If we are to build real combat mecha, energy source size/weight will be a limiting factor determining the size of mecha itself. What should be the size of real combat mecha? Odaiba Gundam is so big it's not practical in urban warfare and its size probably makes it an easy target for guerrilla counter-attacks. What energy source can we use, is portable nuclear reactor feasible? Are small reactors available? When will they be available?
there are small nuke reactors out there: but they can't even power a hairdryer.
if it ever becomes a thing, and i am not sure why it would, it'd be small. like patlabor small. or power loader small. or pic related.
it's got a diesel engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-900_reactor this says typical ship has 2x171MW reactors, how much power would a Gundam need to move and power its energy weapons (presumably laser tech at this stage)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_autonomous_reactor this says size depends on power output, would 20MW be enough for a mecha?
This is not an autonomous unit though (afair Patlabors also need maintenance and refuelling at base, what power source do they use?)
I am talking more about a semi-autonomous unit capable of operating without infrastructure support. Imagine a lone mecha performing on its own in the battlefield, much like Trinity group in 00. It would require some sort of powerful energy source.
I think that code geass knightmare frames or eureka seven's LFO's would be a practical choice. kmf's and lfo's use wheels on their feet to move around this would be faster than walking and let them be more agile against normal tanks and aircraft. Also LFO's all have secondary vehicle modes that are way more agile than tanks and can go through the same terrain. The flying surfboards are never gonna happen though :'(
Lfo's manipulated electricity to move I forgot what powered them maybe trapars? But if you take away their surfboards,magic green particles, and alien carcasses. Then give them the size of a knightmare frame. I think that they are the best choice for a real mech.
>what power source do they use?
>I am talking more about a semi-autonomous unit capable of operating without infrastructure support
I don't believe there's any such thing besides nuclear-powered submarines and carriers in modern-day use.
Bigger than a person, smaller than a tank. Anything bigger just becomes a large walking target.
The only feasible role I've seen for a mech is basically a infantry support unit. Something that can follow troops into most places, is more armored than a regular soldier, and can carry/use more and heavier weaponry.
Aside from the fact that we don't really have anything resembling polymer ringers liquid, an AT probably would work just fine. Hell, we've shown we have the materials to construct the frame now.
Knightmare Frames run on the Yggdrasil Drive, which is created by Sakuradite.
Power armors are the future.
Actual mecha are limited to john deer logging devices
They're also tasked with maintaining long-term patrols and existing as floating nuclear deterrents, though. Not sure why a mech would need to go years on end without refueling, considering the pilot or pilots would need to eat and drink, and if it ever engaged the enemy, would require repair and resupply.
Just becase we can build an immobile statue of an AT doesn't mean we can build an AT. The auto-balance and locomotion part of it is probably only a few years of dedicated work away, but the gliding wheels seem like pure fantasy to me. That kind of acceleration without toppling over. That all-terrain capability. That speed in such a small frame.
Armored Troopers are perfect, we just need the tech that would allow us to mass-produce it.
People say "they go down like flies", but they're lacking perspective. The reason ATs are destroyed so easily is because they carry weapons that designed specifically to be powerful enough to turn ATs into swiss cheese. The biker gang and military police threw everything they had at Chirico's Scopedog and couldn't barely dent it. He practically didn't even have to dodge.
>The only feasible role I've seen for a mech is basically a infantry support unit.
But Gundam concept is something different entirely. It means to create a weapon that would tip the scales of the battlefield by itself. Remember how in the beginning of 00 single prototype Gundam obliterates outdated enemy machines?
There will be no need for infantry, tanks, artillery or any of that nonsense, single mecha can reach and destroy any target.
>The reason ATs are destroyed so easily is because they carry weapons that designed specifically to be powerful enough to turn ATs into swiss cheese.
If we developed ATs, these would be much more common than they are today for obvious reasons. We also already have them: they're called autocannons and they're quite popular on APCs, helicopters, etc.
>The biker gang and military police threw everything they had at Chirico's Scopedog and couldn't barely dent it. He practically didn't even have to dodge.
First off, why are you using a cartoon as evidence for how something would perform in real life? Secondly, Chirico DID have to dodge the RPGs. And guess what: we have RPGs in real life, in significant quantities.
I could see them being useful in engineering operations not really so much for live combat.
>Not sure why a mech would need to go years on end without refueling, considering the pilot or pilots would need to eat and drink, and if it ever engaged the enemy, would require repair and resupply.
1. Imagine a scenario where a mecha is moved to a location/timezone/underdeveloped world where infrastructure is unavailable.
2. Pilots would need to pee in a bottle, sure. It's possible to store some emergency food rations in cockpit (00/Sidonia).
3. I think weaponry should be energy-based so it can be powered by the same source that provides propulsion. No cartridges or physical armaments required. Maintenance would be required but the goal is to provide considerable autonomous operational time.
4. Armor should also be energy-based in nature (magnetic fields?). The idea is that enemy projectiles should not make contact with hull generally.
A projectile can't damage a mecha if it can't reach it (destroyed by laser/ repelled by concentrated magnetic/energy field). Energy weapons are bigger concern but we can assume adversary does not possess such tech.
Well from what we saw in the war, Gilgamesh tended to win battles because the sheer size of its military allowed it to simply use human wave tactics and drown the enemies in corpses.
They also don't differentiate between military and civilian. Say what you want about the moral implications of such a thing (and there's plenty), but the issue of "we're only creating more of their people that hate is" is kinda moot when your goal is outright extermination.
>(destroyed by laser/ repelled by concentrated magnetic/energy field).
Certainly, but these technologies can be mounted on a tank-style platform as well.
>we can assume adversary does not possess such tech.
>drown the enemies in corpses.
This is the battle in Pailsen Files, right? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that battle to see if Chirico would survive the bloodbath?
In any case, Armored Troopers are thoroughly, utterly wasted when used in human wave formations against weapons that punch straight through their armour. That battle was an over-the-top depiction of a sci-fi massacre, not a realistic treatment of ATs in action.
>They also don't differentiate between military and civilian.
You're thinking of the Red Shoulders, who were exceptional for a reason. As far as I know, the regular Gilgamesh army was not involved in extermination operations.
>A projectile can't damage a mecha if it can't reach it
If we are going for realism something like a tachikoma would be great (Aside from the swinging on threads, sticking to walls, cloak, and AI of course).
>Compact at about the size of a car.
>Multiple legs for better stability and weight distribution
>Simple legs with minimum joints
>Legs have wheel option for faster travel and to keep up with other vehicles
>Simple manipulators on the front
>Built in weapons in the manipulators/arms
>Hard point on the front that can equip a variety of weapons
Simple and compact and the key words here. You could also potentially use them remotely as drones as well.
Do you realize how strong of a magnetic field you would need to deflect bullets, I mean do you really understand that. Lets not even get into the fact that most missiles and bullets are not made of naturally magnetic substances. The strength of this magnetic field would be so high as to interfere with all electronics in the area, and would require a tremendous power source.
Nah, power armor and mechanized infantry is further supplementing and surpassing armored units in importance and tactical as well as strategic flexibility.
I imagine within the next century we'll see integrated if limited lightly mass-produced power armors and weapons that are gene-locked for only authorized combatants and personnel.
So in other words, your proposed robot uses unbelievably expensive magical futuretech that we don't know how to develop, and can't go up against anything more threatening than third-world dirt farmers?
what is the point of sending live people to the battlefield? be it mecha pilots or infantry. can't we just send remote-controlled drones of various shapes? plane-shaped (already), humanoid-shaped (in development)
no human casualties = no political complications, wars can be waged forever for fun and profit
Seems like putting more rods up there would be expensive and a lot of effort.
Plus the second you drop one, everyone knows where the satellite is. It's not like if a submarine fires the mentioned stealth missile, where it can leave where it was after.
>no human casualties = no political complications, wars can be waged forever for fun and profit
I think that's exact reason WHY people are opposed to drone warfare. Because it turns war into a child's game.
1) Radar-absorbent paint is a little expensive to put on a disposable munition
2) Missiles are generally propelled through the air by a violent, extremely hot chemical reaction that we haven't yet managed to replace
Maybe fin-stabilized guided railgun projectiles will usher in a new age of stealth missiles, but not yet. Railguns also can't be recoilless by their nature, meaning infantry are going to have a hard time putting them to use.
1) Enemy can disrupt your remote control with radio jamming.
2) It'll be a long time before we can trust AI with battlefield decisions and application of force.
3) This may come as a surprise, but humans are incredibly cheap compared to machines. You may not have to feed, pay, and train machines, but humans come ready-made out of the population. Any war waged purely by drones will still be a tremendous drain on the economy.
Let me clarify some stuff
1. My proposed robot uses some tech based on actual physical principles, not necessarily existing tech or mainstream theories
2. It will be developed by certain organization powerful enough that cost or resources are not an issue
3. It will overpower any existing tech on the battlefield due to its technological/ideological superiority
4. (bonus) it can be sent back in time where infrastructure is not available to complete certain missions with no support (satellite imagery, recon, refueling, maintenance). Preservation of unit is not required.
Imagine a scenario where modern tank is sent to say 1941, how much WW2-era tanks would it take out before it runs out of fuel/ammo? I think it would be generally more efficient than WW2 tank even if it loses some of information/support benefits.
>>I think that's exact reason WHY people are opposed to drone warfare.
there are people like that? what, are those the same people who willingly would like to leave the comfort of their home and go die in some third-world shithole to secure some supply of oil for their bloated economy and perhaps some votes for their gubmint?
>Seems like putting more rods up there would be expensive and a lot of effort.
Missiles are pretty expensive as well.
>Plus the second you drop one, everyone knows where the satellite is.
And? What are they going to do about it? It's in orbit. And since it's just a large rod of metal free falling there is no stopping it. No shooting it down, no reprogramming it or scrambling its equipment. The best you could do is hit it with something and knock it off target.
>some tech based on actual physical principles
>it can be sent back in time
Pick one faggot
The problem is in the real world, both sides don't have drones. Only one does, and the other side can't really do anything about it except die.
>What are they going to do about it?
Shoot it down so that it can't drop more?
1. They would have to use some sort of EMP that would blow their own comms out too, but yes that's a concern especially vs 3rd world guerrillas armed with AK and child soldiers.
Either way actual drones are already being used successfully in wars so that's a moot point. They are just not humanoid-shaped yet.
2. This is a legislation issue, not a technical one in any way.
3. Not necessarily. Costs associated with personnel are pretty high, also logistic complexities and humans can't operate 24h a day. Drone operators can work in shifts and thus fully utilize expensive equipment.
Generally a human-shaped drone(soldier) should not be more expensive to produce than a tank surely. Much less materials required, research costs can be offset by mass production.
For the sake of this discussion we don't concern ourselves with "if some tech is available off-the-shelf now" but rather "is it possible in principle" such as portable nuclear reactor - none exist yet, but they are in development.
For combat mechs, the only real application I see for them would be to go where tanks can't go because their threads won't let them: extremely rough terrain, like rockbeds and mountains.
Tanks have inherent advantages in that they've a much smaller profile to shoot at than anything on legs, they can make use of sloped designs to allow the armor to take more punishment and they can fire a much larger gun without toppling over.
In any other sort of terrain, even urban, a mech would just be a way bigger target with just that much less armor standing between it and getting blown the fuck up.
I don't see bipeds happening on earth, either. If one of your two legs malfunctions, have fun moving around.
I don't think mechs would necessarily suffer from a firepower disadvantage: scaled-up recoilless rifles sound like a great idea. They do lose out on mobility and armour though, and then you wonder why you're even bothering.
Have you seen Gundam in action? Good luck hitting that thing with anything. Sheer mobility is on another level than that of any tank. Gundam can fly in addition to walking!
You assume that outdated ballistic weapons like tank-mounted cannons will be in use but they are obviously a thing of the past. Guided missiles and lasers is where's the shit at.
Patlabors - much more versatile and usable in urban environment than any tanks, I can easily imagine them being used in not so distant future in construction works and such.
>I think that's exact reason WHY people are opposed to drone warfare. Because it turns war into a child's game.
People who think that way are people with zero personal attachment to the military. Military personnel who fly aircraft, crew ships and vehicles and fight on the ground are real human beings with friends and families, whenever one of those people die it is a tragedy to somebody.
Anything that takes a solider, sailor or airman out of the line of fire is a good thing.
You can have a philosophical debate about people becoming detached from the consequences of war because drones, but ultimately the course of action that leads to less widows, less orphaned children and less wasted training is the only rational course of action.
I didn't realize time travel was feasable. And his proposal heavily relies on the unnamed tech being so advanced that it curbstomps everything else and that somehow no one else will have it or be developing it.
He also doesn't mention any specific principles it could be based on, just that it would be based on them.
Heh, the thing wonder is how the recoil of a 150mm cannon that can shoot shells several miles away is going to be handled, if we're talking about weapon specs measuring up to tank guns.
Not him, but potentially the mech should be able to do some sort of firing mode/stance. Possibly lowering itself closer to the ground and deploying some sort of struts to keep it stable while firing. Overall a quadrupedal mech would be better suited to this then a bipedal mech.
Here's the thing about the "Mechs would have more mobility and be hard to hit" thing.
1 - Bullets and missiles are fast. Really fast. A mech would have to be able to dodge at insanely high speeds to be able to dodge them reliably enough that dodging is a viable alternative.
2 - Moving at this speed would be very intensive and you'd need the machine to be made of stuff to hold up to this, especially on the joints. And if it's made of this super durable stuff anyways then why are you bothering to dodge in the first place?
3 - You'd need a pilot with inhuman reflexes to do this. One who could not only know the shot is coming, but know where its coming from and make his machine respond in time to dodge it.
Please explain, in detail why I can't put a fusion reactor, thermal rocket engines and directed energy weapons on a conventional air or ground vehicle and have it be substantially more effective at its designed task than a generic giant metal man with no apparent function.
>Patlabors - much more versatile and usable in urban environment than any tanks
Yeeeeah. About that.
I wish I could dig it up, but I read an article by a military veteran who was thoroughly against the concept beause he didn't like how it lowered the barrier to warfare.
The 120mm M256 gun used by many western tanks fires sabots at over 1700 m/s. At its maximum effective range of 4km you'd have 2.3 seconds to see the muzzle flash, recognize the threat and shift your mech far enough to generate a miss.
It's pretty implausible to say the least
>no one else will have it or be developing it.
governments and mainstream equipment suppliers may be comfortable with certain types of equipment for budget/political reasons, whatever, isolated group can pursue their own interests and their own priorities. much like companies like Space X or Tesla just reinvented their respective fields. was electromobile feasible before? yes. Did any of the big four develop it? No. Same logic here.
Have you seen Gundam 00? All it took is 200 years of work by an isolated group, and they still made a superior tech to all others.
Planes don't have such cannons yet they solve tasks on the battlefield and can in fact destroy tanks with relative ease. So we can assume this mecha can use missiles of some sort instead of ballistic cannons to accomplish roughly the same (destruction of adversary units/tanks).
To put in perspective, the 120mm tank cannon on a modern MBT fires shells that roughly travel 2000-3000 metres in 2 to 3 seconds. There is virtually no chance of jumping or stepping out of the way of a cannon shell after noticing the muzzle blast.
RPGs travel much slower, if they are fired from range it may be possible to evade, but experienced fireteams intending to take down heavy armor will fire multiple RPGs from close distance a d from multiple angles
Well, there's still the potential for gunnery error, enhanced by irregularly-shaped targets moving erratically, which a walking mech is likely to be. But yeah, a Zaku on the battlefield is going to be like a man with an assault rifle walking through a forest where the squirrels have pistols. He'll splatter them no doubt...if he can locate and engage them. Meanwhile, there's more of them, they're much harder to see, and their weapons are more than sufficient to kill him.
>Have you seen Gundam 00? All it took is 200 years of work by an isolated group, and they still made a superior tech to all others.
Um, are you aware that the events of Gundam 00 are fictional and didn't really happen?
We call those ATGM carriers and they don't need legs either.
How is Tesla a work of fiction? Or commercial space development? Basic technology or principles is there for ages, but no one uses it because everyone earns money by selling some outdated technology, why would they bother?
are you aware this tech already exists?
1. It does not have armor capable of withstanding a tank shell nor does it need it. Good luck hitting that with a tank cannon.
2. Already possible, see video
3. I don't know what you are talking about. Or do you assume pilot will rush into combat situation without any intelligence and information about enemy locations?
Humanoid mecha looks cooler and sells more merchandise.
One of the reason planes are so good at taking out tanks is that they are much faster and are attacking from the high ground. They can fly over and release a payload of missiles faster than a tank can react to them or retaliate. Even if you slapped missiles onto a mech, it's not like tanks don't have missiles too. So now it's just a walking machine that can't equip as much as a tank can.
Really, the main issue with mecha on the battle field is what is its combat role? What can it do better than anything else in that role? And no, don't give me the "Mechs are good because they are multi purpose". That shit don't fly. It's just a way of saying that they are inferior to another machine at everything they try to do. Why build a machine that's second rate at everything?
Why try to build a Bradley tank with legs /m/?
I'm calling gundam a work of fiction. And as for tesla, keep in mind that while it kicked the pants off the other electric cars, its not just competing with them. Its also competing with gasoline cars and hybrids as well. Tesla is a great electric car, but it doesn't stomp all the competition in every field for cars just yet.
I meant the "small target" thing with regards to an AT or Labor, which is more difficult to track than a box on wheels. But yes, you're absolutely right.
>1. It does not have armor capable of withstanding a tank shell nor does it need it. Good luck hitting that with a tank cannon.
That's because it's an aircraft. I thought you were discussing mechs, not aircraft. In any case, Gundams are not nearly as aerodynamic as aircraft and consume much more fuel in flight. And this is in-show!
It's worth noting that Jets can be engaged by air defense weapons mounted on tracked and wheeled chassis. The Soviet/Russian Tunguska and Tor systems are good modern examples.
Putting legs and arms on these weapons systems would not enhance their performance.
>where the squirrels have pistols
This. I'm more concerned with guerrilla resistance than regular forces, tanks and such. Tanks need logistic support so it's always an issue of planning when deploying mecha in the field. Surely you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Enemy infantry and guerrillas on the other hand may try to attack stealthy, disable legs/movement joints and do other unpleasant stuff.
I think you misunderstood me.
What I meant is that it is pointless to try and beat a tank and long range, direct fire ground combat because that's what they are specifically designed for. If you try and beat them at their own game you will lose.
So I agree with you, if you want your mech to be able to defeat a tank the solution is not to put a tank gun on it.
>>We call those ATGM carriers and they don't need legs either.
What if we join benefits of conventional ATGM and movement versatility of mecha?
Like these things, they can even traverse dense urban environments of middle east. They can jump on roofs and such, surely a feat not possible for a wheeled carrier.
That's an aircraft. It can move that fast mainly due to powerful thrust and areodynamic shape. How is a mech supposed to move that quickly?
> I don't know what you are talking about
I'm saying that if a human's reflexes are not fast enough to see a bullet or missile incoming and dodge it, how do you expect a machine piloted by a human to do it? Can you dodge bullets anon?
An interesting postwar analysis of tank combat on the western front of WW2 concluded that the most critical factor in any engagement was firing first. In 80% of engagements the side that landed the first hits, usually from ambush, won. For tanks on the receiving end, for every 10 seconds they remained in contact their odds of survival dropped by 50%.
>I meant the "small target" thing with regards to an AT or Labor, which is more difficult to track than a box on wheels.
Tanks are smaller than labors and ATs, what makes them easier to track?
I remember there being an episode in Gundam MS IGLOO where they dealt with precisely that situation - prototype tank vs walking mecha, what do you know tank fought well but was ultimately destroyed. There are just inherent limits to thread system as a means of transportation.
With propulsion/legs the only limit is the power output of your engine. We see it's adequate to move a plane with current tech already, Gundam-style mecha would probably be heavier so it needs 5 times more powerful engine.
I'm not even talking about guerrillas. Main battle tanks are much stealthier and harder to hit compared to a Zaku-sized robot. I think guerrillas would have a fairly difficult time inflicting crippling damage against a sufficiently large mech, actually. You'd need a lot of explosives.
Now we're getting somewhere. But the artificial muscle tech is something of a pipe dream at this point, as is the AI. There's also no guarantee that the organic-looking legs would be particularly resilient to autocannon or even HMG fire, or that they'd be capable of jumping onto roofs like they can in the game. I also imagine the power requirements are sizable.
Irregularity of locomotion compared to tracked motion, I was thinking. The ability to strafe without rotating the hull. Harder to lead a human than a box, right? But it doesn't come close to making up the size difference.
>There are just inherent limits to thread system as a means of transportation.
Like what? IGLOO is a cartoon where building-sized machines can pivot on a dime and evade incoming fire.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-900_reactor this says typical ship has 2x171MW reactors, how much power would a Gundam need to move and power its energy weapons (presumably laser tech at this stage)
Gigawatts probably. We see UC beam rifles vaporize metal from time to time and the exploding reactors release enough energy to completely vaporize everything in the vicinity.
Stuff like 00 is on a whole different level. Even regular beam rifles, like the 00 Gundam's was seen vaporizing half an Ahead in its first appearance. Then you have stuff like the Raiser sword or 00 Qan[T]'s moon carving sword
>But the artificial muscle tech is something of a pipe dream at this point, as is the AI.
are you serious?
1. muscle tech - available already
2. AI - 5-7 years max and then again we only need AI for systems like balance/load handling (available already, boston dynamics), actual control can be done by remote operator (although in MGS they were all seemingly AI-controlled)
>I also imagine the power requirements are sizable.
That's one benefit of muscle tech precisely, it has very low power consumption much like real muscles.
I admit my memory is extremely vague on that whole series but I remember scenarios being WW2-influenced weapon wank but with modern tech. In fact I think they would use completely different tactics in actual mecha warfare.
>There are just inherent limits to thread system as a means of transportation.
What the hell are you talking about? The Hildolfr didn't lose the battle because the tank tracks were a weakness. The Hildolfr actually lost one set of tracks partway through the battle and kept going anyway.
During the episode the Hildolfr was fucking powersliding over the desert floor and doing 360 sliding spins while firing at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Energy_Liquid_Laser_Area_Defense_System this says only 150kw is required to fire a laser capable of destroying a projectile at least (and probably burning a hole in a tank), shouldn't 5-10MW be more than enough then for both defense systems and main weapon?
Gigawatts is evangelion level tech, we are talking about realistic mecha and usage scenarios here, not fighting interdimensional aliens.
The laser will be a 100 kilowatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL). It is expected to have a tactical range of approximately twenty kilometers and weigh about 5,000–7,000 kg.
The system has a weight goal of 5 kg (11 lb) per kW of energy.
So realistically small and light 300kg 100kw cannon is feasible in 10 years.
Depends on the material and the time. But 150kw is probably enough to burn through aircrafts and missiles which pretty much aren't armored. Tank? I find that hard to believe.
Well, you asked how much power is required for a Gundam and its weapons. Most beam weapons in Gundam effortlessly burn through futuristic super-metal armor. And in the case of stuff like the Beam Magnum, supposedly 4x the power of a normal rifle, it's capable of vaporizing what is probably tons of Gundarium (see the Shamblo) almost as quick as it meets the material. That would require gigawatts
By time I mean how long it takes to melt and/or vaporize the material. The mass of the material being melted matters as well. A laser like that would probably only be a few cm in diameter and target a fuel tank or something
Gundarium is stated to have excellent durability against physical projectiles, but heat hawks, beam sabres and beam shots will penetrate gundarium without much of a problem.
I think unlike in cartoons there will be no thick visible colored beam, it will be just a small spot perhaps even several mm in diameter that will heat some point on enemy armor to the melting temperature in a fraction of a second. Then the tank could implode into itself/its fuel or shells will explode/its crew will be evaporated even if armor itself survives.
Eva unit is the perfect mecha if not for 5min battery life.
Since when casualties in third world countries were a concern of anyone in first world countries? We all get a good night sleep when someone dies every day in Libya or whatever oil-rich nation they bomb this season.
Do you really think turning war into robot proxy battles would save human lives? Even if it was suddenly illegal for human soldiers to exist, the drones wouldn't be targeting themselves like G-Gundam in a show of sportsmanship.
Especially in the world wars, the key to winning any war is the attrition factor - without any supplies to wage war with, the losing side will have little choice but to surrender. How do they do that? By targeting warehouses, supply depots, factories, R&D labs, and the politician hideaway bunkers in a race to cut off the nation's head. Factor in stations to control these drones, and you're basically telling flying drones to bomb there, which would be the primary tactic - waves on waves of divebombers versus whatever anti-air they have.
Without human soldiers, the first targets because they are the most dangerous, you're sacrificing not those who give their lives voluntarily, but killing breadwinning citizens in a race to the bottom.
What other choice do most people have? It's not like people are going to start killing themselves because someone not close to them died. That doesn't mean it's suddenly devoid of all ethical weight. It's not like I've ever lost a nights sleep over anyone but my own grandfather's death, that doesn't mean I don't believe they don't feature in my ethical calculus.
It also relies on magical force fields powered by soul energy and is a cloned and painstakingly cyborgized copy of an alien god, so good luck building one.
I think it would save human lives on the balance (many civilian casualties are the result of not wanting to risk one's soldiers lives) but it'd come with an incredible economic burden. If you wage a war every week just because it doesn't consume human beings, you'll find yourself bankrupt and unable to fund education, transportation, etc. etc.
When we invade some country with a goal to establish a puppet government to sell us resources for worthless dollars (we print them for free, remember) our goal is
1. Make it fast as to not upset voters
2. If possible make strain on taxpayers less
3. Avoid casualties among our troops as it upsets voters again, also strain on taxes/welfare/economy.
I think hiring a bunch of geeks to be operators and outsourcing a production of combat drones to china is a good idea. As for casualties among civilian population in a country being "liberated" - who gives a fuck? Although use of precision drones instead of mass shelling may even help avoid collateral damage. We only destroy army units loyal to current dictator, while support units loyal to CIA-established rebel factions and try to not destroy infrastructure in the process.
That's because the beams in gundam are made of super heated particles that are launched out of the barrel rather than lasers.
But yeah, a laser would just be a tiny hole that suddenly appears in shit with no visible cause. It also isn't continuous, a laser fires multiple short pulses (Multiple times a second) rather than a continuous stream.
Also fun fact, lasers are already being tested as anti air/missile defense systems. So far their only real flaw is that they don't work when its foggy/misty/raining out, or through clouds, because the moisture in the air fucks with the laser.
100kw is nothing like sufficient to defeat tank armor. The penetrators of conventional anti-tank weapons have energies at the point of impact measured in megajoules.
With 100-150kw you're looking at engaging light vehicles, personnel and things with volatile propellants or highly sensitive electronics in them.
>an incredible economic burden
ahaha you don't know much about economics, do you
war is funded with paper (can always print more) but as a result you get tangible resources (oil to fuel tanks, metal to build more tanks). you will never run out of resources if you keep conquering more. it's a matter of ROI
The Zaku II breaks apart in re-entry and blows up, but the Gundam isn't damaged at all, giving Amuro enough time to get the film out. Provided, it had its (already heavily damaged) shield, but it didn't really use it until Amuro got the film out. And even then the shield lasted much longer than the Zaku II did.
Metal in UC in general seems to be more durable than what armor uses today
>laser fires multiple short pulses (Multiple times a second) rather than a continuous stream.
not necessarily, modern solid state lasers can fire continuously as long as there is power and cooling
>they don't work when its foggy/misty/raining out
this is misconception spread for propaganda purposes, obviously no weather conditions affect performance of laser system. lasers can reach moon surface or evaporate a flying metal shell, and you think they can't evaporate several drops of water that will be in a beam's path in those several milliseconds it's fired? come on...
are you talking out of your ass now? this was tested long ago and successful
would just evaporate from even brief exposure to such powerful beam
THEL is a megawatt range laser. Which is not what I was talking about.
In fact I even mentioned modern AT weapons having megajoule energies and a watt is just joules per second, so...
I think I'm done with the people in this thread.
You have a very narrow-minded view of tactics if you think you're just going to attack terrorists. If the UN goes sour and one of the nations withdraws with its own alliances, they could pool their resources and use that same trick on the world. And given only aerial drones seem feasible at this point, they will be limited to bombs and vulcans, while still being vulnerable to anti-air, which has been around since the World Wars. I doubt there would be enough signal strength to keep track of all the drones they plan to swarm the place with anyway, which would make drones vs. guns a standstill. In the situation caused by the overabundance of aerial strikes, it would be more practical just to take a land vehicle with bombs/RPGs/shells and go to town.
By the way, every time we have a tank thread I see people claiming that tanks are useless in urban warfare. Well, the US Army thinks you're full of shit.
Here's an entire field manual dedicated to infantry/armor combined arms tactics in cities and towns.
>Crewmen in armored vehicles have poor all-round vision through their vision blocks; they are easily blinded by smoke or dust.
I still can't believe we haven't fixed this yet. What can the cost of a handful of high-res cameras and VOTOMS goggles for the commander possibly be?
The M1A2 TUSK urban warfare upgrade added a remotely operated CROWS HMG turret for the commander. It has a daylight, night vision and thermal sights and is very useful for situational awareness.
Some versions of the M1A1 and A2 and A3 have additional thermal, laser, and/or infrared sensors.
Nothing really beats combined arms for protecting tanks. I mean, tanks do what they do very well, but they aren't invulnerable, and if they are vulnerable in one area, it's probably when enemies are close by and around the tank, which can happen in urban combat.
I think that labors are probably the most realistic take on giant robots we're getting out of Japan, if for no other reason than them being far closer to achievable with real technology. The Ingram is fucking massive for a humanoid labor at 8 metres, and it's often majorly constrained by simple things like power source.
Your second point is totally horseshit, The laser is going to use up energy hitting all that water on the way to the target and attenuate the beam, drastically reducing the amount of energy applied to the target. Yes lasers could reach the moon, but by then the amount of energy left wouldnt even qualify as a flashlight.
>The Ingram is fucking massive for a humanoid labor at 8 metres, and it's often majorly constrained by simple things like power source.
And for the fact that trying to do anything fancy breaks it.
I think if you modified the knightmare frames it could work. Given their size (a little less than 5 meters on average) and mobility due to landspinners which are wheels mounted on their feet. They would be effective against tanks and aircraft since they can move faster. For balance you can just give it four legs like the kuratas. An alternate mode would also be practical for faster movement(like the LFO's or the loto). There should be a moveable head for a main camera and secondary backup cameras on the torso.
As for power I guess you could go with maybe thorium.I don't see thorium being commercialy safe but the military could do something with it. Solar power or disel can be an emergency backup option. Also a hardpoint system for more weapon versatility. If this is possible I think such a design would work if they can find a way to isolate the radiation in the reactor or get rid of it some how. This design seems agile and versatile enough and those are always the two factors that cause mechs to be called for in the first place in most fiction.
P.s. Also a panoramic cockpit is a good idea.
Physically impossible if the enemy has infrared sensors.
So what does he do if the enemy happens to see him first? Just bail out? Obviously you'll hide yourself as best you can, but the whole point of tanks is to dominate the least stealthy of battlefields. If they can't go there who can?
Modern tank combat is quite different to what it once was, like all warfare these days it's about engaging on the very edge of your effective range and getting the first shot in, since the first one is often the only one.
Something like the AT or labor is essentially just bulletproof infantry, the utility of which is quite obvious. A gigantic mecha, perhaps something like metal gear could be useful as an enormous direct fire SPG, if only you could find a way to power it. The legs make sense there because you're unlikely to find a road big enough where you want it to go, and they can also help to absorb recoil.
As for power sources, there's definitely got to be quite a safe niche for tethered robots. With that simple step you can decrease the weight enormously, and it also gives you a remote control system which can't be jammed so you can get rid of the cockpit too, which is another massive liability gone.
Modern tank combat hasn't happened yet, at least not the sort where a modern tank engages another modern tank. On what basis are you assuming that's the way it would go down? The real world can be very messy you know.
Typically tanks attempt to employ "defilade" wherein they position themselves in such a way that either natural terrain or artificial structures like fortifications provide them with cover and concealment.
Hopefully if something fires at you and somehow you saw it fire, but didn't notice it was there previously (which would be basically impossible) you'd back down from your position, then either return to it or move to a new one to return fire.
The issue is that because the projectiles involved move faster than the speed of sound and because tank guns acquire targets entirely using passive sensors the only way you can get any warning of an incoming shot is if you're looking at the thing shooting at you and then you have to factor in the reaction time of the individual crew member who spots it, the commander deciding to give an order to move, the driver to respond to that order and then the tank to actually move.
>It hasn't happened yet, therefore we can't make such claims!
Alright, let's play it your way for a moment and assume this to be truth.
The most modern tanks at any time will dictate tank combat before it even starts. Because modern tanks are developed with these tactics in mind, we know that these tactics will be employed. There are no other viable tactics for tank combat, because those tactics would result in death.
There aren't going to be MBTs zerg rushing American Abrams and state-of-the-art Russian tanks, because that would result in their death. Therefore, the only option is the ranged slugfest where survivability is maximized.
Even in WWII range was still the preference. Tanks have changed, but this isn't infantry combat. There won't be a massive shift in the way tank combat is conducted because there's no cause for that unless they figure out ways to make tanks so extremely armored that no ordnance can damage them outside of close range.
So now I'm passing the torch to you. What advantage do modern MBTs have if they engage in close combat, as opposed to extending their ranges as much as possible?
>the only way you can get any warning of an incoming shot is if you're looking at the thing shooting at you
Or if a camera is pointing at the thing shooting at you and it knows how to spot a muzzle flash so that it can give a warning instantly to the crew. I'm pretty sure there are even systems like this already. Whether a driver can respond in time to such a warning, I don't know, but it certainly feasible that he might if the right systems and procedures were in place
If you open fire you give away your position, and at maximum range even with the most advanced tank in the world there's no guarantee that you'll hit and take the other guy out, and as someone said before they will probably be sitting in a spot from which they can disappear in a couple of seconds if it gets too hot. With a kinetic energy penetrator, your destructive power decreases as range increases, so although tanks are generally snipers it makes sense that in certain situations you might want to come a little closer.
>If you fire from a distance they know where you are, and then they can hide.
The same luxury is given to you. Also, they don't necessarily know where you fired your shot from, it's just likely that they'll find out.
When you're doing battle with large and expensive death machines, you typically want them to come back, and so your doctrines will reflect this.
One quick note for the next two decades: Railguns. Railguns will be equipped on tanks. It's a matter of "when", and not a matter of "if". Armor technology to counter that technology may not be up to par.
The systems that exist currently are laser warning receivers which provide warning against laser rangefinders and laser missile guidance.
The muzzle flash from a tank gun at any kind of range would be best detected with an IR camera and it would be basically indistinguishable from any other explosion. An automatic system doing that would just end up giving you a bunch of false warnings from friendly shooting and general battlefield chaos. Shit would not work like you'd hope it would.
The various wars between Israel and Egypt and Syria are fairly good examples of post-ww2 tank combat. Obviously there are several modern technologies missing from the tanks involved, notably FLIR systems and gun stabilizers,
I'm pretty sure the t-90 had something for optically guided missiles as well, which would automatically turn the turret towards where a missile launch was detected and turn on it's fake guidance flares
This is a misconception. Tanks fight from ambush on the defensive, going hull down to make themselves smaller targets and only expose their heavy turret armor. If their position is compromised they'll simply fire and reverse out of sight on the way to their next firing position.
In an urban area they have even more options to conceal themselves... simply driving through walls to create an improvised firing point within a building is a tactic endorsed by US Army field manuals.
There are two active protection systems for the T-90, Arena and Shtora.
Arena uses radar to detect incoming projectiles and launches explosive devices that shoot shrapnel at them. It's intended for use against rockets and missiles. Arena is kind of only a good idea in an asymmetric situation because it requires the tank to constantly radiating on a radar which poses a counter-detection risk against a technologically comparable opponent.
Shtora is the other one and what you're probably talking about. Shtora has two functions, it detects laser emissions and automatically launches anti-IR smoke grenades and also allows the tank commander to lay the gun to the direction of the laser so they can shoot at it. The other function is to interfere with IR based guidance systems by means of big fucking IR dazzlers that saturate the guidance systems of those missiles with IR radiation. Shtora doesn't actually provide any means of detecting IR guided missiles though.
Pic related, one of the most visually noticeable components of Shtora are the IR dazzlers which give the tanks equipped with it distinctive red "eyes"
>But Gundam concept is something different entirely. It means to create a weapon that would tip the scales of the battlefield by itself.
We don't need that anymore. Modern armies can kill any enemy they can detect.
There is no amour thick enough to survive modern weapons. A bunch of Zakus in real life would just get blown up by artillery. Building big weapons with thick armour just doesn't WORK, because we can destroy any armour.
In the eternal battle between sword and shield, the sword is winning right now. This is why we can't build giant robots, because the advantage of thick armour is near non-existent.
Come back when you know how to build forcefields/energy barriers. Until then, smaller is better.
Does not really work that way anymore.
(3) Armored vehicles project a psychological presence, an aura of invulnerability that aids the friendly forces in deterring violence.
I'd say Gundam is 10+ times more efficient in that. Mudslimes would just throw their AKs to the ground and pray to the flying deity of destruction.
Completely arbitrary, unless you have a study or survey on the shock value of fictional giant metal mans.
>Mudslimes would just throw their AKs to the ground and pray to the flying deity of destruction
You have given me the perfect context for this picture, my friend.
It would probably look something like this. Wheel-legs for transport, so that they can navigate most terrain quickly. But I can't really see humanoid arms being used. It seems more likely that they'd have several interchangeable weapons attached for various purposes. I assume they'd only have one main weapon equipped at a time though. And the hull almost certainly wouldn't look humanoid.
So something more like a Tachikoma. Any other examples similar to this description?
yep it would be like that
even most vehement combatants would probably realize they are about to meet 40 virgins sooner than expected
tanks are not menacing, everyone knows you can just shoot the threads or circle around them or get to higher ground and attack from there. none of this is possible with gundam
>everyone knows you can just shoot the threads or circle around them or get to higher ground and attack from there. none of this is possible with gundam
Treads are pretty heavily armored, how the hell is circling around it going to help and you do know the tanks cannons can angle up right?
As it stands our weapons are basically magic to the insurgents we've faced. They still fight.
Their RPGs bounce off our tanks. They still fight.
Our helicopters reap them with 25mm from miles away in the dead of night. They still fight.
Our C-RAM claws their mortar shells out of midair. They still fight.
We bomb them, strafe them, hunt them with drones that they can't see or hear. They still fight.
It's laughable to think that a big metal man is the missing COIN link we've been looking for since Vietnam.
The psychological effect a weapon has has nothing to do with its appearance. It has everything to do with how difficult it is to fight against, how unpleasant the effect of it is and how capable it is of targeting individual people.
There are really great examples of weapons with tremendous psychological impacts. Gas, sustained artillery bombardment, Snipers, Attack helicopters , Napalm are just a few. In each case there's a distinct reason why those things are frightening and in no case is it "because it looks scary".
If something is laughably ineffective it isn't going to have a psychological impact regardless of how scary it looks. Perhaps the first time someone sees it they might be afraid, like the first time tanks were used at the Somme, but when it becomes apparent that the thing in question doesn't actually do anything very frightening it'll stop having that psychological effect.
I don't mean to say anything about the effectiveness of giant robots as weapons by that. I just mean to point out that just because something looks kind of intimidating it doesn't mean it'll have a substantial effect.
For example. Insurgents are fucking terrified of air support, in particular attack helicopters.
Now the insurgents rarely actually see the helicopter so how can they be afraid of them? Because you don't see them coming, are difficult to hide from, require fairly sophisticated weapons to counter, and because they can target and kill individual people extremely effectively.
Patlabor had the right idea
There are many labors that are not humanoid though, and most of those are for the military.
They are pretty much super tanks, some of them, just with the trademark of being a Labor
Congratulations, you just dehumanized warfare which turns it into a game and a normal option that you can use at any time as opposed to one of last resort. The fact that the US military is operated by human beings is the main reason Obama hasn't committed large forces to go back into Iraq and has opted only to do airstrikes.
Soldiers, sailors and airmen being put at risk is exactly WHY we can't remove them from the battle field. It makes it so that those in power have to think about if it's worth it to put those lives at risk. Yes you will have corrupt administrations or regimes that will use their soldiers as pawns for personal gain, but that still doesn't outweigh the other issues. And let's not forget if someone is able to turn your army of drones against you. But that's a whole other level of shit.
War has already been dehumanized and desensitized enough in America where the country has actively been at war for the past decade but no one case because there's no shared sacrifice, but it was enough to at least want people to bring the troops home because they sympathized with their families. Imagine what would happen if the US just sent machines and drones into battles.
Well, the LaWS being fielded out for testing seems to be a great AA and missile defense system. Not to mention that it fries electronics at low output. It's a great support weapon.
I've seen articles where drone operators and others claim that it can be equally humanizing depending on the mission.
Shall we start the circle or should we all just accept that it's a polarized issue and neither party will ever be correct?
LaWS isn't really an AA weapon. Its current role is anti-drone, anti-missile and anti-small boat. Aircraft are significantly more resilient than those things and the range at which you want to engage them is much greater and LaWS just doesn't have the power to do that.
However it is the logical progression for laser weapons to eventually completely replace conventional guns in a point defense role, you probably just going to have to wait thirty years before any navy actually adopts a laser weapon.
>should we all just accept that it's a polarized issue and neither party will ever be correct?
Definitely a big no on that one. For civilians who don't have even the vaguest of ties to the military the whole drone thing is just an interesting philosophical debate, but there are people who actually operate military equipment for a living, or have family members who do, who don't have the luxury of the outcome of said debate having no affect on on their personal safety.
It would be of zero consolation to me that the arbitrary ethical values of some entirely unaffected civilian were being satisfied if I was dying in agony somewhere inside a vehicle that could trivially have been operated remotely. The same would apply if a member of my family never came home for the same reason.
Preventing the unnecessary loss of human life is singularly the most important consideration in all matters related to the military. It is fucking bizarre to me that civilians are the people who don't recognize that.
>But muh life.
Whether you want to believe it or not, this is in and of itself a philosophical debate, and conveniently washing it away with terrible logic doesn't make it disappear.
While I have no problem with drones, I'm not going to blindly swipe away opponents because MUH SOLDIERS LIVES. There is a huge implication of what the future could hold if warfare were performed largely by remote-controlled vehicles. The next step is to create vehicles that need no controlling whatsoever.
Saving soldiers is great, but it's also a matter of instant reward. If we bomb our enemies into oblivion or outright nuke them into dust we spare lives, but then what happens to humanity as a whole? If the U.S. military attains a perfect victory through such means, then people clamor for every war to be a perfect victory, and suddenly every war becomes just that.
Long-term problems will always be more important that instant rewards. You have to look at all these factors, because the state of human civilization in the next decades or even centuries is based on the precedents of today.
All of the alleged concerns there are entirely speculative. Whereas there and extremely practical and immediate benefits to using drones. As such regardless of the validity of your argument it doesn't actually hold any traction as is evidenced by the increasing use of drones by militaries all over the world.
The real benefits outweigh the speculative problems.
My point was that the decision of whether or not to use drones with increasing levels of autonomy has already been made, that the decision was "yes" and that the reason for that decision is because there are tons of benefits and only speculative drawbacks.
You ignorantly forget two important things:
First, that that decision can be undone quickly, and that additional decisions have to be made to expand the program.
Second, that the program is in its infancy still, and that use of the technology is still very limited.
The future isn't here yet, so please pick up some basic reading comprehension and try not to delude yourself into thinking that life is further along than it actually is.
I can't hear your impotent whining over my widespread international popularity.
Perhaps, but the drone operators don't make the choice about starting a war, and emotional trauma is still far preferable to body bags.
I don't think you totally understand the objection here, which is that the unnecessary loss of human life may in fact increase if wars are launched without any danger to one's own forces. That the cost in blood is a meaningful deterrent to war and helps tip the calculus, no matter how little, in favour of averting wars instead of prosecuting them indiscriminately.
The key idea here is that blatting human beings to death is not a wholly desirable thing even if they don't belong to your country or its armed forces. On the battlefield, we don't think twice (from a planning perspective) about taking lives, because the moment someone picks up a gun, they're an obstacle to mission completion and a threat to our soldiers. They've made themselves into a weapon, and have forfeited compassion. But when we have drones, not soldiers, and the man with the gun doesn't pose the slightest risk to any allied personnel, the justification for lethal force becomes much more complicated.
Also, it's just occurred to me that man-sized, heavily armoured drones could feasibly be equipped with nonlethal weapons for COIN scenarios and serve as a big, metal policeman. This is pretty pie-in-the-sky, but imagine a big metal dude that doesn't care about using lethal force to defend himself, who shrugs off rifle fire, who exudes tear gas and spits bean bags and produces inmates, not dead sons and brothers.
>the justification for lethal force becomes much more complicated.
Trivia: The DoD guidance for the use of deadly force provide a definitive list of circumstances under which the use of deadly force is justified and only two out of seven of them involve military personnel being in danger.
Obviously it's more complex than that. But in terms of actual training and policy you wouldn't have to adapt much to facilitate unmanned warfare.
I have to sleep, but would you mind linking it? I imagine the ROE would indeed change in a world of unmanned warfare. When you don't fear death, you're in a position to offer much more in the way of mercy.
>Describing something oddly similar to a certain movie about robotic police officers or some such thing.
This is what I meant when I mentioned the next step in this technology. It's flying drones now. What's next? When do private corporations start to develop robotic police officers and then lobby for them to be used?
There are a whole lot of potential scenarios that are, admittedly, unlikely. Not being likely doesn't make it impossible, however. If life should teach any one of us anything, it's that life is truly stranger than fiction. If someone with money and power tries hard enough to win, eventually he'll knock on the right doors.
So yes, drones have tons of usefulness in a smaller scale. Large-scale drone warfare though? That comes with a set of problems that people too focused on immediate action tend to ignorantly shoo away in favor of immediate political and economic gains.
Hell, if I made UAVs you can bet I would seek to quiet debate about the implications of my technology becoming widespread in favor of maximum profit and power. It would be my job and duty to ensure that my company becomes as powerful and profitable as possible.
Enclosure 2 part 4 is what you're looking for. It should be noted, however that those rules get supplanted by theater specific ROE when used overseas in a warzone, however they provide the basic principles by which the US department of defense uses deadly force.
Thing is, as I expected, this boils down to "protecting lives" and "protecting mission goals", and is shot through with "reasonably" and "necessary", two value judgments that would change dramatically if the operator had no fear for their own life or the lives of other armed forces members in the vicinity, and if rifle fire did not pose a threat to their operational integrity.
Of course, a tank is expected to paste a rifleman and is not obliged to ask him to surrender, and reduction of enemy fighting effectiveness by destruction of personnel and materiel is a legitimate goal of warfare. Even taking the crew out of the tank wouldn't change this. In this situation, you're hitting an opponent who cannot retaliate in kind, inflicting human casualties when all you have to lose is an investment. It seems optimistic to suggest this wouldn't have a liberating effect on political decision-making and the deployment of force.
I think you're wrong to assume that people taking immediate reward and disregarding potential future problems are doing so ignorantly. It's equally likely that they either don't think the potential future problems are likely, or that if those problems happen they'll cross that bridge when they come to it. Hell, they might just not care.
You also can't sell a problem.
On one side of the argument there are real products that are enormously effective and powerful, on the other there's the speculative idea that that those products may, perhaps develop in a dangerous direction.
There's only going to be one winner there. Until such a time that drones have some obvious negative affect on the society that employs them, their use is just going to increase.
The only plausible outcome is a apocalyptic war with a race of sentient robots.
That person doesn't really get it. If I had to trace it back to any Asian cultural element, it'd be the collectivism over individualism. Robots are basically superheroes, but unlike the typical Western superhero, whose powers are self-contained within their body, something they were born with, or occasionally something they invented (i.e. Tony Stark, Batman), the Japanese giant robot is something that comes from without, something developed by a scientist grandfather or bestowed by someone else, or what have you. It's a giant metal big brother who lends you his power. You control it, but you are not it.
tl;dr: Western heroes are about individual talent and ability, Eastern giant robot heroes are about teamwork and collective strength
In an actual combat zone the Standing Rules of Engagement apply so combatants are directed to abide by a somewhat different set of rules. The most notable difference being that the SROE allows for specific forces to be designated as hostile forces which allows for US forces to engage members of the designated force without a specific hostile act being performed by that individual.
This is why an attack helicopter can just shit all over a bunch of insurgents standing around in a valley polishing their AKs and waxing their camels even though they pose no actual threat to the aircraft and aren't even close to allied ground forces.
In an environment dominated by unmanned vehicles the focus would probably just shift away from self defense to more heavily focusing on protecting assets and objectives deemed vital to national security. I don't think it would require a substantial change in thinking in that department.
But since the vast majority of Labors are intended for civilian usage thus subject to consumer preference, that makes perfect sense. And it's not like we don't see units with less human or totally unique figures.
>>As it stands our weapons are basically magic to the insurgents we've faced.
Umm no. Insurgents have 60s-80s soviet tech, soldiers of freedom have 00s-10s tech and intelligence support.
But imagine alien overtechnology like what they have in Area 51 vs modern human "technology", it will be obliterated. Wouldn't you lose will to fight such overwhelming force if you know resistance is futile? Well even if you don't give up you are about to get your ass kicked big time.
>you probably just going to have to wait thirty years before any navy actually adopts a laser weapon.
brah, the US navy already has a ship with a lazor gun. They tested it on the USS Dewey, and now it's equipped on the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport dock ship, for live testing in the Persian gulf. Shit will probably be ready for proper deployment within 10 years.
I think this is the point Treize was getting at in Gundam Wing--when wars are no longer fought between men, they become nothing more than games.
That said, another reason a lot of people fear drones is the Skynet/second renaissance factor. Drones still need controllers now, but they're growing more and more autonomous as time passes, and after a certain point...well, let's hope they don't rebel.
>implying robots smart enough to want the world for themselves and competent enough to actually go through with it don't deserve it.
If you don't want to be replaced by robots, be better than robots. If you can't be better than robots, then why shouldn't you be replaced by robots?