Realistic wanked out swords/close range weapons in sci-fi.

[Beowulf]

Darth Wong
An army composed entirely of powersuited soldiers is idiotic. Unfortunately there's a lot of idiots in the world. Sticking front-line infantry in power suits, while keeping armor and artillery and all the other trappings of combined arms warfare would be a much more likely scenario. The point of power suits is to increase infantry survivability, not necessarily to replace the entire spectrum of units in an army.

Lord Pounder
Takes 5-10 seconds to drop the mag out of a pistol and replace it with a fresh one. Maybe even faster if you're not worried too much about possibly damaging the old mag.

It's not too hard to find pistols with default capacities of 15 rds or more, and aftermarket extended mags are available for 30 rounds or more, depending.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Remember, it costs quite a bit to lug around even a single kilogram-and if your super armored soldiers can be disabled by spinning the colony at 1 G or thereabouts you're probably screwed.

It would take quite some time to spin up a space colony of any size, by which time those armored soldiers are in the control room. And logically, the colony would be more likely to have such things in the first place, since they don't need to haul that kind of mass around, which means the colony would hurt themselves. And you can't raise the gravity on the Moon, Mars, and so on.

Also, bulk: all that armor adds to bulk, makes the suit harder to control, etcetera etcetera.

Armor is dense. You can add on quite a lot of it before bulk becomes the problem. And there's no point in adding the huge amounts of armor you are suggesting; at that point, you might as well build a minitank or a real tank.

In most cases you'll be a lot better off with a tank and a few platoons of lighter power armor than 2-3 platoons of really heavy stuff.

No doubt. But it's been a long time since everyone in an army was identically armed.

[Ryan Thunder]

Then we've got some armchair warriors declaring with all certainty that melee combat is useless, including some backpedalling from "melee is totally useless" to "soldiers are trained primarily with firearms, not melee".
Where do all these ideas come from?
Ah, right.

Oh please. Any halfwit can see a pistol's easier to use even within grappling range. It has nothing to do with my experience playing video games, which would actually lead me to conclude that the opposite is the case.

In a best case senario a pistol has what, 12 bullets? Do you have any idea how long it's take to eject an empty cartridge, grab a new one from where ever you stored it, load it and cock the gun?

Upon reconsideration; could you really expect to kill 12 people so easily with a melee weapon, anyways?

[Ryan Thunder]

Ok ok, probably fewer than twelve people unless you're some kind of trick shooter. Nevertheless, it is rather difficult to miss at that range.

[Darth Wong]

An army composed entirely of powersuited soldiers is idiotic. Unfortunately there's a lot of idiots in the world. Sticking front-line infantry in power suits, while keeping armor and artillery and all the other trappings of combined arms warfare would be a much more likely scenario. The point of power suits is to increase infantry survivability, not necessarily to replace the entire spectrum of units in an army.

Even front-line infantry in powersuits would only work in certain conditions, where their excessive size, weight, ground pressure, and logistical requirements are not a problem. I'm not even sure what scenario would meet those requirements.

[Darth Wong]

In a best case senario a pistol has what, 12 bullets? Do you have any idea how long it's take to eject an empty cartridge, grab a new one from where ever you stored it, load it and cock the gun?

Upon reconsideration; could you really expect to kill 12 people so easily with a melee weapon, anyways?

Clearly, Lord Pounder has based his notions of combat on the Matrix films.

[Starglider]

Even front-line infantry in powersuits would only work in certain conditions, where their excessive size, weight, ground pressure, and logistical requirements are not a problem. I'm not even sure what scenario would meet those requirements.

Storming and capturing buildings, either because they have strategic value, or because blowing it up would cause unacceptable collateral damage (e.g. insurgents holed up in a safehouse in Iraq). Your whole unit wouldn't need to be power-armoured - that would be counter-productive, particularly since without some kind of funky (and probably unreliable) sensor/HUD setup power armour is bound to decrease your situational awareness. You'd just give it to the guys on point most likely to get shot or hit by improvised booby traps - they'd clear out areas and the regular infantry would secure and hold it. Power armour has a lot of advantages over drones in this area - though genuine combat robots would be even better.

There's also the air-mobility issue; you can deploy power armour by helicopter or parachute (though only half to a quarter as many as light infantry, depending on just how heavy it is). Power armoured troops aren't anywhere near as useful as tanks for attacking dug-in enemy, but if you can't deploy armoured vehicles they're better than nothing. Plus you can take fourty five power-armoured troops (allowing 400kg each including supplies) for the same airlift capacity as a single Styker (assuming you can fit them all in the plane) - the former might well be of more tactical use.

[Darth Wong]

"400kg each including supplies"? Where did you get this figure from? Leaving aside the other technical issues, this machine needs to have sufficiently thick armour to make the whole exercise worthwhile, and it needs to have motors and batteries or fuel cells. Given the fact that up-armouring a Humvee adds two thousand pounds to its weight, I have trouble seeing how any realistic power-armour is going to weigh only 400 kg including armour, person, fuel, motors, weapons, and supplies, and yet be capable of withstanding the fire that it will inevitably draw with its sharply elevated size, noise, and IR signature compared to a normal infantryman.

As for storming buildings, how are you going to do that? This extremely heavy power armour probably won't even fit through a standard door, and I wouldn't expect it to be able to move up staircases.

[Beowulf]

An army composed entirely of powersuited soldiers is idiotic. Unfortunately there's a lot of idiots in the world. Sticking front-line infantry in power suits, while keeping armor and artillery and all the other trappings of combined arms warfare would be a much more likely scenario. The point of power suits is to increase infantry survivability, not necessarily to replace the entire spectrum of units in an army.

Even front-line infantry in powersuits would only work in certain conditions, where their excessive size, weight, ground pressure, and logistical requirements are not a problem. I'm not even sure what scenario would meet those requirements.

Unless you envision Starship Troopers type power armor, size, weight and ground pressure shouldn't be much of a problem at all. Most aircraft are bulk limited rather than weight limited for troop capacity. Until you get to the 500 lb range for total system weight, you don't have bad levels of ground pressure (less than a M1 tank). Even then, it depends on how large of a footprint the suit has. Logistics may prove a problem, but then, it may not. Depends on how much maintence the suits require and how much fuel they need. It's possible that it would end up being less than what a human needs in weight.

If deploying them by parachute, you may not even have any net loss in troops/ plane. A C-17, for example, holds 100 troops and has about 170k lbs in payload capacity. You'd need to use bigger/better parachutes compared to a unarmored troop, but that's not a big problem. Helicopters typically are a bit more weight limited. A CH-53E can carry up to 55 troops and 32k lbs. Still, depending on suit weight, you may be able to carry just as many troops.

Quite possibly the worst place for using power armor is with special forces, due to the limited logistics they have. Someplace like Iraq right now might be the perfect place to use them. We have effectively unlimited logistics support, along with limited durations for time in potential combat.

[Darth Wong]

Unless you envision Starship Troopers type power armor, size, weight and ground pressure shouldn't be much of a problem at all.

If it's not big and heavy, then how could it carry enough armour to withstand .50cal AP rounds or RPGs? Are we assuming some kind of magic-tech armour material?

Most aircraft are bulk limited rather than weight limited for troop capacity. Until you get to the 500 lb range for total system weight, you don't have bad levels of ground pressure (less than a M1 tank). Even then, it depends on how large of a footprint the suit has. Logistics may prove a problem, but then, it may not. Depends on how much maintence the suits require and how much fuel they need. It's possible that it would end up being less than what a human needs in weight.

How could such a suit not be very high maintenance, with so many articulated powered joints?

If deploying them by parachute, you may not even have any net loss in troops/ plane. A C-17, for example, holds 100 troops and has about 170k lbs in payload capacity. You'd need to use bigger/better parachutes compared to a unarmored troop, but that's not a big problem. Helicopters typically are a bit more weight limited. A CH-53E can carry up to 55 troops and 32k lbs. Still, depending on suit weight, you may be able to carry just as many troops.

Quite possibly the worst place for using power armor is with special forces, due to the limited logistics they have. Someplace like Iraq right now might be the perfect place to use them. We have effectively unlimited logistics support, along with limited durations for time in potential combat.

What exactly would hypothetical power-armoured troops do in Iraq? If they're patrolling, they'd be killed by an IED just as easily as anyone riding in a far less expensive Humvee, and they'd probably be just as visible and easily targeted by other kinds of weapons such as RPGs. Due to the lack of wheels and the limitations of bipedal locomotion, I'd also imagine their fuel economy would be shit and their speed low.

[Ford Prefect]

If it's not big and heavy, then how could it carry enough armour to withstand .50cal AP rounds or RPGs? Are we assuming some kind of magic-tech armour material?

You'd almost certainly have to build such an exoskeleton with Generic Advanced Future Technology in order to get a product which is somehow effective beyond sucking down cash like a 1967 Cadillac guzzles crude.

[Beowulf]

It needs to be able to withstand RPGs.... why? An RPG, depending on type, can go through a meter or more of RHA. You're obviously not going to be able to stick more than a meters worth of armor on the outside of a power suit. A number of armored vehicles will fall to an RPG. Why does the suit need to be able to protect against one? Also, RPGs are fairly inaccurate. Smaller targets are harder to hit.

Similarly, a number of light armored vehicles aren't proof against .50 BMG fire. An uparmored HMMWV isn't proof against .50 BMG. Such weapons are usually crew served anyway. You can put different amounts of armor on different facings as well. Also, you don't necessarily need to armor all parts of the body to the same extent. We're looking at increasing survivability, not necessarily making the troops invulnerable to all threats. Instead of having to armor several dozen square feet to be able to defeat .50 BMG, you only have to armor maybe 3 square feet.

As for number of articulated joints, depending on how the suit is designed, you may have as few as 6 (ankles, knees, hips). Of course, if you're having every toe and finger individually articulated, it's going to take more joints. "But wait! What about armoring the arms!?" Who cares? Arm hits typically aren't lethal.

[MJ12 Commando]

If it's not big and heavy, then how could it carry enough armour to withstand .50cal AP rounds or RPGs? Are we assuming some kind of magic-tech armour material?

The first may be borderline possible with near-future armor technologies, depending on whether that Israeli armor tech pans out well or not. The second isn't relevant-a RPG is extremely useless as an anti-infantry weapon.

Even if it isn't possible to armor against .50 cal or other AMR calibers, a .50 caliber is nigh impossible to use without a prepared position, even as a single-shot rifle. The Barret M82 weighs around 14 kilograms, and the bolt action variants are only slightly lighter. The machine guns weigh even more.

And when it's guys wielding clunky single-shot, 2 meter long rifles with maybe ten rounds of ammunition and horrible recoil versus soldiers capable of using lighter weapons and having a lot more muscle strength to use them with, I think we're looking at a massive advantage. More so in urban combat and room-to-room fights.

Also-anti-tank rifles are a lot less common and thus more expensive than Kalashnikovs. Anyone can get an AK for a hundred bucks. Antitank rifles are a lot more expensive. The M82, for example, costs $6,000 per unit according to globalsecurity, while the AK costs a lot less than that and is much, much easier to acquire.

How could such a suit not be very high maintenance, with so many articulated powered joints?

It depends on the technology used to move it around and how well it's designed. In essence, not likely, but not impossible either. Besides, I doubt it'd be any more high maintenance than any other machine in a combat zone-any heavy repairs would have to be done off site like with any vehicle, while any field repairs would just involve swapping interchangeable parts.

What exactly would hypothetical power-armoured troops do in Iraq? If they're patrolling, they'd be killed by an IED just as easily as anyone riding in a far less expensive Humvee, and they'd probably be just as visible and easily targeted by other kinds of weapons such as RPGs. Due to the lack of wheels and the limitations of bipedal locomotion, I'd also imagine their fuel economy would be shit and their speed low.

An up-armor Humvee is, if I recall correctly, somewhat ornery in its handling, and often can't go into places where infantry have to, like the buildings insurgents like to hole up into. It's also a very large target and thus vulnerable to RPGs. Oh, and if you take it out you often take out three or four guys. A suit of power armor is one man, and given how good armor is at protecting against blast and shrapnel, it's unlikely unless you're using way too much explosive and the soldiers were sloppy to get more than one.

Furthermore, the vast majority of weapons used in Iraq are AKs or sniper rifles, which *can* go through human-carryable body armor more easily than the stuff you can stick on someone wearing a powered exoskeleton, even one that weighs only 100 kg or less.

RPGs are extremely inaccurate against point targets and are only reasonably effective against infantry today because they do not have armored limbs. Even a standard flak vest greatly reduces their lethality, someone wearing full body powered armor is going to be immune to all but a direct hit, which is fairly hard.

Note that a RPG has an effective range against tanks of something like 200m. Someone in a powersuit will be much harder to hit while having enough protection to be safe against all but near-direct or direct hits. At that point you have a major problem, as you have a short ranged, large, inaccurate, single-shot weapon against a guy who can just use an assault rifle to kill you but has the strength to handle a nice big one.

[Starglider]

I was thinking of the existing ballistic plates in Interceptor armour, maybe 50% to 100% thicker to withstand more hits before needing replacement, made into a suit covering the whole body. Power armour would let you carry that plus a belt fed light machine gun and a decent amount of ammo. It would not stop anything heavier than a light machine gun round, but that's fine because you're going up against AK-47s, RPMs, M-16s and M60s. Being able to charge a light infantry squad without taking casualties is a valuable tactical capability in places where the enemy hasn't been able to emplace HMGs. RPG hits will take out soldiers, but it's a lot harder to hit a soldier with an unguided RPG compared to a humvee, and an RPG launcher is a clumsy and highly visible weapon with a low rate of fire compared to a machine gun.

[Darth Wong]

It needs to be able to withstand RPGs.... why? An RPG, depending on type, can go through a meter or more of RHA. You're obviously not going to be able to stick more than a meters worth of armor on the outside of a power suit. A number of armored vehicles will fall to an RPG. Why does the suit need to be able to protect against one? Also, RPGs are fairly inaccurate. Smaller targets are harder to hit.

You're forgetting that this thing will be slower than shit compared to a regular vehicle like a Humvee. Or are we positing some really wanky fast-running anime-style robot suit now?

Similarly, a number of light armored vehicles aren't proof against .50 BMG fire. An uparmored HMMWV isn't proof against .50 BMG. Such weapons are usually crew served anyway. You can put different amounts of armor on different facings as well. Also, you don't necessarily need to armor all parts of the body to the same extent. We're looking at increasing survivability, not necessarily making the troops invulnerable to all threats. Instead of having to armor several dozen square feet to be able to defeat .50 BMG, you only have to armor maybe 3 square feet.

A .50cal sniper rifle could take this thing out from pretty damned far away, particularly given its size, visibility, highly cumbersome nature, and relatively ponderous movement. Just how fast are you envisioning this thing to be?

As for number of articulated joints, depending on how the suit is designed, you may have as few as 6 (ankles, knees, hips). Of course, if you're having every toe and finger individually articulated, it's going to take more joints. "But wait! What about armoring the arms!?" Who cares? Arm hits typically aren't lethal.

It's nevertheless all going to be high-maintenance equipment. If this thing moves anywhere near as quickly as you seem to be projecting, then there will be a lot of shock loading and wear and tear on its mechanisms. If it moves more slowly, then it won't wear out as fast but it will also be a big fat noisy tall slow-ass target.

[Ford Prefect]

Or are we positing some really wanky fast-running anime-style robot suit now?

Naturally it will have to have some kind of jet-powered roller skate system in order to make up for failures in mobility.

[Adrian Laguna]

Plate armor did not become common until about 1400, and full suits of plate armor even later then that.

I picked full plate because it looks awesome. It could have been half-plate and even a full body chain mail. Mostly I'm attacking his argument from incredulity, the guy said that defensive technology couldn't be strong enough to warrant fully armouring somebody, so I posted a historic example of it doing just that.

By this point the matchlock was already in use and could put a ball through even the chest plates.

Depends on the quality of the chest plate. The phrase "bullet proof" comes from smiths literally proving the protectiveness of their armour against bullets by shooting it. That's why even into the 1500s people wore chest plates and helmets, they still provided protection.

The result was full plate armor in fact had a very short life on the battlefield, and soon only the torso protection was retained since it could still stop glancing hits. Full plate was not the result of any advantage of defensive technology; it was the result of knights spending literal fortunes on personal protection. They wanted any advantage they could get, however slight. The life of a knight was very short; typically they didn’t live past 25.

Heavy armour was used because it gave very good protection. It's only real disadvantages were cost, not a problem for noblemen, and lack of ventilation, which was less of an issue when a horse was the one moving the weight from place to place. It was a triumph of defensive technology, the things were very agile and yet provided a high degree of protection against most weapons they were likely to encounter on the battlefield.

[Connor MacLeod]

But you have a much lower profile and can go into buildings.

Which depends on how big/bulky the suit is. And then as others have noted it also depends on ground pressure.

I shoudl note I can't envision most sci fi power armrour, even the Ringoverse ACS wank armour, fitting through most normal doorways.

Maintenance and cost are technology dependent. With all currently plausible technologies, powered armour would be very expensive and maintenance intensive. However the complexity of a system doesn't necessarily correlate to cost and complexity. A dog is many orders of magnitude more complex than a HMMWV.

I kind of question this, if Mike is any indication. Do you have specific evidence this would not be the case in terms of power armour? Its not just mechanical components either, its electrical.

The number of systems in a pigeon is actually higher than the number in an F-22. But dogs and pigeons can be manufactured at negligable cost and require almost zero maintenance as long as they're fueled - because their base 'technology' is very robust and reliable, and because they don't require large dedicated assembly lines. We can't do anything like that with current technology, but we'll get there eventually.

Er, wait, so you're saying your powersuit is going to be organowank tech? If not, I fail to see the point. Living beings tend not to be very "efficient" machines compared to what inorganic things can achieve, nor can they neccesarily achieve performance-wise what inorganics can (and the degree of performance will, as Mike notes, ,add significantly to wear and tear.)
Shorrt of some sortt of magic sci fi self repair, replication tech, or nanomagic I don't se emost machines emulating that.

I would also contest the idea that dogs or pigeons can be manufactuerd at "negligible cost" because I thiunk you're thinking of cost in only certain terms (IE monetary), and even then I'm debating that (medical has to be a concern.)even if it isn't time is. And they're certainly not "zero maintenance" unless its a wild animal - a pet needs exercise, changing, feeding, and some need contact and stimulation. AGain, I don't really see how this analogy is relevant unless you're going for some sort of super-sci fi self-repairing, self-aware magitech armor.

There's no fundamental reason why you'd generate a huge heat signature. Humans are only about 10% efficient at converting energy into motion.

And? The enviromental systems will need cooling (the human inside it has to be kept at a comfortable temperature) and that heat has to be disposed of. So right there alone you have temp equal to a normal person. On top of that, if your power armour has increased performance, I imagine the inefficiencies will be likewise magnified, depending on how "impressive" it is. I rather downt you can go lugging around large amounts of equipment in a highly efficient manner. Any electronics or computers will almost certainly add to this as well.

Then there's the powerplant. I assume you have evidencee regarding the whole fuel cell thing? I'm not really sure how "efficient" efficient is supposed to be, nevermind theoretical energy usage of the power armour in question.

Of course, that's assuming that the power armour's own signature is the only probelm here. If oyhu have something wonky like a jet pack, that obviously can add. Depending on your weapons, that can ALSO bea problem (unless you have some blaster like soft sci fi weapon that is impluasibly efficient.) Lasers and probably even regular slugtrhowers are going to be noticable.

And as an added concern, how do you dispose of the heat? Any radiator (aside from a magic one like Sw uses) is going to be both highly detecable and vulnerable to damage.

Electric motors (for example) are >90% efficient.

you have proof I imagine? And even so, would this carry over when its acting in the way human bodies do (again bearing in myind your "dog and pigeon" analogy)

You could be ten times the weight of a human and still only generate twice the IR signature.

Again, you've actaully researched this?

It's just a question of which technology you use.

So basically its just "depends on what the author/universe chooses?"

[Ford Prefect]

So basically its just "depends on what the author/universe chooses?"

Of course it is. What your power armour would be capable of would be almost totally dependant upon the level of technology used to create it, which thanks to the wonders of literature, could be sheer nuttery. Self repairing systems and highly efficient motors aren't much to write home about compared to some sort of morphing suit with built in electromagnetic control and laser eyebeams.

[Connor MacLeod]

Of course it is. What your power armour would be capable of would be almost totally dependant upon the level of technology used to create it, which thanks to the wonders of literature, could be sheer nuttery. Self repairing systems and highly efficient motors aren't much to write home about compared to some sort of morphing suit with built in electromagnetic control and laser eyebeams.

Fine, but if you're going to be arbitrary, then alot of the so called "Advantages" of power armour don't neccearily remain. You can just as easily make up a powerful sci-fi enerrgy or projectiel weapn that is lightweight and man portable that packs alot of firepower. Like a miniature antimatter grrenade launcher or some sorrt of ultra powerful/efficient cutting laser.

[Ford Prefect]

Fine, but if you're going to be arbitrary, then alot of the so called "Advantages" of power armour don't neccearily remain. You can just as easily make up a powerful sci-fi enerrgy or projectiel weapn that is lightweight and man portable that packs alot of firepower. Like a miniature antimatter grrenade launcher or some sorrt of ultra powerful/efficient cutting laser.

Imagine, if you will, a mass driver small enough to be carried in one hand, yet with enough velocity that it cores its way lengthwise through a tank and shakes it to bits. A pity you won't live to see the end results, what with the gun being flung out your back and the shockwave pulping all your innards.

Well, the guass pistol example is kind of cheating; as I hear it, you can actually 'tune' IR lasers to the atmosphere, thus limiting the amount of interaction with the atmosphere, and thus lessen any potential lethality to your person. Best check that your lens doesn't start to melt, and hope that any anti-lasers they have on them don't screw you over, such as an aerosol cloud of some sort that diffuses the beam's intensity at the target.

As far antimatter grenade launcher, you might as well go the whole hog and develope some sort of multi-missile launching platform capable of striking target from miles and miles away. This is sci-fi, after all.

[Zixinus]

You're forgetting that this thing will be slower than shit compared to a regular vehicle like a Humvee. Or are we positing some really wanky fast-running anime-style robot suit now?

Why assume that the thing is that big? I think the most practical type of power armour would be something like that of a Master Chief wore in Halo (yes, there is allot of wanking there I know, but still, as basic design).

[Ford Prefect]

Why assume that the thing is that big? I think the most practical type of power armour would be something like that of a Master Chief wore in Halo (yes, there is allot of wanking there I know, but still, as basic design).

The assumption of bulk has been covered several times already. In all honesty, I think the Master Chief's armour stretches plausibility to breaking point - I've no clue how he can be fitting in the power assist and power plant.

[Almightyboredone]

I don't know why we have to assume why this power armor is going to be closer in size and mass to a mobil suit. If you take starglider's idea of the ceramic plates, and combine it with a relativley simple exoskeleton, it would greatly improve survivability. We have the simple exoskeleton technology now.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 624945.800

Now this is a few years old, though I wouldn't imagine that the tech is much, if any more, progressed since then.

[Darth Wong]

Maintenance and cost are technology dependent. With all currently plausible technologies, powered armour would be very expensive and maintenance intensive. However the complexity of a system doesn't necessarily correlate to cost and complexity. A dog is many orders of magnitude more complex than a HMMWV.

I kind of question this, if Mike is any indication. Do you have specific evidence this would not be the case in terms of power armour? Its not just mechanical components either, its electrical.

Starglider seems to believe that the only problem is the number of components, where living organisms do indeed have many more than any machine. However, living organisms actually have very large maintenance requirements, relative to the amount of mechanical work they do. We just don't think of them that way because things like eating and drinking several times a day, medical care for minor injuries, resting frequently, and constant self-maintenance are something we've become so accustomed to that they don't enter our minds. An untreated minor skin abrasion can kill a man, which is why historically, more soldiers died while walking than while fighting.

Also, living organisms are soft and weak. The problem with armoured vehicles and systems is that everything is made out of very heavy, dense, solid plates. The stresses on joints are vastly greater than anything that a typical living organism has to deal with, and in general, the demands we make on vehicles are rather high. People who wank about organic performance seem to forget that if you look at weight carried multiplied by distance traveled, there's no pack animal in the world that can compete with a typical light truck. If you worked a typical pack animal as hard as you worked a light truck, it would die.

There's no fundamental reason why you'd generate a huge heat signature. Humans are only about 10% efficient at converting energy into motion.

And? The enviromental systems will need cooling (the human inside it has to be kept at a comfortable temperature) and that heat has to be disposed of. So right there alone you have temp equal to a normal person. On top of that, if your power armour has increased performance, I imagine the inefficiencies will be likewise magnified, depending on how "impressive" it is. I rather downt you can go lugging around large amounts of equipment in a highly efficient manner. Any electronics or computers will almost certainly add to this as well.

Starglider is forgetting that it is the absolute heat generation which matters here, since that's what enemies will be looking for. The suit will generate much more heat in absolute terms than the human, since it must dissipate both the human's heat and its own. Perhaps his argument might make sense if we were talking about a drone instead of an exo-suited human, but neglecting the human body's heat generation is completely absurd since that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Moreover, the great weight of the suit means that even if it is indeed several times more efficient than a human body (ironic since this statement is made immediately on the heels of some organo-wank), it will still generate considerable heat.

I don't know why we have to assume why this power armor is going to be closer in size and mass to a mobil suit. If you take starglider's idea of the ceramic plates, and combine it with a relativley simple exoskeleton, it would greatly improve survivability. We have the simple exoskeleton technology now.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 624945.800

Now this is a few years old, though I wouldn't imagine that the tech is much, if any more, progressed since then.

That is more of a powered brace than a suit. It can lift objects up to 40 kg, but the armour plating on any exosuit worth the bother will weigh much more than that already. You need a far more powerful exosuit than something like this, which means its mechanisms will be much bulkier.