backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by TimberJon.. on Nov 1 at 11:01 PM


The HULC exoskeleton is almost unnoticable at first and feels natural for the soldier, yet it massively enhances their physical capabilities.  (Source: Lockheed Martin)

The suit allows soldiers to effortlessly carry more defensive or offensive tools, like bulletproof steel shields, heavier guns, or extra body armor.  (Source: Lockheed Martin)

Soldiers can lift up to 200 pounds with the HULC.  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
Bring on the mech wars

For those yearning for some good old fashioned mech wars, your hopes may be realized on a battlefront in the near future.

To complement combat airshipslasersdrones, and a variety of other exotic "future weapons", Lockheed Martin is looking to outfit soldiers with powerful exoskeletons that would greatly amplify their physical movements and turn them into resilient angels of death.

Dubbed the Human Universal Load Carrier, or HULC, Lockheed Martin has supplemented a $1.1M USD contract with much private investment to try to sell the military on the idea of combat exoskeletons.

Lockheed Martin recently shared details on the progress of the suit with 
Wired.  The HULC in its current form weighs 82 lbs, but when the solider straps in, they feel virtually nothing.  It could in theory support an impressive array of strap-on combat accessories such as missile launchers or a massive 94-pound black steel shield capable of stopping most munitions dead in their tracks (Lockheed Martin has only demonstrated non-weapon accessories like the shield, but said that it should be capable of being weaponized).

The agile outfit is fully "ruggedized" and waterproof.  It can withstand billowing sand and dust, as is commonly present in the Middle East.  Its lithium-ion battery pack can power a 20 km (12.5 mile) march on a single charge.  The suit can travel at 7 miles per hour, faster than a brisk walk, and fast enough to keep up with a slow-traveling tank (tanks top out typically at around 40 mph, but frequently travel much slower when performing tactical or support maneuvers).

The suit allows the soldier to effortlessly lift 200 lb -- far more than an average private sans suit could ever dream of.  And the battery pack weighs only 18 lbs, is rechargeable via Humvee electrical connections, and holds charge for three to four days.

The suit is amazingly flexible allowing you to stand up from a prone or kneeling position rapidly, and without putting almost any weight on the soldier's joints.

Going ahead Lockheed Martin wants to further seal off the unit's hydraulic and electronic systems from the elements and from undesirable electric emissions, which could give away your location.

In the spring of 2011, the exoskeleton will enjoy its first tests by real soldiers in the U.S. military.  And in 2012 Lockheed Martin will test the exosuits in Afghanistan.  The feedback from those tests will probably determine whether the U.S. Armed Forces get serious about investing in the technology.

Lockheed's long-time rival Raytheon is making a competitive model dubbed the XOS 2.

Regardless of which model triumphs, the U.S. Military would be wise to promote this technology.  After all, soldiers are soft and organic, and thus vulnerable to improvised explosive devices and armor-piercing rounds.  It's hard to carry enough body armor to change that fact.  An exoskeleton could not only provide greater protection against these threats, but it could prove a fearsome offensive weapon.  The sight of a legion of heavily armored mech soldiers supported by tanks charging towards them would be enough to send most enemies running from the battlefield.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Iron Man
By Anoxanmore on 10/26/2010 10:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
Finally Iron Man shall be real in 20 yrs. :)




RE: Iron Man
By RugMuch on 10/26/2010 10:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
That's what they said in the movies and look what happened.


RE: Iron Man
By retepallen on 10/26/2010 10:58:43 AM , Rating: 5
Robert Downey Junior became cool?


RE: Iron Man
By atlmann10 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Iron Man
By BZDTemp on 10/26/2010 11:03:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
rofl; Iron man will be real in less than 5 years most likely.


AH, do show the tech that's gonna provide the flying functionality.


RE: Iron Man
By corduroygt on 10/26/2010 11:14:01 AM , Rating: 3
Not to mention you're going to need something with much more energy density than li-ion batteries, like an arc reactor.


RE: Iron Man
By quiksilvr on 10/26/2010 12:06:33 PM , Rating: 3
Well technically you can make a small nuclear reactor as a back pack, but the main issue is thrust, not energy. You need some very unique and highly efficient fuel in order to get that to work, especially at supersonic speeds.


RE: Iron Man
By corduroygt on 10/26/2010 12:08:38 PM , Rating: 3
You could do the inspector gadget version with a propellor above your head :)


RE: Iron Man
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 12:10:28 PM , Rating: 3
Well the Iron Man suit doesn't use fuel. It's thrusters are powered by magic!


RE: Iron Man
By bitterman0 on 10/26/2010 1:55:10 PM , Rating: 5
Must be an Apple model.


RE: Iron Man
By borismkv on 10/26/2010 7:09:00 PM , Rating: 4
No, that one uses the Reality Distortion Field that emanates from Steve Jobs.


RE: Iron Man
By kb9fcc on 10/26/2010 12:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
Beans. Lots of beans...


RE: Iron Man
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/26/2010 6:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, they are the magical fruit. The more you eat the more you toot.


RE: Iron Man
By Spookster on 10/27/2010 1:26:51 AM , Rating: 3
I believe the word was "musical" not magical. Beans, beans the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot.


RE: Iron Man
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/27/2010 4:44:32 PM , Rating: 1
The beans are magical, it's my arse that's musical :)


RE: Iron Man
By Spookster on 10/28/2010 3:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
No it's that skin flute IN your arse that's making the music.


RE: Iron Man
By lyeoh on 10/26/2010 2:30:35 PM , Rating: 1
The main issue with a "nuclear reactor backpack" is not thrust.

You're going to need:
1) radiation shielding
2) cooling

Despite a critical mass sphere of plutonium or uranium being only about 10-20cm in diameter, you're going to need a lot of radiation and heat shielding unless you don't mind being dead.

And you definitely need cooling.

If you can solve these without really heavy shielding, you don't need special fuel for thrust. All you need to do is use air from the atmosphere and heat from the reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft


RE: Iron Man
By quiksilvr on 10/27/2010 1:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
The shielding shouldn't be too much of a problem. RST has developed a new fabric the called Demron which is a pretty effective radiation shield.

http://www.radshield.com/

As for cooling, Freon would be an obvious choice, but it all really depends what you are using the nuclear energy for.

I never knew they used heat from a nuclear reactor to create THRUST, I thought they simply used it to power propellers. That's BRILLIANT!


RE: Iron Man
By atlmann10 on 10/27/2010 1:39:08 AM , Rating: 1
rofl; the LA police have jet packs on the way already. Also for energy the American military also has hydro cell batteries which went into field testing like six months ago. So Li-on batteries I would think not. A single Hydro cell battery runs a soldiers complete gear for 3-5days (IE:GPS, laptop, cell phone, radio and everything else).


RE: Iron Man
RE: Iron Man
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 11:14:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
rofl; Iron man will be real in less than 5 years most likely.


??
Even if you could build the suit, the problem is going to be how you power it? The Iron Man suit requires more power than a Nuclear reactor in the size of a small chest plug thingy using an element that can't possibly ever exist. Think about it.


RE: Iron Man
By Silver2k7 on 10/26/2010 11:22:59 AM , Rating: 2
There always seems to be talk of better batteries or faster loading ones etc.. but we will need something very revolutionary to make that kind of suit.

5 years are doubtful in my book, but we shall see :-)


RE: Iron Man
By ppardee on 10/26/2010 1:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
All we need is an efficient energy-matter conversion. The amount of energy in a hunk of lead is immense! Our current capability in this department is poor, and I doubt we will solve the problem in 5 years (or maybe even 20), but if the Ironman suit were to ever come into existence, it wouldn't use batteries (as we know them)


RE: Iron Man
By Murst on 10/26/2010 3:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All we need is an efficient energy-matter conversion.

I assume you mean "an efficient matter-energy conversion". Unless we assume that this Ironman has virtually unlimited energy already, and needs to create a lot of metal poop.


RE: Iron Man
By DougF on 10/26/2010 6:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
What, wait, you mean Unobtainium is unobtainable? Drat...


RE: Iron Man
By Helbore on 10/26/2010 5:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
Iron Man won't be a reality until the US Military start digging holes in their soldiers' chests and inserting a glowing reactor-thingy with a cool name.

Oh and only hiring playboy billionaires to fight wars.


RE: Iron Man
By SoCalBoomer on 10/26/2010 6:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're correct, in principle at least. Heck, wasn't there a prosthetic based on this technology blogged about a week or so go on DT?

Still in development, but usable and giving people with spinal injuries freedom to move about . . .

Yeah - things are speeding up!


RE: Iron Man
By TimberJon on 10/29/2010 11:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
rofl. The real disconnect here is with reality...

As others stated, you will need a high-output energy source, the thrust technology, energy weapon tech (PPC), and myomer.

We have artificial muscles but not well developed for industrial applications. We have high-torque and high-speed Servo's but we need the power. Some kind of mini reactor is a long way off.

We need the power! And we don't have jack yet. VASIMIR is a promising technology...

I will push fusion again though.

Read here first: www.jet.efda.org/

Then here: www.iter.org

AFTER ITER is up and running, and after some time after that when they really ramp the sucker up, then they might be able to miniaturize it a bit. Initially, they might only be able to reduce it's size by only a third or as much as 2/3rds. It will take them years to iron out quirks.

I saw MIT test a working inside-out fusion-torus concept.

Z-pinching is promising as well. Waiting for that refurb to complete so we can get back to research which allows material refinement, which directly helps fusion become possible and then become improved.
Read here: www.sandia.gov/z-machine/

No Iron man suits. No 'Mechs sadly. No electric helicopters or fusion semi trucks. When that near-unlimited power is available, things will change a little. But when they can miniaturize the fusion reactor, then we will have large vehicles. Trains, boats, semi's, tanks, helicopters & large VTOL aircraft, possibly (and finally) a real spaceship that can leave atmo under its own power, and maybe Agromechs or something like walking power loaders (though larger).

In 30 years they might have something like a reactor with a small energy output about the size of a minivan. They might be beta testing such a thing as soon as 15 years from now.

Educated guess. Nothing as complicated as a fusion reactor WITH all auxillary modules will be coming to market in a hurry.


RE: Iron Man
By geddarkstorm on 10/26/2010 12:55:44 PM , Rating: 5
Iron Man? Pff.. HULC smash!


RE: Iron Man
By snapilica on 10/26/2010 3:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Iron Man? I was thinking more on the line of the exo-nano-suit thingie from Crysis. It's more closer to what this really does.


Satellite link... established.
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2010 11:04:09 AM , Rating: 3
Reactor... online. Weapons... online. Sensors... online. All systems... nominal.

*beep*

We are one step closer to having true elementals or battle suits. Get us there and we'll be even closer to finally having big, giant robots wreaking havoc on the battlefields.

I for one hope for the oncoming conquest of our nuclear-powered, bipedal robotic overlords.




RE: Satellite link... established.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 11:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
lol yeah.

Big giant mechs would be more feasible at this point because they would be large enough to house a reactor of some type to power it. Man sized suits? Not so much.


RE: Satellite link... established.
By lyeoh on 10/26/2010 2:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's easier to hide a human than it is to hide a giant mech. Better to have a superhuman that's human sized.

For war stuff you'd be better off using a conventional tank than a giant mech.


RE: Satellite link... established.
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2010 3:19:57 PM , Rating: 5
Blasphemy! There are multiple advantages of a giant robot over a tank:

1. Rocket fists. Tranzor Z (Mazinger Z) clearly demonstrates this advantage. The detachable saucer car in his head is just an added bonus and the eye beams, well, lets just say he can peek over a cliff and fry anything in sight. Mazinkaiser is even more deadly, btw.

2. Big robots can step on things, tanks can't. That's right, when a tank runs out of ammo, it can just run over things--except big robots. Rock paper scissors here, big robot wins with no ammo and tank is squished. Rock is trumped by paper.

3. Tanks aren't nuclear powered. Need I say more?

4. Mechs have neurohelmets. Tanks don't.

5. Mechs have jump jets and some of them--like the mighty Veritech, can transform into a plane and per the tale of the great Thexder, triumph over all sorts of mechanical menaces.

6. Mechs can walk on all sorts of terrain a tank has no business, nor any ability, to traverse. Not only this but a Mech can enter a river or lake and still fire back while partially submerged, using the liquid as a means to reduce heat from their core structure.

7. This is the most important advantage of all--Mech's are cooler! They're just neato.

So there. ;)


RE: Satellite link... established.
By DM0407 on 10/26/2010 3:39:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Blasphemy! There are multiple advantages of a giant robot over a tank:


I think this should be one of the quotes at the bottom of Daily Tech articles.


RE: Satellite link... established.
By Murst on 10/26/2010 4:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's right, when a tank runs out of ammo, it can just run over things--except big robots.

A big tank can run over big robots.

quote:
Tanks aren't nuclear powered.

If a giant robot can be nuclear powered, I don't really understand why a tank can't be either. Both would probably need to be remote controlled, but nothing states that a tank must actually carry people.

quote:
Mechs can walk on all sorts of terrain a tank has no business, nor any ability, to traverse.

I'm sure that you can also find terrain that a mech can't go into but a tank can.

quote:
Not only this but a Mech can enter a river or lake and still fire back while partially submerged, using the liquid as a means to reduce heat from their core structure.

Tanks can fire while being partially submerged.


RE: Satellite link... established.
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2010 4:16:01 PM , Rating: 4
/nerd fight

There are currently no tanks on earth that can run over a mech that is 17 meters tall. Even if it were Getter Robot and not a traditional Battletech or Macross mech, the tank would still fail as Getter is 20 - 55 meters tall (depending on the model and if it is a Shin-variant).

quote:
If a giant robot can be nuclear powered, I don't really understand why a tank can't be either. Both would probably need to be remote controlled, but nothing states that a tank must actually carry people.


If the tank were robot controlled, then maybe. If it isn't, though, it can't be as there just isn't enough room. In a battlemech, the reactor is in the mid-torso, while the pilot is situated above it or in the head. The tank just doesn't have enough room as the main surviving principle behind a tank is:

a. Thick, canted armor to deflect shells
b. Low-profile to create a smaller visual presence in the background and on the horizon.

A tank that can be seen is a tank waiting to be stepped on!

quote:
I'm sure that you can also find terrain that a mech can't go into but a tank can.


I'm not sure of any but if you come up with something, please let me know. A mech particularly has an advantage on steeper, rocky inclines that a tank can't hope to keep up on.

quote:
Tanks can fire while being partially submerged.


Maybe in 6 - 8 feet of water but not 15 - 20 feet.

Look, just concede. Mechs are k-rad, dude.

/nerd fight


By MrBungle123 on 10/27/2010 10:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
What If instead of a tank we build Fatboys? You know like the ones in Supcom - giant tanks the size of a city block that contain a factory to construct other fighting vehicles where ever it is and have turrets with giant naval guns like on battleships? What happens to you mech now?


RE: Satellite link... established.
By Alexvrb on 10/29/2010 10:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno man, Hover Tanks are pretty badass. They're not as versatile as Veritechs, though.

Of course, the real cat's meow is an SDF or two.


By TimberJon on 11/1/2010 9:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
<BT nerd clarifications>

Referencing the more physics-based Battletech 'verse...

>'Mechs are supposed to have an armor that can for the most part, deflect most if not part of the kinetic energy from a now-conventional tank round.

> Their vantage point puts normal tanks in far better range.
Yea if they can see you you can see them but the 'mech might be moving too. I don't know if tank's targeting computers gather range data on objects with sky in the background. It won't be easy to hit the legs of a 'mech. Tank can't see over a short wall, and cant knock it down for fear of the enemy noticing. A 'mech can see easily over a short wall though it would need high cover to hide itself behind.

> Noting the Hatchetman's design, a 'mech with limbs able to torque tons worth of weight fairly effortlessly, even if clumsily slow to our eyes, can hold physical weapons that can do plenty of damage after ammo reserves are out.

> A true 'Mech wouldn't work without some kind of miniaturized reactor. Even though an ICE engine or two MIGHT be able to produce enough power for mobility OR weapons (excluding energy weapons, sorry).. Fuel is a concern. High output energy source = some kind of energy weapon. Ballistics are practical with limited ammo, but having a nearly unlimited power source and no energy weapons that require no ammo would be stupid. Unless the source of energy could barely power mobility, computers, life support, etc.. =\ Whatever that is give it the boot and plug something better in.

> Tanks have far less mobility. They can't turn as easily, and the turret can only traverse up so far. A 'Mech can get up on a hill or outcropping and rain hell downward. A Tank would need to half fall off a cliff to aim downwards.

> A tank can use 'jump jets' to go over a ravine or really ugly terrain, but I believe those were plasma rockets that fed on water or something else for thrust. According to BT design, a bipedal 'mech should be able to keep it's balance pretty good even on uneven ground.

> A tank could dig itself a hole with it's treads in loose soil or mud if it is wet enough. A 'mech might slip and fall but it can get back up albeit slowly and maybe with some damage. A 'mech might also just be able to stomp through mud as it's weight should always carry it down far enough to hit the bottom. It is stepping while the tank is chewing.

> Yay a tank can fire partially submerged. A 'mech can fire completely submerged though it isn't practical. What is practical is crossing a body of water, underwater. Works great for ambushes too. Element of surprise a conventional tank (not a specialized tank) can't accomplish.

> what else what else... Oh yes. Lighter armor, significantly more movement-power means more armaments. Miles-per-gallon is the key, if there isnt any, then the combat life of the unit is greatly increased.

That's all I can think of. We will likely have spacecraft before 'Mechs though. Air mobility might take over. BT Universe unfortunately was built around the dream of ground-based 'Mechs and had to make up reasons why they dominated where air power should have. On the other side.. no matter how much air power you have... you always need ground troops. why not 20-40 foot tall kinds.

The future is iter.org
Though we need that myomer too atm.

</BT nerd clarifications>


RE: Satellite link... established.
By DougF on 10/26/2010 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'll see your giant robot and raise you a....BOLO MkXXX.


By Captain Orgazmo on 10/26/2010 6:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking this was a serious post, until I got to "rocket fists" (for some reason the "blasphemy" failed to tip me off). Thanks for the laugh :)


RE: Satellite link... established.
By Alexvrb on 10/29/2010 10:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
*BWEEEP*

Heat level critical!


RE: Satellite link... established.
By phantom505 on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Satellite link... established.
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2010 2:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
If you hate America so bad why don't you just leave? We won't miss you. :)

We like our capitalism and FYI, the F-22 is a complete utter success. It is an amazing accomplishment of Lockheed. If you don't believe me, go watch one fly in person--you'll change your mind.

The F-35 might of had a chance, if those in Congress weren't so bent on cutting funding for the new engine it desperately needs to remain viable.

Oh, and also FYI, the F-15 and the F-16 have been complete, utter successes. Nothing has managed to shoot down an F-15, it is undefeated.


RE: Satellite link... established.
By phantom505 on 10/26/2010 11:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
What did my post have to do with hating America? I spent 2 years on active duty and I know how the brass in the Pentagon thinks. Obviously you don't.

Furthermore, I love the country. That's why I want to see it succeed. If anything it's you who hate it and want to sell it to the corporations, or w/e it is you think it is you believe.

F-22 is to fight which enemy that the F-15 can't handle? Hmmmm.....? You just said.... never mind. Logic is not your strong suit.


By MrBlastman on 10/27/2010 9:13:04 AM , Rating: 3
I may have wrongly assumed you hated America but in some of your other posts--particularly those supporting socialization (nationalized health care), it is those very ideals which threaten to rip America apart and turn it into Europe.

We're Americans, we don't want to be Europeans. How so? We kind of left there over 200 years ago to get away from all of that! :)

quote:
F-22 is to fight which enemy that the F-15 can't handle? Hmmmm.....? You just said.... never mind. Logic is not your strong suit.


If you live in utopia, you might say that since the F-15 has never been defeated, it never will and it is perfect. The reality is, around the world, _right now_ there are other nations rapidly trying to develop new, next-generation fighters which have stealth capabilities which will render the F-15 obsolete.

If we have the F-22 now, we are prepared for them in the future. You were in the Military, don't they teach you something similar to the Boy Scout motto there--Be Prepared.

If we were prepared for 9/11, it might never have happened. Lets be prepared for the worst the enemy can throw at us before it happens.


By phantom505 on 10/26/2010 11:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
PS

Freeper Boards are ---------------->


RE: Satellite link... established.
By WayneG on 10/26/2010 5:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
this is Rooster...


200 lbs? 12 mi?
By Schrag4 on 10/26/2010 12:34:31 PM , Rating: 1
I actually feel like the men and women who fight for us really ought to be able to lift 200 lbs and march 12 miles without such a suit. I understand that it would be nice to do these things and still not be worn out afterward, but I don't feel like these are anywhere in the ballpark of super-human achievements. I mean, I sit behind a desk all day long and I know that with a couple of months of PT I could easily do this. I bet I could do it now (although I'd be in considerable pain for a few days afterward since I'm not in shape).

Maybe they want to limit the lifting potential so users don't accidentally crush themselves when the suit fails or when they lose balance.




RE: 200 lbs? 12 mi?
By priusone on 10/26/2010 12:43:35 PM , Rating: 4
A lot of guys I meet at the VA have back problems caused by carrying excessive weight. Our service members can go the distance, but it will potentially impact them later in life.

On foot, I never left the wire with less than 800 rounds for my SAW, not to mention water and whatever else might be needed. Screwed up my feet pretty good doing it, but that kinda goes with the job.


RE: 200 lbs? 12 mi?
By lyeoh on 10/26/2010 2:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
If it weren't for pesky stuff like joints, ligaments, bones muscles and stuff wearing out, the military might probably try to modify metabolism so that soldiers could operate on "sprint mode" without getting tired as long as their metabolic augmenters don't run out of fuel (which could be cooking oil or diesel).

Cooling seems important too: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore_pr...


RE: 200 lbs? 12 mi?
By ClownPuncher on 10/26/2010 1:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
They are doing it with 140+lbs of gear on. Yea, it's tough.


RE: 200 lbs? 12 mi?
By Noya on 10/26/2010 2:08:11 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure they could carry a distributed 200lbs, but their mobility would be pathetic.

I've read the loaded weight is usually around 100-120lbs (shoulders go numb) but for actual combat missions they cut the load to 50-60lbs (armor/helmet, weap/ammo/gren, food/h2o, gear/batteries).


RE: 200 lbs? 12 mi?
By Omega215D on 10/26/2010 2:39:23 PM , Rating: 1
You sit behind a desk all day... I don't think you should be making such a comment until you enlist and see for yourself.


RE: 200 lbs? 12 mi?
By Smilin on 10/26/2010 3:37:08 PM , Rating: 3
You misunderstand I think. This is lifting 200lbs ontop of an already full load, not just 200lbs by itself. Heck they almost do that already.

Besides it's not just about having soldiers "man up". They CAN lift heavy loads but do you really want them too? It would be better if they could arrive at a battle rested...and with lots of extra ammo. :)


American Flag Patch
By lukasbradley on 10/26/2010 4:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't in the service, and I'm not complaining... but...

In that third picture, shouldn't the American flag patch on his left arm have the stars facing forward?

Maybe the image was just inverted so it looks better...




RE: American Flag Patch
By johnsonx on 10/26/2010 5:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
The image wasn't reversed - I can read the letters on the box.


RE: American Flag Patch
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/26/2010 5:57:55 PM , Rating: 3
No, the US Army always wears the American Flag on the right shoulder patch, that way it looks like it is waving to the rear, indicating that the Army is always moving forward, thus the end of the flag points behind them. In this picture someone screwed up and doesn't know how to wear the uniform correctly. RIGHT SHOULDER, ALWAYS.


SPECULATION
By JonnyDough on 10/26/2010 11:07:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The sight of a legion of heavily armored mech soldiers supported by tanks charging towards them would be enough to send most enemies running from the battlefield.


Oh yeah? So how many enemies have you faced with a gun Mick? This is pure speculation on your part. You know, this is why nobody likes your articles. Learn to stick with the facts and keep your silly opinions out of it.

~United States Military Member




RE: SPECULATION
By windowsfuture on 10/27/2010 10:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
I would agree to that, sir.

and by the way - have you heard of the gravity hammer?


RE: SPECULATION
By TimberJon on 11/1/2010 10:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Are there clear and defined answers in a book somewhere that tells us what a known enemy will do when it sees new military hardware enter the field and become stationary? How about when it starts slowly and methodically moving towards the host?

As a US Mil member if you are groundpounding and the enemy comes up in a simple APC, will you defiantly shoot at it with your rifle and yell at it? Well trained ones will do what they need to, but only engage when they what? have a working plan with a chance of success after they have ID'd the enemy and it's weaknesses. What are you going to do with new hardware that is walking towards you that looks like something out of a sci-fi movie? You can't ID it. You cant possibly know it's weaknesses. All you can do is frantically call it in to the uppers, or start shooting.

I believe and I speculate, that a known enemy will pause that scientifically-proven amount of time to seal their doom, then begin firing at the new hardware in near fear.

Only after a few seconds when the new hardware shrugs off incoming fire and opens up on the enemy host will the fear take over and the enemy begin to break ranks and attempt to retreat in disarray. They won't run if it doesn't fire on them though. They will keep firing until they begin to see that both A) their weapons are having no effect and B) it's weapons are really having effect. The dumbest grunt will see this attrition as what it is unless they are a zealot.

I have more tactical and psycho-warfare experience in my right eyeball than most so-called 'Active or EX-' military do. Especially the laughable '2-year veterans'. God bless you all for being alive and pulling through whatever you had to do though. I won't say anything negative about your time served.

Mick stated a half-truth, unfounded yes, but logically correct. How many advanced bipedal walking death machines have you aligned your sights to Jonny? Have we ever been up against a technologically superior enemy?

The facts are that nobody is ready for advanced bipedal hardware of any size or mobility. As someone stated with the Atlas, General Kerensky had it designed with nothing but immobilizing fear as it's goal. Any bipedal robot that walks in our time will do nothing but generate fear in the troops it marches against... until the enemy gains air superiority.


RoboBeret
By undummy on 10/26/2010 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 3
IronMan not! No fancy blue light coming from a bogus power supply in the chest.

We need RoboCop to police these countries we invaded!

Most enemies already run from the sight of our troops. Problem is, once the enemy tosses his AK, he instantly becomes a civilian. Can't fight a politically correct war and win.




RE: RoboBeret
By priusone on 10/26/2010 12:36:48 PM , Rating: 3
Gotta love the ROE. Might as well just hand out BFE adaptors and make sure they get put on before the troops roll out of the wire.


screw tiny exoskeletons, think BIG!
By rika13 on 10/26/2010 2:26:43 PM , Rating: 3
These are just cool because of Iron Man. Ironically they are the power loader from Aliens. WE NEED BATTLEMECH!!. The terrorists will run in fear when they see the skies blackened with Atlases, each 100 tons of pure murder with a skull for a face just for the lulz.




By geekman1024 on 10/26/2010 11:48:47 PM , Rating: 3
Or you will see Mr President running in fear screaming like a little girl when 20 smuggled-in-hand-assembled-Al-Qaeda-Daishi doing Alpha Strike on the White House. LOLz.


Next Generation
By windowsfuture on 10/27/2010 9:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think that instead of these wimpy, tiny suits, it'd be best to have something that would be fairly large, and covers your whole body including a gold visor and HUD, complete with a green coloring. Viola~ the new Spartan suit (for those that don't know: Halo - Master Chief). Or a Darth Vader suit!

MechAssault Lonewolf Mechsuits aren't bad - Atlas is slow, but powerful. I can see it now...

Or have something that towers over all objects - Mobile Suit Gundam! While we're at it, why not try and build an Astro Boy?

Yes I see a bright future.




RE: Next Generation
By TimberJon on 11/1/2010 10:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
MechAssault lonewolf suit is the Inner Sphere version of the Elemental bodysuit. Atlas was also far less destructive than a Clan 'mech of equivalent weight.

Because we won't likely get miniaturized reactors any time soon, the big ones (iter.org) need to shrink alot before they can even fit into a 'mech as big as the Atlas (tallest design). So we will probably have fairly large suits (30-40 feet tall) or just a huge tracked conventional tank =(.

The Hulc is a big step forward though. Advances in battery technology may improve these. More power can = longer runtime Or higher strength output at the expense of a shorter runtime.

Read up on BT Mechs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlemech

I honestly believe the first bipedal walker might only be used for undersea or construction purposes. It would be the only way to go public with such an advancement. Just don't let the loggers get one.


RE: Next Generation
By TimberJon on 11/1/2010 10:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yea...
By Breathless on 10/26/2010 11:17:32 AM , Rating: 3
In my humble opinion, THESE are the types of articles that Dailytech should have more of.... not daily Apple updates or constant cell phone articles.




RE: Yea...
By TimberJon on 11/1/2010 10:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
I second that. I read here for TECH, not politics. Not firmware updates. Not softwares.


Those First Two Pics
By metaltoiletry on 10/26/2010 11:31:28 AM , Rating: 1
I thought looked more like the suits from STALKER.

Get away from me you little shit!




RE: Those First Two Pics
By Hyperion1400 on 10/26/2010 12:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Get out of here stalker!


RE: Those First Two Pics
By geekman1024 on 10/27/2010 12:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
Put your gun away, stalker!


"HULC"
By 440sixpack on 10/26/2010 11:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me that isn't a contrived acronym. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym_and_initialis...




RE: "HULC"
By xthetenth on 10/27/2010 8:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
It still loses to the Self Propelled Explosive Removal Munition, a modified torpedo for minesweeping purposes. That one was too good to last though. Funny acronyms with contrived expansions is basically the military's favorite sport.


The Emperor's Finest
By Yowaimushi on 10/26/2010 11:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...that would greatly amplify their physical movements and turn them into resilient angels of death.


Really? Somehow I doubt that's the intended purpose of the HULC.

I'd say that Lockheed-Martin has a long way to go before the HULC is even close to a suit of Mark 7 Aquila power armor. ;)




Crysis
By The Raven on 10/26/2010 12:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
No thanks. I'll wait for the Nanosuit!




ms
By FuRoo on 10/26/2010 1:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't we all use the metric system.




orly
By Runiteshark on 10/26/2010 5:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Get out of here, Stalker!

I can't believe anyone hasn't said this yet. This is clearly the exosuit.




Wrong Activision Game
By Spacecomber on 10/26/2010 7:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Not Mech Warrior II, but Heavy Gear II. ;-)

http://i35.tinypic.com/2lbkhsm.jpg




amazing
By Paj on 10/27/2010 2:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds amazing! Maybe America should start a war or two so they can really field test this thing. Oh, wait...




The True Battletech Reference
By TimberJon on 11/1/2010 11:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
For those of you who aren't familiar with the Battletech 'mechs or 'Battlemechs'. I'll briefly brief you.

They aren't the kind that fly around* in the air or in space making unrealistic jerks and turns. These are heavy and ponderous clunky armored tanks on two legs. Weapon systems vary but are categorized as energy weapons, missiles, cannons and some others. Key parts of these mechs are: the reactor, the myomer or artificial muscles that help move the arms and legs (high-torque servomotors are also used at joints so they aren't all arti-muscle), a cooling system, a gyro-stabilizer and the 'Neurohelmet'. The purpose of this bulky helmet is to read the human sense of balance and translating it to the 'mechs overall balance.

Read up on Mechs, weapons, etc.. at the ultimate battletech reference: http://www.sarna.net

*LAM (Land Air Mechs) are a category that can convert from jets to 'mechs and vice versa (Macross). There aren't many and they were not used much in the novels or video games. Most popular was the http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Phoenix_Hawk_LAM




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki