and reliably blow the hell out of him with the main gun. But I'm not quite convinced that we're headed that far out onto the "rise of the supertanks" end of the spectrum yet.

*I wouldn't rule this out; something like a Bushmaster tips the scales at around a hundred kilos. It may seem unlikely at the moment, but I don't think it inconceivable that we could design a powered exoskeleton capable of handling that kind of weight...

Power for the AC becomes an issue then too, but there are gas powered ones. So would the bulk, and possibly the weight, of the ammuntion.

It does indeed become an issue, but if you want squad-level anti-armor capability and you've written off the shaped charge warhead, that's about your only remaining option: powered exoskeletons to let the crews carry HMGs (very heavy machine guns, more like), or as Coyote proposed, robot tankettes accompanying the squad armed with the same thing.

Regarding ATGM penetration aids I would point out even anti ship missiles don't employ them. Even though they can carry lot more payload than a ATGM. I have never heard of penetration aids being used in contexts other than ICBMs, they simply may not work in other circumstances.

There is also the fact that an ATGM needs to devote every kilogram possible to the warhead to punch through ever more effective armor. Reduce warhead size to fit in penetration aids and the missile may no longer work against heavy armor at all.

Fair enough, there's a reason I said "I don't know if it's safe to rule this out." It was an idea I threw out there for exactly that reason.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Though there does come the question of what happens if a lucky shot from long range kills the soldier directing the robots. If you have a fireteam-equivalent group of robots and the only soft target in the group is the team leader, you may have a problem. Because everyone from high-end professional militaries to Joe/Jose/Ivan/Abdul the Villager is going to know to shoot the team leader first, and he will be easily identified by virtue of not being a robot.

Suddenly, the idea of offering the team leader better protection becomes appealing to me, but this may just be me thinking "how do I make this useful again?"

You design a significant number of your combat robots to look exactly like a human in power armor. You also program them to imitate human mannerisms, as long as it doesn't interfere with their jobs. Just like how modern officers don't go around with huge fancy hats near the frontline anymore, you make sure there's no easy way to tell who is and is not in charge at long range.

As for why you'd want humans going in with the robots; if you don't want the robots to be fully independent, then a human needs to be able to be able to give them orders, and actually being right with them makes jamming communications much harder.

[Sea Skimmer]

Regarding ATGM penetration aids I would point out even anti ship missiles don't employ them. Even though they can carry lot more payload than a ATGM. I have never heard of penetration aids being used in contexts other than ICBMs, they simply may not work in other circumstances.

Some anti ship missiles do carry jammer systems; and a fair number have onboard ESM to both help them find the target and warn the missile when its under attack itself. So certainly penetration aids are in use; but I agree they aren't happening on anti tank missiles. Besides warhead you've got the simple issue that most ATGMs are subsonic, the supersonic ones (the impratical LOSAT aside) usually don't go much above mach 1 and so the best thing you could do at a sane price is just make them faster.

[Molyneux]

This may be unrealistic, but what I expect is for exoskeletons like the HULC suit to become useful for heavy-lifting and therapeutic purposes (helping the injured/elderly to walk) first, then gradually mature into a role where a low-profile armored exoskeleton might become a useful tool for infantry or even police forces.

Even so, I don't expect anything like this to become feasible for something on the order of fifteen years, depending on the resources devoted to research and development.

[Simon_Jester]

You design a significant number of your combat robots to look exactly like a human in power armor. You also program them to imitate human mannerisms, as long as it doesn't interfere with their jobs. Just like how modern officers don't go around with huge fancy hats near the frontline anymore, you make sure there's no easy way to tell who is and is not in charge at long range.

That strikes me as a very bad plan. You lose a lot of the advantages of the robot chassis if you do things this way: we're going to be able to build robot drone mini-tanks or spidery four-legged walkers a lot sooner than we're going to be able to build convincing fake robot decoys to impersonate the humans running the robot team.

Which was why suddenly the idea of making the one or two guys running a squad of robots well protected started to appeal to me.

As for why you'd want humans going in with the robots; if you don't want the robots to be fully independent, then a human needs to be able to be able to give them orders, and actually being right with them makes jamming communications much harder.

Uh, yeah, that was kind of my point.

This may be unrealistic, but what I expect is for exoskeletons like the HULC suit to become useful for heavy-lifting and therapeutic purposes (helping the injured/elderly to walk) first, then gradually mature into a role where a low-profile armored exoskeleton might become a useful tool for infantry or even police forces.

In some respects, they might be more useful for police than for the military: big honking power-armored riot police don't have to worry so much about the "big target" and "dependent on fuel supplies" aspects.

Sort of like how equestrian police are still a fairly common sight in some cities, while horse cavalry have been off the battlefield entirely in the modern world for the past seventy years or so.

[Sarevok]

I suspect the robot operators are going to sit far behind the lines at HQ. If they wish to get closer to the action there are several command vehicles available that offer both protection and communication facilities a robot force commander needs.

[Uncluttered]

You design a significant number of your combat robots to look exactly like a human in power armor. You also program them to imitate human mannerisms, as long as it doesn't interfere with their jobs. Just like how modern officers don't go around with huge fancy hats near the frontline anymore, you make sure there's no easy way to tell who is and is not in charge at long range.

As for why you'd want humans going in with the robots; if you don't want the robots to be fully independent, then a human needs to be able to be able to give them orders, and actually being right with them makes jamming communications much harder.

A more realistic option, is to have more than one human on the ground.

Your robotic platoon is only going to be able to be an augment. Armies are going to have to deal with civilians on a personal level. Otherwise you come across as souless faceless Yankees.

If anything, you are going to want your robots to looks as un-menacing as possible.
An ideal robot soldier would look as harmless as a teddy bear, right up until it pulls out a Barrett and flat lines you.

[[R_H]]

If anything, you are going to want your robots to looks as un-menacing as possible.
An ideal robot soldier would look as harmless as a teddy bear, right up until it pulls out a Barrett and flat lines you.

This reasoning gets trotted out time after time, "tracked vehicles look like tanks" (only to the retarded), "tanks are scary, therefore tracked vehicles are scary" to justify deploying/acquiring wheeled AFVs/APCs/armoured death machines over tracked ones.

Have there been any studies done on whether or not this is in fact the case?

[Sea Skimmer]

Studies have been done on that kind of thing;i n general weapons that make more noise are feared more then ones that make less but not much can be concluded past that. So a tank being simply big with a big engine, damn loud cannon and tracks which cannot help but be noisy ought to scare people more then something one third the weight with wheels. But the best way to spread fear is just destroying the enemy.

[[R_H]]

Studies have been done on that kind of thing;i n general weapons that make more noise are feared more then ones that make less but not much can be concluded past that. So a tank being simply big with a big engine, damn loud cannon and tracks which cannot help but be noisy ought to scare people more then something one third the weight with wheels. But the best way to spread fear is just destroying the enemy.

On the other hand, I've read that in some cases, Iraqi civilians thought American troops weren't as effective as the insurgents simply because they expended less ordinance in a less noisy manner.

[Uncluttered]

Studies have been done on that kind of thing;i n general weapons that make more noise are feared more then ones that make less but not much can be concluded past that. So a tank being simply big with a big engine, damn loud cannon and tracks which cannot help but be noisy ought to scare people more then something one third the weight with wheels. But the best way to spread fear is just destroying the enemy.

Interesting.
So. Maybe the ideal robot squad would be a bunch of harmless looking robots, with an big guns, and an LRAD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device

I know I should have some personal loyalty to the Talons, but I've always liked iRobots pack bots.
iRobot has the skills to design for lower costs and mass production.
I'm pretty sure they can make a version of the 710 Warrior look a little more "friendly" too.

I think now, the limiting factor is robotic IQ. Your robots need to be able to identify and engage the enemy. The first time a robot kills a child with a squirt gun, is going to be the last time autonomous robots are deployed.

Short of wishing for the common sense fairy to grant the robots brains, your options are a combination of these technologies.
1. Remote control: Robot is partially operated by a human. The problem here is that unless your human is nearby, you have a data bottleneck. Flying Drones seem to have overcome this, but I'm curious how big their radios are. You still will have lag time.

2. Target designation by a human: The robot is autonomous, but a human, perhaps via remote, designates the target as hostile, and allows the robot to attack.

3. A quick reaction fire system, ie Boomerang: Robot is allowed to fire back at the sound and muzzle fire. A smaller version of Trophy could defend against RPGs and morter fire.
Perhaps a helmet integrated EEG will alert the robots. An EEG combined with a HUD, and an eye tracking laser could be a first pass filter target designator.
It's known that the unconscious brain perceives threats faster than the conscious mind.

4. Only less than lethal weapons: Allow the robots to go to town with the LRAD in autonomous or sentry mode.

Complimentary technologies could include..
1. IFF hardcoded: If your insurgent manages to crack your robot wirelessly, a hardcoded IFF would prevent firing in the direction of the soldier.
Likewise, your soldier should have a hud with IFF, to verify all the robots near him/her are under control.
2. Self Destruct: Nothing so dramatic as an explosion. Something more like thermite over the computer and drivetrains. Maybe a can of compressed gas, steam pressure, or and coiled springs pop the robot, rendering it useless to insurgents.
3. Self Navigation: Your Robot returns to a designated safe area, where it can be inspected and repaired.
4. Medivac: A Soldier, or a system imbeded in the uniform acticates a beacon, that summons the robots to guard. A remote medic may allow the robots to drag the human to safety.
5. Sentry: Robot guards an area, preferably with something non lethal, but can return fire.

[Freefall]

Hope this isn't too far off topic, but wouldn't something like this, assuming they could indeed enter normal buildings, be of great use and interest to guys like FBI Agents or SWAT? They don't normally have to worry much about heavy-duty military weapons, and while I'm sure the suit would be expensive as hell, even only having one along on a raid could make a big difference.

[Uncluttered]

Hope this isn't too far off topic, but wouldn't something like this, assuming they could indeed enter normal buildings, be of great use and interest to guys like FBI Agents or SWAT? They don't normally have to worry much about heavy-duty military weapons, and while I'm sure the suit would be expensive as hell, even only having one along on a raid could make a big difference.

Check out the iRobot 210 "negotiator"
http://www.irobot.com/gi/ground/210_Negotiator

The link has a video. You might notice the xbox controller. The "hackable" controller is the only thing I don't like. I'm hoping it's a regular controller plugged into an encrypted black box.

I might have mentioned this before, but I used to work at Foster-Miller. However, iRobot, about 10 minutes up rt 128 is IMHO a better robotics company.
Foster-Miller has more experience with weapons though. I wish these companies would share some IP and create the ultimate ass-kicking robot.

[Zaune]

Besides warhead you've got the simple issue that most ATGMs are subsonic, the supersonic ones (the impractical LOSAT aside) usually don't go much above Mach 1 and so the best thing you could do at a sane price is just make them faster.

Lockheed Martin are apparently working on a successor to LOSAT that's capable of around Mach 6, though the illustration on their website doesn't instill much confidence in it being especially practical. They claim it's "60 inches long and weighs less than 100lbs", and the launcher in the admittedly less than clear illustration on their own site appears to be about three times as long, which doesn't bode well for mounting one on anything smaller than a Stryker.
It might be worth looking into adapting railgun technology for this role, actually; magnetic accelerators in the launch tube to provide a boost would mean the missile could afford to have a smaller motor, leaving more space for warhead and penetrator, and it could probably double as a recoilless rifle if you needed it to. Be almost useless when the batteries packed up, of course, but then what anti-armour weapon isn't?

Edit: Let me rephrase that slightly. It could double up in the sort of roles a recoilless rifle would be used for, even if it wouldn't actually be recoilless itself.

[Sarevok]

It might be worth looking into adapting railgun technology for this role, actually; magnetic accelerators in the launch tube to provide a boost would mean the missile could afford to have a smaller motor, leaving more space for warhead and penetrator, and it could probably double as a recoilless rifle if you needed it to. Be almost useless when the batteries packed up, of course, but then what anti-armour weapon isn't?

Railguns make sense for accelerating small projectiles to speeds difficult to achieve with impulse from chemical combustion. For a recoilless rifle application a railgun would be unnecessary and I imagine grossly inferior in both size and performance.

[someone_else]

Last time I checked, railguns were still in the "small naval gun" size. And even then they were crappy and not anywhere near pratical (like replacing the gun assembly every few shots).


Anyway, here is a couple simple questions that I ask the aces here:

-Let's say we have a Powered Armor with the armor able to stop a few HMG bullets, now, armor's main work is to broaden the area on where the kinetic energy from the bullet is applied. I know that bullet-proof vests tend to leave you with bruises and maybe cracked bones if you got hit well. How can you make an armor that stops bigger rounds without having this side effect? Bolting it to an exoskeleton frame? (assuming you have an armor actually able to stop those rounds at all without being too heavy) Also, will this fare well with concussion weapons too (like a C4 block going off in his vicinity)?

-Again, let's say our Powered Armor guy runs faster than normal due to the "powered" systems. Then makes a turn. What about traction? Any estimate on the speed limits to avoid slipping and having the enemy laugh at you?

[Uncluttered]

-Again, let's say our Powered Armor guy runs faster than normal due to the "powered" systems. Then makes a turn. What about traction? Any estimate on the speed limits to avoid slipping and having the enemy laugh at you?

You can probably get a good estimate by comparing NFL players with comparable size and mass.

[Zaune]

Railguns make sense for accelerating small projectiles to speeds difficult to achieve with impulse from chemical combustion. For a recoilless rifle application a railgun would be unnecessary and I imagine grossly inferior in both size and performance.

Point, but I was only suggesting it as a secondary use of the tube in the event its users needed to avoid over-penetration or deploy a smoke shell, or just ran out of missiles. Let's face it, as soon as you issued something like that to the average squaddie they'd be spending their downtime finding out what else it could launch besides the missile anyway.