Is a powered exoskeleton, or power armor, a viable option in the future?
Not like the 20ft mecha in the other thread, but some 6 - 8 ft suit of armor that's suitable for CQC or breaching operations?
I read up on it and from the looks of it, it is a viable tool given more research and time, as well as a good power source.
A soldier's life just isn't that valuable.
The military would rather risk Bubba McFaye Jr. getting shot in the face than give him a million dollar exosuit for him to maintain in desert conditions
Now, special forces on the other hand... maybe.
How about urban conditions? Megacity urban warfare?
A unit designed to spend all day clearing rooms, working their way up a skyscraper one floor at a time. I could see the use of a bulletproof human tank as pointman.
Imagine a suit with strength assist, enough to carry the weight of full body armor. It wouldn't even have to have much endurance, just enough battery for 30-60 min of operation.
Doctrine would be to establish battery recharging/rearming FOBs every 10 floors or so. Use a wall outlet or generator if the lines have been cut. Spare packs for quick swaps.
Specialized urban warfare bulletproof heavy infantry with power armor and 8 gauge shotguns.
All that tech and shit and he's rocking a crappy old M4?
>troops start wearing heavy armor
>weapons evolve shortly thereafter to penetrate the slightly increased protection at minimal costs
literally just give every other guy a 14.5mm rifle and this shit is worthless for pennies of old soviet surplus PTRS41
Because it makes a big mess like pic related. Or VIPs or something, I dunno
>ok so we make an armored electronic man operated weapons platform that can preform all the same tasks as a human
I like it
>aaand then we put the man operating it INSIDE the machine
for what purpose, why not remotely control it
assuming this is in the near future, and we have all the technology to create a cost effective combat effective exo-skeleton, that means we'll also have the technology to create vastly improved and more survivable remotely controlled flying and ground drones, and we can protect the soldiers by removing them from the combat area.
>but what about when you need troops to interact with things in a way that only humans can?
I guess, maybe, I don't think that sending them in first would be the best idea in this context but I can see why you'd want this kind of armor over not having this kind of armor, except for the fact that, assuming we're talking near future as I assume, this armor will be effective but not to the point at which it means people will be able to get shot and get back up in the fight, also what >>28589353 said.
I can tell you though one group of people that'd love to have armor like this is swat teams, fucking robocop time when dindu tries shooting you with small arms and it bounces off.
This is the same dilemma that tanks face, yet we still use them.
Now you're forcing them to have dedicated anti-suit weaponry. Guys using AM rifles are less effective against regular infantry, have to carry more gear and ammo, and are profoundly less effective in CQB except for the single purpose of killing the guy in powered armor.
You're forcing these people that are likely poor as fuck into an arms race with you, which is your game. Deploy squads of SF with powered armor and what are cartels or insurgents supposed to do? Fight room to room with AM rifles?
It dumps a huge logistical burden on fighters that are relying upon mobility as well.
Reminder that Mass Effect had the best lore and detail of any fiction story ever. EVER. You could sit down and listen to the codex for hours and hours, this is just a tiny part of it relating to power armor you wore, and there was much, much, more relating to your armor; this just scratches the surface.
>This is the same dilemma that tanks face, yet we still use them.
Tanks would be significantly harder to kill then any armored suit. And they are equipped with far more layers of armor then a suit/robot could ever hope to carry. A bipedal armor suit only needs a single leg actuator to crap out and it's mobility kill. A Tank can tank all sort's of different types of damage and still be semi functional to some degree.
> It dumps a huge logistical burden on fighters that are relying upon mobility as well.
Just dig potholes everywhere and laugh as the suits/armored robots trip all over the place.
If exoskeleton technology advanced to spess mahreen metal armor tier, would intermediate caliber APDS rounds be a feasible counter. Would they be effective against conventional body armor?
The military could probably fit it in too if they weren't busy wasting 20-40% of their budget on literally worthless bullshit and politics
But honestly, no. The military would not trust members of the lowest tier of IQ (even in the military) with suits worth at the VERY LEAST tens of thousands of dollars
Your average US infantry soldier is wearing and using a bare minimum of $50k in gear, anon.
>A bipedal armor suit only needs a single leg actuator to crap out and it's mobility kill.
Have you heard of redundancy? Fail-safe design so the guy can still walk on his normal leg? If you're building something you expect to be shot at I'm fairly certain you account for these things.
Not any ordinary M4, a chrome M4.
The US gubberment already spends $1 million dollars to train a measly grunt, then there is the generous benefits package after that. If powered armor costs $1 million dollars and at the same time improve the squad's efficiency then why the fuck not?
>Required suits for relevant Army personnel: ~250,000
>Req suits for relevant USMC personnel: ~130,000
>only costs $380,000,000,000
>entire budget of USA + USMC combined, 2010 = $285,500,000,000
As said by someone with zero understanding of anything.
Yeah, im sure they can just design things to always work even when they get holes shot through, they must take that into account. Good luck walking with a 50 pound hunk of jammed steel on your leg, moron.
yea, you un-power armored guys are lugging around PTRS that weigh 20 kilos each. You can only put rounds downrange from a supported position, an only once every 4 or so seconds.
My power armored guy with say, a minigun, can put 60 rounds downrange every second, and each round is relatively as lethal against their target as the PTRS.
Limiting the opposition to big guns means an average kebab doesn't have the means to hurt your guys. It means significant shrapnel protection against mortars and shit. It means a kebab disguising himself as a civvie needs to hide a PTRS under his pajamas and not an AK, so good luck blending in.
The advantages of powered armor are legion, which is why everyone is racing for them.
Not everyone needs a powered armor- one per section is just about the most. This way you reap the passive benefit of powered armor which is additional stuff humped over mostly same areas other grunts could access as well as use them as a fireteam of sorts against the stiffest point of enemy resistance.
duh nigger what did you expect. do you think all that sci fi was for naught? how naive
Would power armors be also beneficial in open environments like deserts, or plains ?
In the previous thread an anon came with the idea of mechanised units combining APC's and exosqueletons. Sounds like it would wreak any conventional forces, even outside urban areas (longer range firepower and protection), unless opposing force has air support.
>Not like the 20ft mecha in the other thread, but some 6 - 8 ft suit of armor that's suitable for CQC or breaching operations?
Yes, power armor is legit.
7-8 feet tall max. Needs to be as mobile as a "regular" soldier to avoid anti-tank weapons. Given that it'd be able to pack enough armor on it to be immune to most small arms fire, and strong enough to bash a door in with its bulk, the only things left to really be concerned about would be:
The weight of the suit compared to the environ (an 800lb+ setup won't be doing any breaching through the window)
NBC, depending on what the filtration can handle
Explosives can send shrapnel and projectiles at speed greater than most handheld weapons. Additionally the overpressure would rupture organs and whatnot. Assuming the suit was pressurized, it could avoid this, but in that case it would need the added complication of a whole pressure system.
Weight would limit where it could and couldn't go. Even at a relatively "light" 600-800 lbs, the weight is going to be distributed down into the soles of the feet. Up to 1000 lbs fully equipped and it'd probably just fall through some floors.
NBC - you'd assume there was some kind of filtration or permanent gas mask on the suit. You'd want to make sure - most modern chemical weapons are still effective in pretty low PPM ranges.
For combat troops, no. Offensive weapons capable of penetrating reasonable armored exosuit are too plentiful.
And the matter of reliability is still a major issue.
For auxillary roles like for artillerymen etc., they are practical.
>You're forcing these people that are likely poor as fuck into an arms race with you, which is your game. Deploy squads of SF with powered armor and what are cartels or insurgents supposed to do? Fight room to room with AM rifles?
Hi, you seem to have missed the lessons of the last twenty years of warfare.
If it takes two hundred guys with $200 RPG's to destroy a 6 million dollar tank, they are winning. The attrition is on the developed country's end. Every time you shoot a $80,000 missile to blow up three dudes with AK's they are wearing you down.
An exoskeleton? Yes, DARPA is already prototyping one. It will more likely see engineering/logistics/medical usage before combat use though.
Powered arnor? Fuck no. Full body Armor has no place in modern infantry, given that it will always be defeated by explosives that are easuer to engineer than armor itself. The light body armor currently in use has proved solid against almost all currently available calibers, upgrading to new armor that won't stop explosions is pointless
It means a kebab hiding a shaped charge under his clothes and blowing up your fancy tin man while posing as a civilian.
It means kebabs drawing out an CAT and altering the terrain/footing to funnel the suits into a killzone for an IED.
Why are you people always presuming asymmetrical warfare use?
Power armor would be a game-changer in a real conflict.
Of course it would need to be practical, so it offers protection while not sacrificing mobility and utility of an infantryman.
All the technological development that has lead to the dominance of the US military has been in information tech.
Modern infantry could kick the shit out of ww2 infantry not because of better guns and armor, but because of night vision and comms.
The next revolution in warfare is not going to be fucking warhammer armor suits and shit, it's going to be info-gathering tech.
Rather than have guys in armored suits storming a building, you could have regular guys releasing a swarm of mini-drones to intelligently map the interior and pick out possible hostiles. Then you just have the Bradley fire a few rounds through the window.
Why are you presuming future conflicts will not be asymmetrical? Everything in the last decades has shown otherwise.
Power armor will never be a game-changer, because infantry is rarely a game-changer. Even tank-like infantry.
Frankly, powered armor would be most effective against IEDs. A blast that should kill a man would merely wound him, something that would remove limbs would only break them. No more digging your friends out of twisted metal wreckage, with the strength of the exoskeleton and the protection of the armor they could pry their own way out with ease.
Unless there are some massive advancements in energy storage it isn't very likely.
I mean artificial muscles are already viable but only either at a very small scale or with stationary power sources.
Pneumatic muscles required compressed air to function which is a massive hindrance as far as power supplies go.
In addition most artificial muscles that use electrical fields/currents to contract either require very strong electrical fields or a liquid solution (within or around the material) for them to function. This would lead to a need for extensive shielding which would make the power to weight ratio of the artificial muscles poorer.
i dont think you understand how the military industrial complex works senpai
>"you mean now we get to spend 3x as much per soldier which means more money for our arms producing masters?"
If you're going to the trouble of making a walking suit of armour, you may as well make it a fucking huge one
Power armor won't be a thing for a very long time. If we could find a power source energy dense enough to suffice, we could do it now. But, it would be largely pointless. Just like tanks can be killed, so can the robo man, and it is waaay easier to kill one than to protect it. It'd be difficult enough to build a suit that could take sustained small arms fire without failing. Forget about explosive protection. Forget about specialized weapons meant to destroy armor. Logistically, it'd be challenging to keep them charged, or with a fresh power source. (Assuming we aren't playing the fusion card). Military use would be very slim. However, SWAT teams could make use of one. Replace the shield man with robocop.
In a world where active shielding is a thing, as in computers control a energy shield to repulse incoming energy as needed, power armor would be more relevant (but even halo, an all around pretty cool guy, was deemed too expensive and unnecessary to continue with)
But if you're going to make power armor, just use drones. Actual robots would defeat the purpose of creating power armor in the first place.
They do everything a muhpowerarmor suit does only not incredibly shittily
>move 50mph instead of 4 mph
>can carry armor
>can survive IEDs
>carry a fuckton of ammo
>multiple weapons systems onboard
What do you think is more effective, a guy in a suit not able to be made heavy machine gun resistant carrying a m60 with a single belt of ammo (and ammo bearer in tow because he can't reload) or a fucking armored troop transport that costs less and does more
>inb4 muh breeching, muh cqc
>storm achmeds flat in mosul
>kick in the door
>fall through the floor
>everyone walk the dinosoar
>stuck in basement
>try the stairs
>foot goes right through the first step
In a rational world, you'd be right.
But we're too busy throwing money at campaign donors and shitty congressional districts to notice that our military is composed largely of disposable trailer dwellers and pavement apes and that for the cost of one newfangled armor suit, we can recruit three or four shithead bullet sponges nobody would miss.
> APC's cant go inside a building
there, massive reason
and no, flatten every building that we suspect might have enemies is not politically acceptable, just noke nuke everything isn't.
So your guys on the ground would really appreciate a guy who is near-immune to small arms as their point man.
Right. So your armor suit is going to be chasing half-naked hue-hue-hue's through a bunch of 2-ft wide alleyways in the favelas? He going to be climbing up a bunch of rickety half-assed stairways, vaulting walls and running across rooftops in the shantytowns of Kingston?
Except of course that at the end of the day you're actually killing their fighting force and they are just costing you money, which isn't really an issue when your national debt is in the trillions already.
I'm going to present to you a phrase that you must always remember when you have these questions.
When something becomes cost effective, it becomes viable for troops.
>can't use stairs
>can't enter low/narrow doors
>can't get through hallways or alleys
>can't enter buildings with basements
>can't get on roofs
>can't use elevators
>can't carry any useful amount of ammo
>can't walk on loose ground or sand
>can't survive explosives, rifle fire, heavy machine gun fire, or whatever neat, cheap, toy is designed to kill the shit out of it
>hurr muh cqc
>>>/v/ is that way kid, the adults are talking.
The XOS-2 uses 3.5 kW of power, which is basically a 100cc engine. Also interesting is that it's able to carry 200lb of weight which potentially means you can strap a whole load of plate to it.
How big do you think exosekeletons are? You could armor the shit out of this and it could still do all that shit
Well how about power armor as a viable replacement for body armor, not a APC.
How about armor same size and flexibility as a normal human being, with about maybe the same weight or double that of body armor?
Well the armor ain't going to be half a ton, it's probably going to be maybe 35 - 75 lbs. At worst possibly 100 lbs.
Maybe you should go back to >>>/v/ if you think its going to that heavy.
So how about pairing exoskeletons with APCs? The primary advantage of exoskeletons is that you can carry more stuff so in this case you can give every man a MANPAD, ATGM, Mortar, Automatic Grenade Launcher, or extra armor. Because you don't need to distribute the components of a heavy weapon among multiple soldiers you don't need to take the thing apart. This speeds up deployment time in addition to increasing firepower. As a result, the troops inside the APC would have a combined firepower greater than the APC it'self.
Battery issues are also reduced since most of the legwork will be done by the APC and you can charge the exoskeletons from the APC's alternator.
So you armor it up. How do you keep the guy inside from cooking in the desert sun? How does he shit? How easy is it to take off and put on? You gonna abandon/destroy it every time you have to extract the guy inside as a casualty? How are you going to keep his brain from turning to mush and his organs from detatching from blast pressure?
This has probably already been said here but
>it won't happen
>atleast in our lives.
Look at merines;they have armor designed to be agile. Prowered armor is not. Second,look at our current armor. Ceramic.
>ceramic is dogshit.
PA HAS to be able to stand up to more then one or a few hits.imagine a tank that could only take one hit before the armor is shot and needs to be rapaired.
Human life(at this point is not worth the probably million dollars each suit would cost(plus upkeep)
Now we might see combat armor in our life but again,kinda unlikely because it would be made outta shot ceramic and
>pow!one hit taken to chest!
>need to go back to base to get new chest piece.
If we can never develop combat armor we are never ever going to have power armor.plus
>power armor needs to be powered 10 aaa's is not going to cut it.
Plus on top if it all. Our consepts of PA are fucking stupid. We would HAVE to build something like
Actually, they did manage to dismantle the insurgency in Iraqi through the use of special forces raids, drone observation, SIGINT, and informers.
All armies need command and logistics structures. Otherwise they'd spend half the time shooting each other and the other wandering around, searching for enemies. Insurgencies are no different.
There's a reason elite units opt for (and get away with wearing) less armory than your average grunt.
Mobility and communication is what grunts need. Abdul Mohammad probably isn't going to give up the coordinates to the massive IED buried in the road to the guy in the exosuit.
But the bearded dirty hippie looking guy has a shot.
>How do you keep the guy inside from cooking in the desert sun?
Same way the guys handle it out in Afghanistan.
>How does he shit?
Before the mission.
>How easy is it to take off and put on?
How hard is it to take off a suit of armor?
>You gonna abandon/destroy it every time you have to extract the guy inside as a casualty?
Don't make the armor that fucking heavy.
> How are you going to keep his brain from turning to mush and his organs from detatching from blast pressure?
How do soldier deal with it now?
This thing isn't meant to be Iron man (ignore the project name), it's meant to enhance to the current soldier by allowing him to increase his load bearing ability or relief him.
>How do you keep the guy inside from cooking in the desert sun?
Ventilation garment. This is pretty old tech so it wouldn't be difficult to set up for a suit
>How are you going to keep his brain from turning to mush and his organs from detatching from blast pressure?
The same way we do now ... we basically don't. Armor is for protecting against bullets and fragments.
Yeah we all said this when the idea of tanks came around but how did that turn out?
>How are you going to keep his brain from turning to mush and his organs from detatching from blast pressure?
A hard UHMWPE shell with a foam rubber underlayer for the upper torso. Not so different from medieval armor design but using modern materials. We use a similar system for bomb suits.
That in and of it'self can be considered a victory since an AMR is generally inferior to an assault rifle. Your basically reduced to a bolt action, maybe semi-automatic weapon against a fully automatic machine gun. And I don't mean assault rifle, I mean a fully loaded M240 with a belt feed.
We're reaching the carrying limits of our soldiers. Most are walking into battle carry 100+pounds of stuff. Nifty toys are nice but if you want to add more gear you're going to need powered armor.
On the other hand, it would give you an excuse to mount a radar array.
>Rather than have guys in armored suits storming a building, you could have regular guys releasing a swarm of mini-drones to intelligently map the interior and pick out possible hostiles
Drones need to deal with jamming. A chaff grenade could knock them all out in one go.
>Then you just have the Bradley fire a few rounds through the window.
Except it's not about just killing dudes, it's about catching them alive so we can get info from them. It's about finding computers and pulling their hard drives. It's about taking cell phones and tracking down every number it called.
Information tech is great but it's better when you've got somewhere to point it.
Mandible guard and face shield.
There are ways around that, and theoretically a mandible guard could be devised that allows a proper cheek weld.
>study done by smart people proofs me right
It's a moving goalpost falacy.
>it can't take a bullet
Yes it can
>Well, it can't take a grenade
Sure it can
>It can't take an anti-tank rocket
Well, maybe if it was in cover
>STFU, it can die easily to an anti-tank rocket
Some are trolls but some simply fear the future.
Neat, they're using transparent polycarbonate. That wouldn't screw with visibility much, and it won't be terribly heavy since they're just going for shockwave prevention instead of bullets like those thick-ass Russian helmets.
>However, in contrast to the results of a previous study, Radovitzky’s team found that the ACH also did not worsen the effects of the blast wave.
good to note
>I'm sure it couldn't be thay hard to engineer a quick escape or detach system to aid the operator in this circumstance.
Then you have to deal with the problem that you have just dumped and abandoned not only all of your gear but also a higly advanced weapons platform that costs hundreds of thousands to build all for the enemy to acquire and study. At which point they can try and repair it and use it against you, engineer and develop their own, or study to find weak points and develop a strategy to royally fuck your shit up in the future.
>Same thing we do with bomb suits.
those suits are overwhelmingly useless. if you are an EOD tech sitting on top of a rigged up mortar shell that bomb suit isn't going to do shit.
>The military would not trust members of the lowest tier of IQ (even in the military) with suits worth at the VERY LEAST tens of thousands of dollars
But they let them drive vehicles worth tens of thousands of dollars every day
I WANT TO BE MASTER CHIEF
But it's not going to happen. Do you know what would make a load more sense than some ridiculously expensive exoskeleton? Unmanned spider bots. At any point in time where exoskeletons and power armor will be viable then robots and drones would be even more viable
But the operator and their team are still with it so they can potentially defend the site while support comes to collect the item.
Or you know White phos destroy as many sensitive components as you can before abandoning it.
Pretty much how you deal with crashed helicopters or immobilized tanks
>Hi, you seem to have missed the lessons of the last twenty years of warfare.
The part where people bitch and moan about casualties and use excavators to shovel money into the furnace that is the military industrial complex?
We don't lose because we run out of money, we lose because the public doesn't want to hear about kids coming home in body bags for 10 years straight.
>Tanks would be significantly harder to kill then any armored suit.
The principle is the same in that it escalates the amount of sophistication required to fight back. We'd never deploy M60s overseas today, because even if they could be retrofitted with the fire control and optics of a contemporary tank, they're immensely vulnerable to RPG-7s which are completely pervasive. M1A2s by comparison force any insurgency to procure RPG-29s, or ATGMs and the training required to use them if they want be able to stop tanks with any modicum of reliability.
Likewise, powered armor forces insurgents to either use greater numbers of RPG-7s, which make the battlefield comparatively more safe for infantry wearing only plate carriers and helmets. If the enemy responds by procuring more HMGs or AM rifles, then their ability to hit and fade is greatly diminished. AK-47s become even less effective, and the cost of funding, and complexity of feeding an insurgency becomes much more complicated.
>There's a reason elite units opt for (and get away with wearing) less armory than your average grunt.
Lol no its because SF mostly do recon, they wear bulk armor when they do direct action because you can't actually dodge bullets
It has and always will be easier to kill something than it is to protect it, even back in the dark ages.
The deciding factor is how easy it is to have the tool capable of killing something.
Just like how not every combatant worldwide is packing AT shit in case a tank shows up, not everyone would be equip to deal with powered armour.
Absolutely, although the powered exoskeleton is coming a lot sooner than the armor. It'll certainly help with the absurd amount of crap soldiers have to carry today.
Power armor is going to require some more advances before it is practical. You have to have a small enough power source, it has to be light and small enough that it doesn't compromise a soldier's agility and ability to get around given combat environments, and it has to be cheap enough to both provide the gear to troops and make it so it is not a disaster whenever a suit is lost in combat, because as several have pointed out in here, power armor does not make you invulnerable.
do you understand how politics work
soldiers not dying in wars would make wars far easier for politicians to throw around
no one gives a shit about making sure vets aren't crippled and killing themselves, but if you can make a war cheaper politically that's some good shit
While this isn't practical for combat, this guy's making a pneumatic exoskeleton in his garage. If you watch his previous video and sort through his recent Twitch videos you can see he's (just today) demonstrated that the legs can lift the rear of a Mini cooper (they're theoretically capable of lifting a total of about 2,000lb).
He's previously done a biceps / triceps one that could curl ~200lb; this one is him making a full-body one so he can lift things that won't make his knees explode.
Power armor would have helped, though. A lot of the actual fighting was done by special ops groups, pulling up in an APC and storming a building. That would be ideal for powered armor.