I know that /k/ thinks mechs would be useless in combat. But

"The only real problem I think is the powersource."
Guaranteed replies

>>33835654
>the powersource.
Stick a v8 on it and a bunch of fuel. I am not joking.

>>33835658
>>33835657

I know this is an easy answer, but with technological advancements going as quickly as they do, a small, lightweight fusionreactor is not unthinkable, right??

>>33835712
>hey frank, lets just strap an infant stage reactor to something that's going to get shot at
>a lot
>what could go wrong?
>Fuck if I know, bill, fuck if I know

>>33835712
>we'll have fusion in 20 years
t. labcoat nerds in the 40s...50s....70s....90s...2010s...

Regardless, given the physical requirements to start fusion and intense radiation produced, I don't think you'll ever get smaller than a shipping container even if you can nail the fusion itself. As far as power density goes nothing can beat dead dinosaurs for now. Any kind of nuclear releases too much radiation to have humans anywhere near while it's operating. Except for RTGs, but those are also not powerful at all.

Battery tech might catch up soon, but other than that I don't see anything better than combustion.

Arms and legs together produce about .5hp

So, a small weedwacker engine can produce 4x the power of a human being, and it weighs only a few pounds.

Its not a powersource problem.

>>33835654
It's not a power source problem, and it's not a mantianence issue, its a control issue. As of right now there is no system that can keep a Mecha upright and balanced, and allow it to sync with a pilot.
Look at all the DARPA projects about robotics, that is the biggest issue.

>>33835654

The biggest problem of mechs is that they are, and will always be, less efficient than other designs.

It's not that mechs can't work. It's that other things work better.

>>33836085
No it's not lol. Control is relatively trivial with modern tech. Given enough funding it could be done, and a user interface is no more an obstacle. The problem is thay mecha are pointless and therefore not being funded.

>>33835654
>It can handle various big weapon systems and this performing as a heavy-weapons platform, or use its strenght to carry around wounded, large objects etc. It can also carry load of supplies, function as as movable cover, long range communications.
So can anything with wheels/tracks, and do it much better too.

>A tank is built around the gun. A mech can be built around almost anything.
Cool story bro.

We need a standardized pasta for this.

>>33836121
>bigdogslippingonbanana.gif

>>33836167
We have about ten. They're shit. Wait around, some turboautist will post them.

>>33836085
It's none of these. We don't have them because nobody wants to burn money into these wastes of space. You could strap a cockpit to an upscaled Big Dog right now yet nobody is doing it, not even for publicity.

>>33835712
fusion reactors will always be bigger than fission ones. smallest fission reactor is about the size of a basketball.

>>33836233
Any power source would have to be air cooled, I don't know what the radiator requirements would be for a small fiss

>>33836338
The issue does not even get to cooling. First and foremost comes shielding and also not instantly vaporizing your reaction chamber. This sets some minimum diameters.