>tfw we have the capability to create mechs but we don't

>>15849624
They're an unproven and theoretical design that require a lot of resources, after commercial designs role out (likely small ones for construction) we'll see.

File: 54cb17e3235f5_-_bho-jetpacks-02-0713-de.jpg (46KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x450px

>>15849624
>He thinks we don't have mecha
They're top top top secret but we will use them when the time is right

>>15849688
The best weapons are the ones no one knows you have.

>>15849624
>Time tested and refined designs with clear strong points are picked over unproven, theoretical designs whose improvements are incredibly debatable thus making it even more difficult to justify
With shit like Power Armor, there is a visible and clear reason why it would be a boon for infantry forces
With mechs there is extremely little that a mech can do that a tank, a helicopter, or an artillery gun cannot do, and likely done better and cheaper.

>tfw Mars would be perfect for mecha, but we're not there yet

File: tumblr_n4r5iehR4L1qmqs6fo1_1280.jpg (161KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1024x684px

>>15849624
>we have the capability to create mechs
>shows a tank

We don't actually

Even tanks are fucking retarded.
They're extremely vulnerable to any type of rpg and ied

Humans are the best weapons

>>15849947
Humans are extremely vulnerable to $0.30 bullets.

>>15849920
>With mechs there is extremely little that a mech can do that a tank, a helicopter, or an artillery gun cannot do, and likely done better and cheaper.
That's exactly my point.

>>15849970
humans don't cost 4 million dollars to make

you get 3 guys who know what they're doing and an $80,000 javelin and they take out the tank easily.

File: a32.jpg (32KB, 720x706px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 720x706px

Why won't they make fast cars with guns?

>>15849986
Yeah, and an RC car with a $600,000 HEL and a car battery can sit on a hill half a mile away and unerringly drill a hole through the skull of any human the moment it walks into line of sight.

Lasers hooked up to targeting computers > everything

>>15850025
can someone explain what this nigga just said

>>15850138
I think he's saying that, if you protect tanks, it's hard to destroy them.

Just because there's an easy way to do things, doesn't mean it's the best.

Just because there's a best way of doing things, doesn't mean that it's cheap.

Just because there's a cheap way of doing things, doesn't mean that it's better. It's just cheaper.

We're going to make giant robots because they are cool.

>>15849986
>humans don't cost 4 million dollars to make
That depends on what the humans are doing.
I'm pretty sure the training and resources that gets put into say, a special forces soldier, or a pilot is somewhere around a million dollars.

>>15850158
A mech would be easily be a more expensive option than a tank, a helicopter, or an artillery piece, with extremely little improvement over any tried and true designs
They'd be even bigger targets out in the field,
Even WORSE bigger targets in urban combat
A sheer mechanical nightmare to maintain (and tanks aren't exactly budget conscious to begin with)
And would require a smorgasbord of different technological advances to get anywhere near functional

>>15850176
why did you reply to that post without even trying to read it

>>15850220
I'm just saying you're going to have a devil of a time getting funding for it even if its 'for the cool'

>>15849947
>Humans are the best weapons
>Humans like (You) are too defective to tweek and put to the field

How does it feel to be even less practical than a tank?

File: 2c901453de880e0dc5d8b7404152aef7.jpg (144KB, 735x487px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 735x487px

>>15849624

It just occurred to me that armored engineer vehicles are actually kind of close to mecha.

One of my favorite designs was the Grizzly, but it was scrapped.

>>15850164

Not to mention humans tend to be killed more easily.

File: the white devil.png (200KB, 555x398px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 555x398px

>>15849923
Nor will we ever be because of governments being bogged down by people wanting gibmedats

>>15849728

"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you KEEP IT A SECRET! Why didn't you tell the world, eh? "

File: t10 wine.webm (2MB, 718x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 718x404px

>>15849986
>what is active defense
enjoy getting mowed down by .50 cal retard lmao

File: d5b16e0f99c4cd53e2e48dab5db434fc--italian-army-attack-helicopter.jpg (47KB, 736x490px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 736x490px

>>15849624
Why the fuck would we build a bipedal walking thing when we have wheels and tracks that are infinitely more efficient in terms of movement and god damn flying machines

>>15849923
The idea is that lower weight means more agile machines, so to speak, right?

>>15852816
WOW GYRO SERVO STABILIZATION

ALL THE CASUALS ARE IMPRESSED

File: Rustal_Elion.jpg (35KB, 692x389px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 692x389px

>>15849986
>cheaper dainsleifs you say?
>I would like to know more

>>15850230
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/comment-page-2/

If we can get funding to keep getting tanks even though the military themselves say that we have enough tanks and should stop making more for now, then it's not implausible to get funding for "cool robots"

>>15855453
what kind of retarded reasoning is that?
they're not buying more tanks because "dey cool xDDDD", you fucking mong.

>>15855463
>the point
>the upper layers of the atmosphere
>your head

The military is getting funding for shit they don't even want is what I'm saying. Stands to reason that they can get funding for shit that they may want, if only for the cool factor.

>>15855468
The reason the military gets funding for shit they don't want is to pay defense contractors. Defense contractors aren't interested in doing cool new things, they're interested in making money.

>>15855468
The only reason they've been buying M1 tanks that they don't need is because it keeps the organs of national defence healthy, like>>15855501 said. No private corporation is going to invest the shitton of time and money needed to develop mecha when
A). They're fucking retarded in the first place and even more unecessary than an extra 2000 tanks
B). They can just use already existing infrastructure, factory lines, technicians, engineers, and factory workers that already know what the hell they're doing to pump out vehicles that may actually come in use sometime in the future

>>15852415
It was to be announced at the party congress on Monday, you know how the premier loves surprises.

>>15855501
> Defense contractors aren't interested in doing cool new things, they're interested in making money.

Is that why we're still wheeling out tanks instead of drones, which are the new hotness?

All that needs to be done is sell contractors on the idea that robots print money anon.

>>15855518
Defence companies absolutely love drones. Pick up a recent copy of Janes Defence Weekly, I guarantee you that there'll be at least a couple new unmanned vehicles being announced.
They love drones because they're cheap to build, and there's huge demand for them.
In contrast, no one wants a big bipedal war bot, so there's no demand, and they're far more expensive to develop and build.