Inspirational: the state of the uniform

[tnjrp]

On the current trends in combat suit developement:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130121-batman-meets-iron-man-in-combat/1

[Inso]

Unable to view in the UK

[janner]

Try searching the BBC website for 'Iron Man to Bat Man' matey.

But it's nothing you haven't seen before 

[Inso]

Ya know what I hope it inspires.

Short rotund little myopic warriors in exo frame suits.

Enhancing the unenhanceable via technology.

short version - what if the humans in Wall-E went to war.

That is a scary vision of the future  .

The trouble is... I can see where you are coming from. 'Too fat to fight' would become a thing of the past and the interaction between exo frame and obese human would eventually tone and improve the condition of the wearer. A lot of vision problems could be sorted with technology; the obvious one being laser surgery but enhancement with sensors and optical devices could also help.

On the other side of the coin... the 'too fat to fight' brigade could be plonked in the 'gaming chair' and fight from there using the increasing range of UAVs / UGVs... rendering all this exo armour redundant . Obviously that would raise the now contentious issue of being 'divorced' from the situation... but there will come a time when that will be brushed under the carpet.

When push comes to shove, it all comes down to powering the equipment and until we can do that with a quiet and efficient system, these things will remain a laboratory toy.

[former user]

I am afraid drone development will be much faster than this, which is even better for obese soldiers killing in front of screens with Joysticks......

[Inso]

I am afraid drone development will be much faster than this, which is even better for obese soldiers killing in front of screens with Joysticks......

As sad as it is, I completely agree. There is much more investment in UAV / UGV technology that robot suits for troops.

[Brummie]

Unmanned vehicles won't do a take over, though they certainly will see development faster, and the range of things we can use them for will increase. Although you can bet your eyes they will probably develop ways of countering unmanned vehicles, same for them making counters for practically anything else that will prevent a particular item from dominating the field.

I wouldn't call it a contentious issue; its quite obvious they won't replace live troops as that's missing the whole point of combined arms, but they will be another useful asset in waging wars and they will see a lot of use.

The only big argument when it comes to all of this technology is; is it really sustainable?? Given the amount of money and resources and time required to make them, and the time and money placed in training people to use it. If there was to be a major conflict that stops just short of a nuclear exchange, where there would be heavy casualties and massive loss of equipment; would any of these really expensive high tech gizmoes really be practical??

Answer is probably no.

[Inso]

I want an exit strategy when it is time for one. Leave too soon and the whole thing was a waste of lives.

HOWEVER... this thread isn't about that, it is about future tech and as much as I agree with a lot of what Brummie says, there is huge investment in UAVs at the moment and the contentious issue I mentioned wasn't about their use, it was the fact that some UAVs have the potential to destroy without a pilot being involved and even with a pilot being involved, there is the worry that they get blind to the fact they are taking lives (because they are often miles away in the safety of a porta-cabin) and are divorced from the situation.

You would be amazed at the discussions going on about the psychology of UAV use and the ethical questions that have surfaced.

That said... what price life? A UAV lost is a pilot saved.

[Conquistador]

<snip>
You would be amazed at the discussions going on about the psychology of UAV use and the ethical questions that have surfaced.
<snip>

Not really, we have them at work regularly.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Inso]

I am aware of that (24 years and counting in the RAF has brought me into contact with many pilots) but not all (if any) UAV pilots are actually pilots and many have not seen the effects of what they have done up close.

The thought is that, even though they are tested and trained, there can be a tendency to get so used to watching a screen that the enormity of their decisions can become 'hazy'... possibly leading to a missile being fired when it shouldn't have. The whole Playstation thing...

The difference is that a UAV pilot is in no danger when he is flying his aircraft. A military pilot is in danger and it is either 'kill or be killed' or 'an eye for an eye'.

Many UAVs are piloted from a different continent to where the UAV is actually flying so they are perfectly safe.

[former user]

I wonder how this topic is NOT political and against the forum rules........
not that I mind 

[Inso]

I wouldn't say it was political (I thought I steered it away from 'bringing the troops home' quite nicely ) more philosophical. The ethics behind pulling the trigger from far away in a place of safety.

But it has transgressed from powered suits though.

I think that the Japanese 'powered leg' system that has been trialled around Tokyo, is a good starter for ten in the powered suit race. It has its own power source and is quiet and efficient. it only aids the wearer rather than doing all of the work and it has a fairly limited range but it is better than the tethered versions I have seen for the US and also quieter than the 'Big Dog' system of robot carriers.

[former user]

Allright then, let's lift the third wheel

Since when was "sane" an aspect that counted in the military world?
Yes, of course the mindset should be extremely important!

on a more humorous note - look at the more excentric military men of the past 100 years or so:
T.E. Lawrence, Geoffrey Spicer-Simson, Orde Charles Wingate
to name but a few, might have not been so remarkable in theit fields with a more "normal" mindset...
I guess the coin is rather double sided here.....

[AKULA]

I wonder how this topic is NOT political and against the forum rules........
not that I mind 

I think everyone is being very sensible on this thread, and as Inso said have got back on track - its produced some well thought out points.

If we look even further into the future....the ratio of combat to support troops has been on an upward trend since 1800s with the establishment of formal logistical support.  This accelerated post-industrial revolution as weapon systems became more complicated, and wars were fought over greater distances - if we extrapolate that into the future we would have a very small number of extremely well-equipped combat troops supported by a huge tail of logistical support, and remote vehicles (either AI or piloted from operators back at base as they are now).

In the realms of science-fiction, IF we make it to other systems and have a disagreement with the local jellyfish, mass/space would be at a premium.....do you take a bunch of troops that need cryo, or a bunch of bots that need a mechanic?  

[former user]

Allright, then back to topic

@Akula You are basically describing Adeptus Astartes and comparable for me. And I thought the invulnerabilty myth would have been deconstructed in movies like "Aliens" or more recent "Avatar" ?