Mechs and Walkers: The future of warfair or a lame duck?

[Graeme Dice]

BTW, he's bullshitting you. A top of the line assualt mech is around 12-24 million C-bills (depending on things like XL engines and Omni-pods...), 3 million would buy a heavy tank or a light-medium mech.

I think we have someone who needs to learn to read before they make statements about what others are saying. You'll note that I listed my prices in dollars, not cbills. Since the only references I found listed it as 3 c bills to the dollar, you have to multiply my numbers by three. Also note that 10 million dollars equals 30 million c bills when you perform said multiplication.

However, since you've updated my information the numbers should go the other way.

Don't know about the citymech, but 10 tonners are acutally illegal now....

No, 10 tonners are not illegal, and never have been, unless you are playing by level 2 rules.

[PeZook]

Well, it's: 1) A Challenger, 2) A price in 1960s dollars I remembered from somewhere. I'm trying to confirm that right now.

[PeZook]

Ok...according to my research, one M1 costs 4,300,000 dollars. Now we only need to find out what the 'real' c-bills to USD conversion ratio is, and we can start comparing the cost of mechs to modern tanks

[Darth Wong]

Those low costs are ridiculous; is there reverse-inflation in the future? That conversion-rate makes no sense at all. Think about the hardware you need in a Mech.

[Beowulf]

You think they actually bothered to try to see if the costs are realistic?

In D&D you have mules costing the equivalent of $15,000 dollars...

[Graeme Dice]

Those low costs are ridiculous; is there reverse-inflation in the future? That conversion-rate makes no sense at all. Think about the hardware you need in a Mech.

What you're saying right there is the equivalent of someone saying in 1980 that its ridiculous to be selling computers with 1 MB of memory for under a few million dollars. Technology advancement can often reduce costs and prices faster than inflation can raise them.

[PeZook]

Those low costs are ridiculous; is there reverse-inflation in the future? That conversion-rate makes no sense at all. Think about the hardware you need in a Mech.

What you're saying right there is the equivalent of someone saying in 1980 that its ridiculous to be selling computers with 1 MB of memory for under a few million dollars. Technology advancement can often reduce costs and prices faster than inflation can raise them.

And technological advancement causes inflation to reverse HOW exactly? Better yet, technology of such dramatic impact so that it would allow cheap production of extremely light, yet resilient mechs that are a few stories tall would most certainly reduce the cost of TANKS made with similar tech to even more ridiculous levels. Considering that tanks don't use half of all the complicated hardware to just stand straight, you could save a lot of cash on locomotion systems alone.
So really, the cost proportion stay the same, since most of the tech you'd use for a mech can be applied to tanks (especially those incredibly light and tough materials). So, if you reduce the cost of mechs, you reduce the cost of tanks. Except if you make advancements in the leg systems, but the tank wont have them at all, so it will always have the budget edge.

[Singular Quartet]

To sum up, the points are a sfollows:

Mechs are expensive, fanciful, top-heavy, ungainly things that are only used because they look cool.

Tanks are a fine art, and using equivelent technologies, a tank can topple a mech.

I believe Masamune Shirow covered this in Dominion, Appleseed book 4, and Ghost in the Shell. In book 4, ESWAT (Extra Speacial Weapons and Tactics) has to take down what could be considered a mech. They are successful, becuase the damn thing's just a walking target. In Dominion, we have the multilegged tank, easily one of the more massive and ungainly things (Imagine a massive spider) being gunned down by a lucky shot from a tank that was apparetnly cobbled together from spare parts. He also has an essay on the likely future of Tanks, stating that either Power armor or helicopters are the future, given that both have higher manueverability and flexibility. In GITS, he brings forward the Fuchikoma, a combination of Mech and vehicle, which is essentially an intelligent (debateable) car with the wheels mounted on legs. I'd have to pull up some pics of it, though.

Now if you excuse me, gotta run!

*Suddenly, Leona Ozaki is seen driving by in her Bonaparte*

Leona: HOW DARE YOU CALL BONAPARTE COBBLED TOGETHER WITH SPARE PARTS!!!!

[PeZook]

*Suddenly, Leona Ozaki is seen driving by in her Bonaparte*

Leona: HOW DARE YOU CALL BONAPARTE COBBLED TOGETHER WITH SPARE PARTS!!!!

Heh...heh...

Reminds me of "Tank Girl"

[Sea Skimmer]

Those low costs are ridiculous; is there reverse-inflation in the future? That conversion-rate makes no sense at all. Think about the hardware you need in a Mech.

What you're saying right there is the equivalent of someone saying in 1980 that its ridiculous to be selling computers with 1 MB of memory for under a few million dollars. Technology advancement can often reduce costs and prices faster than inflation can raise them.

Military equipment has been getting more expensive for hundreds of years. Theres no sign of that reversing, and little reason to expect if is we start using far far more complex weapons like mecha.

[Graeme Dice]

And technological advancement causes inflation to reverse HOW exactly?

Can you not read? Even under a period of constant overall inflation, prices for some items can decrease.

Better yet, technology of such dramatic impact so that it would allow cheap production of extremely light, yet resilient mechs that are a few stories tall would most certainly reduce the cost of TANKS made with similar tech to even more ridiculous levels. Considering that tanks don't use half of all the complicated hardware to just stand straight, you could save a lot of cash on locomotion systems alone.

Except for the fact that the myomer in Btech is as simple to use and as cheap to produce as the axles in a tank. You hook up electricity to it, and it contracts or releases.

So really, the cost proportion stay the same, since most of the tech you'd use for a mech can be applied to tanks (especially those incredibly light and tough materials). So, if you reduce the cost of mechs, you reduce the cost of tanks. Except if you make advancements in the leg systems, but the tank wont have them at all, so it will always have the budget edge.

Except where technollogy advances to the point where the difference in cost is insignificant.

[Graeme Dice]

[quote="Sea Skimmer]Military equipment has been getting more expensive for hundreds of years. Theres no sign of that reversing, and little reason to expect if is we start using far far more complex weapons like mecha.[/quote]
Make up your mind whether we are discussing Sci-Fi technologies that already work, or real future technologies.

[Sea Skimmer]

Military equipment has been getting more expensive for hundreds of years. Theres no sign of that reversing, and little reason to expect if is we start using far far more complex weapons like mecha.

Make up your mind whether we are discussing Sci-Fi technologies that already work, or real future technologies.

A conversion from todays money to this fictional money is being used, and is whats being discussed. WTF is your point?

[PeZook]

And technological advancement causes inflation to reverse HOW exactly?

Can you not read? Even under a period of constant overall inflation, prices for some items can decrease.

We're talking about a galactic scale c-bill being worth less than a US dollar. Think - European economy times million vs. Zimbabwe. This has nothing to do with prices decreasing due to technological advancement. Or do you say that goods produced by mech-toting civilizations are inferior to those manufactured by the US?

Except for the fact that the myomer in Btech is as simple to use and as cheap to produce as the axles in a tank. You hook up electricity to it, and it contracts or releases.

If it's as simple to produce as an axle, then why not use the simpler, more elegant mechanism (eg. steel rods+wheels+a set of tracks) than a bank of fancy myomers, hooked up to a pair of metal legs, that need to be stabilized just to move forward, and synchronized during each step, that alone take up space constituting half the vehicle's overall height, cause said vehicle to have a giant target profile, require another mech or a specialized docking bay to replace, take enormous stresses during movement...you need more than equal price to make something useful.

And think of the computing power required to coordinate all the myomers in even one leg, not to say both at once. A tracked vehicle required precisely ZERO computing power to move, and can retreat from battle even if all the electronics on board are completely fried. Hell, you can tow it just fine. Try towing a mech to a repair bay.

Except where technollogy advances to the point where the difference in cost is insignificant.

Then you use the simple thing, instead of overcomplicating the mechanism, as is the deal with mecha. They wouldn't loose any mobility even if their legs were simply replaced by tracks, and their target profile would be cut in HALF.

[Crossover_Maniac]

Servomotors are a bad idea, too much complexly and bulk. However an artificial muscle would be effective. Storm trooper armor is NBC protection and good body armor; it doesn't increase the solider carrying capacity. That's the main advantage of power armor, though fragment protection would be very useful, artillery is the biggest killer of infantry.

Power armor need not be totally enclosing either; the US Army is looking into a form of limited exoskeleton. It would boost carrying capacity and allow for greater endurance, but doesn’t really provide protection.

The US Army exoskeleton is pneumatic. The designers are using hydrogen peroxide as the fuel. The hydrogen peroxide decomposing into oxygen and steam using a catalyst. The steam is used to move the exoskeleton. They won't use electric batteries since those have a low power-to-weight ratio.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

I have to vote duck on this one... with the exception of power armor -- including stormies -- I seriously doubt that any mecha of more than 10 metric tons could ever work... hell make that 1 ton -- one could conceivably go to 10 or even 20 tons, but it just wouldnt be practical in a combat role.

that said, lets stick to power armor. I would basically classify the various stages of personal power armor this way:

1) Land Warrior/Future Soldier class -- mostly soft armor with integrated sensors/comms. Can be worn for extended periods of several days to a week or more in duration -- it's just another set of clothes. Typical suit mass is 1/4 that of the wearer or (preferably) less, thus for a 200lb soldier the gear must mass no more than 50 lbs not including weapons.

2) Stormtrooper class -- hard armor (likely material: Lexan or similar -- do NOT underestimate this stuff, as I have seen video of a 1/4 inch thick plate of this stop .50cal rifle shot without material compromise (breach). it is also easily formed into custom shapes), NBC protection when equipped with a PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, fully integrated sensors/comms & high mobility with appropriate backpack attachments (jetpack etc). No strength amplification. Best suited to missions with durations of 48 hours or less. Suit mass must be less than 1/2 that of the user -- 100lbs for a 200lb soldier -- once again less is preferable

3) HardSuit class -- Fully augmented suit containing features of class 2 along with strength amplification, integrated PLSS & enhanced mobility options. Integrated weaponry also possible. For examples look to BGC HardSuits, Traveller/MegaTraveller BattleDress & the Xanatos Exo-Frame from Gargoyles. Best suited to intense, short duration mission profiles of 24 hours or less. Can mass as much as the man who mans it.

Now, the first 2 classes are fairly self-explanatory. It is with the class 3 armors that the real interest lies... particularly concerning the areas of power and actuation.

First off, let us visit the power supply. for classes 1 and 2 this is pretty straightforward, as power demands arent very high... batteries should do well for most mission profiles. For the class 3 however, something else is needed -- either more & better batteries placed under the armor of the suit, or some form of fuel cell is needed (both likely) -- the HO type under development is interesting, but I dont know what its' performance would be like, although I am partial to any variety of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Either way, any type 3 would be pretty dependent on having a power source nearby to recharge from, even if that happens to be an enemies' electrical grid. Certain types such as the Xanatos suit could self recharge from the turbine on the back (at the cost of flight fuel), but unless in the air at the time would be seriously compromising itself.

On to actuation. For reasons of mass, complexity & fragility, both hydraulic and pneumatic actuators are unsuited for use in type 3 suits. Also for reasons of mass, response time & power requirements most common servo motor types are unsuited. These determinations leave 2 options:

1) Unconventional motors: these are principally the domain of piezoelectric ring-type motors that are now quite common in certain lines of camera lenses (Canon USM). In a form factor ideal for rotational applications, they offer low mass, compact size, high torque, rapid response time (able to reverse direction instantly), silent operation and perhaps most importantly lower power needs relative to conventional servos. These advantages come at the price of increased cost to manufacture due to tighter tolerances.

2) Synthetic muscle fiber: Still under development, most notably at the U. of Arizona. Nothing in the labs right now fits the bill for operational needs yet, but the potential is staggering. These just might obsolete most current actuator types in a wide range of applications. I beleive that contrary to the opinions of some here, they would be considerably easier to implement & maintain than any other actuator system.

Thats it for now. I know it seems half-done, but I just dont have the energy to finish it right now (sick)... hopefully this gives some structure to the discussion.

[Darth Wong]

Except for the fact that the myomer in Btech is as simple to use and as cheap to produce as the axles in a tank. You hook up electricity to it, and it contracts or releases.

And what makes you think it is cheap? This argument seems circular: "we know they can make them cheaply because we know they can make <insert component name here> cheaply". And how do we know that? This exchange rate again?

BTW, how does this eliminate the need for the expensive materials which are used for its armour? (don't tell me, they're cheap too, right?) And the incredible bearings in its joints which must withstand these huge shock-loads without fail? Not to mention all of the electronics already in a tank, plus the necessary equipment to co-ordinate bipedal movement and balance? And how do you compensate for the horrendous inefficiency of bipedal locomotion, as opposed to wheels?

[Darth Wong]

I think we need to review the basic concept of bipedal vs wheeled locomotion in terms of efficiency. Please perform the following experiment: get on a bicycle and pedal over flat terrain for 100 metres. Then, try sprinting over flat terrain for 100 metres. What is more tiring?

Bipedal power-suits will always be seriously inefficient, and applicable only to very special-use applications at best. Even if we develop superior batteries, we could simply make very efficient wheeled vehicles.

One cool idea for the future would be for a soldier to carry heavy passive body armour and be accompanied by a sort of "R2 unit", a rolling platform which has some level of robotic intelligence and which carries all of his heavy gear. One of the big reasons for not wearing heavy body armour is that a typical soldier already carries 50 pounds of gear and ammo. Offload that, and you solve a lot of problems.

[SWPIGWANG]

Hydrogen peroxide? Isn't that thing going to burn contact on most metals?

I wouldn't want it on my back.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Hydrogen peroxide? Isn't that thing going to burn contact on most metals?

I wouldn't want it on my back.

I dont want it there either... that's why I prefer the cells that run on gasoline/LNG etc.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hydrogen peroxide? Isn't that thing going to burn contact on most metals?

I wouldn't want it on my back.

That's one form of AIP power; the RN built a sub powered by a Walter turbine, which uses a Hydrogen peroxide. She was named HMS Explorer but the crew called her Exploder. Modern plastics technology gets around most of the problems though.

However modern fuel cells do not use Hydrogen peroxide.

[lord scandon]

it all depends on the tech involved in the construction of each. using current tech they would be over grown targets but if they get the first shots off.... anyway with future tech we could make a reasonable arguement that they would be able to rule the battlefield with radar absorbtion and masking of ecm it would be effective

[Shaka[Zulu]]

it all depends on the tech involved in the construction of each. using current tech they would be over grown targets but if they get the first shots off.... anyway with future tech we could make a reasonable arguement that they would be able to rule the battlefield with radar absorbtion and masking of ecm it would be effective

I dont think so... with the exception of synthetic muscle fiber (myomers) anything that can go on a mecha can go on a tank or other conventional vehicle, which by default are more efficient... the mech will die by KISS of death

[Sea Skimmer]

it all depends on the tech involved in the construction of each. using current tech they would be over grown targets but if they get the first shots off.... anyway with future tech we could make a reasonable arguement that they would be able to rule the battlefield with radar absorbtion and masking of ecm it would be effective

While size does have relatively little to do with RCS or thermal signature once you apply signature reduction technology, A DDG-51 looks smaller then a trawler a 20th its size on radar, the bigger you go the harder it all becomes.

The shape of a mecha is just awful for it though, while the low profile and already angled surfaces of a tank lend them themselves to signature reduction. The lower power requirements are a big boost as well. By the time you can give a mecha first generation stealth you'd have third generation on your tanks.

Mechanical sensors aside, a mecha will show up far far better to the mark 1 mod 0 human eyeball for a given capability. And that particular system is still the primary combat sensor on the ground.

[Sea Skimmer]

Little something I forgot. The requirement of legs to move would make passive radar stealth impossible on a mecha. You'd need an active system. Problem is a Jammer is counter productive until they actually shoot at you, and systems like Plasma stealth create a double blind while guzzling power and being at least 50 years beyond current technology.