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

[Nyrath]

Have a look at "pulsed energy projectiles" and that plasma taser weapon being developed - they'd probably work better for riot control than magic non-suffocating glue bombs.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3l.html#pep

[Darth Wong]

I don't know why people are so fixated on human-carried and human-piloted sci-fi solutions. Let's face it, every time someone trots out a justification for a power armour, it would make more sense to use an RPV or robotic drone.

[MJ12 Commando]

A drone that's viable in a ground combat environment with innocent bystanders and whatnot is going to require far more processing power than a suit of infantry armor needs.

Yes, the Boeing X-45 can autonomously engage enemies, defend itself, take off, and land, but it's flying, it doesn't need to spend as much time on terrain navigation, avoidance, pathfinding, etcetera.

A drone designed to replace infantry would have to be at least smart enough to navigate environments about as quickly as a human being, have the ability to non-destructively open doors that they don't want broken down, the ability to navigate human-optimized terrain like stairs and whatnot, and the ability to react autonomously in case of jamming or interference. It's a lot harder to disrupt the communications between a UCAV and its home base than it is to disrupt a UCGV's comms to home.

In an environment like Iraq, it'd also need threat-analysis software that is at least about as good as a trained human. This is fairly hard to do when you combine it with pathfinding and ohter problems that a drone needs to accomplish.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

My guess is that it's much easier to imagine one's sweaty, cheeto-encrusted ass in power armor and facing down a horde of hostile aliens while swinging around a plastic axe and making zzhhrrm-zzhhrrrm sounds than it is to actually develop a sensible use of advanced technology and the discipline to write it into the story instead of some square-jawed Gary Stu. Also, robot drones don't bleed. And they certainly don't fuck the prom queen.

All I'm saying is that it's harder for certain people to sympathize with a robotic drone than with some wankstake hero with an electric sword.


And damn if I don't love swinging around my plastic axe.

[Ford Prefect]

I don't know why people are so fixated on human-carried and human-piloted sci-fi solutions. Let's face it, every time someone trots out a justification for a power armour, it would make more sense to use an RPV or robotic drone.

As has been mentioned, people don't sympathise with cold, emotionless machines designed purely for killing unless they're played by Ahnuld. If the story does actually focus upon a war, as opposed to combat being something in the background on the news (which works really well, by the way, storytelling wise), then people will want to have characters they can relate to. They don't necessarily have to be organic, but they should actually have some personality, if only so it doesn't devolve to Drone #32FG783 eliminates yet another Middle Eastern/North Korean/Space Colonist freedom fighter/soldier/terrorist.

Of course, you could actually write a story where that is the case, but if your protagonist is Drone #32FG783, it might get old fast, though from the other side it could be harrowing and interesting. In the real world this isn't important, but sci-fi is supposed to 'mean' something to those partaking of it.

[Darth Wong]

A drone that's viable in a ground combat environment with innocent bystanders and whatnot is going to require far more processing power than a suit of infantry armor needs.

Which is why you have a human remote-piloting the thing. All it needs is the ability to maneuver itself, while the power armour has to be able to move with the agility and flexibility of a human, while containing a human and carrying enough armour to protect him: a more difficult task.

Yes, the Boeing X-45 can autonomously engage enemies, defend itself, take off, and land, but it's flying, it doesn't need to spend as much time on terrain navigation, avoidance, pathfinding, etcetera.

So? There is no real power armour-suit at all, so don't talk to me about viability based on real drones.

A drone designed to replace infantry would have to be at least smart enough to navigate environments about as quickly as a human being, have the ability to non-destructively open doors that they don't want broken down, the ability to navigate human-optimized terrain like stairs and whatnot, and the ability to react autonomously in case of jamming or interference. It's a lot harder to disrupt the communications between a UCAV and its home base than it is to disrupt a UCGV's comms to home.

And what the fuck do you think power armour needs? It needs all the same things plus the ability to house and protect a human at the same time, minus personal judgment which is easily taken care of by remote control.

In an environment like Iraq, it'd also need threat-analysis software that is at least about as good as a trained human. This is fairly hard to do when you combine it with pathfinding and ohter problems that a drone needs to accomplish.

If people can wank about sci-fi power armour that can make the wearer proof against normal infantry weapons and yet does not make the wearer too big to fit through regular doorways or walk up stairs, then he's obviously talking about something pretty far into the future: far enough to assume that computer technology has advanced too.

[Zixinus]

What should I know about molecular blades? That is where nanofilement or similar material is used for the edge of the blade,

[Darth Wong]

What should I know about molecular blades? That is where nanofilement or similar material is used for the edge of the blade,

All you need to know about mono-molecular blade edges is that they're pure fanboy wank. Even if you sharpened a blade to a monomolecular edge through some imaginary process, it would lose this edge immediately upon striking anything. It would start to degrade from air friction alone.

[Nyrath]

My guess is that it's much easier to imagine one's sweaty, cheeto-encrusted ass in power armor and facing down a horde of hostile aliens while swinging around a plastic axe and making zzhhrrm-zzhhrrrm sounds than it is to actually develop a sensible use of advanced technology and the discipline to write it into the story instead of some square-jawed Gary Stu. Also, robot drones don't bleed. And they certainly don't fuck the prom queen.

All I'm saying is that it's harder for certain people to sympathize with a robotic drone than with some wankstake hero with an electric sword.

Burnside's Zeroth Law of space combat: Science fiction fans relate more to human beings than to silicon chips.

[Darth Wong]

My guess is that it's much easier to imagine one's sweaty, cheeto-encrusted ass in power armor and facing down a horde of hostile aliens while swinging around a plastic axe and making zzhhrrm-zzhhrrrm sounds than it is to actually develop a sensible use of advanced technology and the discipline to write it into the story instead of some square-jawed Gary Stu. Also, robot drones don't bleed. And they certainly don't fuck the prom queen.

All I'm saying is that it's harder for certain people to sympathize with a robotic drone than with some wankstake hero with an electric sword.

Burnside's Zeroth Law of space combat: Science fiction fans relate more to human beings than to silicon chips.

Indeed. But most people also relate better to a person with a visible face in a sci-fi movie. It's really only the wankers who furiously choke the chicken to the idea of power armour. In other words, if we're worried about audience sensibility, why go with any kind of power armour at all?

[MJ12 Commando]

Which is why you have a human remote-piloting the thing. All it needs is the ability to maneuver itself, while the power armour has to be able to move with the agility and flexibility of a human, while containing a human and carrying enough armour to protect him: a more difficult task.

That is the absolute worst solution in any battlefield environment. You can quite literally render those drones utterly useless in a fair area with a hundredth of the cost worth of electronic equipment. Jamming power armor is much harder.

Not to mention that you'll either have to use radio waves (HARM bait), infrared (LOS only), wires (really stupid), or other transmission systems that are far less practical than putting the person inside.

So? There is no real power armour-suit at all, so don't talk to me about viability based on real drones.

UC-Berkeley and the Japanese have provided proof of concept designs for powered exoskeletons-the armor doesn't really need much other research. Nobody's put together a actual power armor suit (besides Hardiman), but neither has anyone put together a infantry-replacement drone.

And what the fuck do you think power armour needs? It needs all the same things plus the ability to house and protect a human at the same time, minus personal judgment which is easily taken care of by remote control.

The human provides all of this processing, and does not need nearly as much time and effort as a programmer requires to create the programs necessary for this. As of right now and likely for at least about a decade or so, it will be difficult to give any AI near-human-level capability in most of those fields without an operator babysitting.

Keeping the man in the loop also makes your drone cost more-not only do you need all that expensive computer hardware, you need a person a few miles away with a remote control, and some method of getting the information between you and the drone without worrying about jamming or other ways of signal degradation.

If people can wank about sci-fi power armour that can make the wearer proof against normal infantry weapons and yet does not make the wearer too big to fit through regular doorways or walk up stairs, then he's obviously talking about something pretty far into the future: far enough to assume that computer technology has advanced too.

Not particularly. Full body Level IV ballistic protection is going to proof the armor against anything short of a few "hand held" firearms that practically require a fixed position and a while to set up before being usable. On the other hand, Dragunovs and AKs are a lot easier to use, train in, and conceal. A PtRS-41 is not something that you can easily lug around and fire.

Interceptor already gives Level IV protection to the chest and back for 8 kg, and most bomb blast suits weigh a "mere" 30 kg. I doubt that full body Level IV is going to weigh more than twice that, and it'll stop pretty much all practical ordinance that can be fired out of a controllable select-fire weapon usable in urban combat scenarios.

Again, it all depends on how heavy whatever system they use to power the armor is, and what endurance is needed, powerwise.

[Darth Wong]

That is the absolute worst solution in any battlefield environment. You can quite literally render those drones utterly useless in a fair area with a hundredth of the cost worth of electronic equipment. Jamming power armor is much harder.

Yeah, that's why predator drones have been totally useless on the battlefield ... wait.

Not to mention that you'll either have to use radio waves (HARM bait), infrared (LOS only), wires (really stupid), or other transmission systems that are far less practical than putting the person inside.

You're talking about HARM missiles now? If the enemy has such weaponry, they would definitely have RPGs. Why the fuck do you think a power armour would survive in that case?

UC-Berkeley and the Japanese have provided proof of concept designs for powered exoskeletons-the armor doesn't really need much other research. Nobody's put together a actual power armor suit (besides Hardiman), but neither has anyone put together a infantry-replacement drone.

Powered exoskeletons that A) don't have the power to carry all of that heavy armour, and B) don't have the speed, flexibility or agility of a normal person. Calling them analogues to sci-fi power armour is like saying that my son's remote-controlled 4x4 toy truck is a military drone.

The human provides all of this processing, and does not need nearly as much time and effort as a programmer requires to create the programs necessary for this.

Since the whole point of this wasteful exercise is to reduce the likelihood of the human getting killed, it's still far more efficient to get the human entirely out of the suit. And it's idiotic to compare the labour of the human inside the suit to the programmer; you only need one programmer for countless drones, as opposed to one human for every single suit.

As of right now and likely for at least about a decade or so, it will be difficult to give any AI near-human-level capability in most of those fields without an operator babysitting.

And you think power armour is more feasible?

Not particularly. Full body Level IV ballistic protection is going to proof the armor against anything short of a few "hand held" firearms that practically require a fixed position and a while to set up before being usable.

Bullshit. One RPG = dead power armour pilot. Same goes for IEDs or even .50cal sniper rifles. And here you are talking about how you can't use a drone because of HARM missiles

On the other hand, Dragunovs and AKs are a lot easier to use, train in, and conceal. A PtRS-41 is not something that you can easily lug around and fire.

In Somalia, the militias had something like a thousand RPGs, and they used them freely. Don't tell me that it would be particularly difficult to acquire or deploy weaponry that can kill these walking budget busters.

[Beowulf]

Predators have been useful because the enemy typically can't figure out where they are(not a situation with remote ground drones), and because the enemy doesn't have the technical sophistication to jam Predator control links (amongst other things, they fly at 10,000 feet or more, making brute force jamming ineffective).

The US military has been having trouble with Predators in part because the satellite communication links which control the Predators are being overloaded with traffic. Now imagine this with remote ground vehicles. And you don't have the maybe couple dozen Predators in theatre, but rather tens of thousands of drones. Also, Predators still cost millions of dollars.

Powered exoskeletons aren't as fast, agile, or flexible as normal person, yet, but it's not a problem that can't feasibly be fixed.

To program a fully autonomous drone, you'd effectively need to create a general AI, in order to be able to analyze a diverse battlefield (say, urban combat with many civilians). This would require a number of breakthroughs in computing. Also, you'd need extremely large amounts of computing power. Such is likely to be expensive. Especially after being ruggedized to what field conditions would require.

In Somalia, RPGs were use freely, but they weren't used against individual soldiers. A common usage was to fire them at helicopters (not exactly small targets). Another usage is against groups of troops, as frag grenades. That usage wouldn't be effective against power armored troops.

[Darth Wong]

Predators have been useful because the enemy typically can't figure out where they are(not a situation with remote ground drones), and because the enemy doesn't have the technical sophistication to jam Predator control links (amongst other things, they fly at 10,000 feet or more, making brute force jamming ineffective).

That's also because they're so far from the controller. In the case of a ground drone, the controller could be nearby. If they're using them to go into buildings where humans would rather not enter or move through booby-trapped areas, the controller isn't going to be 500 miles away.

The US military has been having trouble with Predators in part because the satellite communication links which control the Predators are being overloaded with traffic. Now imagine this with remote ground vehicles. And you don't have the maybe couple dozen Predators in theatre, but rather tens of thousands of drones. Also, Predators still cost millions of dollars.

Whoa, we aren't talking about tens of thousands of units here. I thought we were talking about the occasional unit that was used for special purposes. The idea of building tens of thousands of power armoured troopers is way too wanky for any thread with "realistic" in the title.

Powered exoskeletons aren't as fast, agile, or flexible as normal person, yet, but it's not a problem that can't feasibly be fixed.

To program a fully autonomous drone, you'd effectively need to create a general AI, in order to be able to analyze a diverse battlefield (say, urban combat with many civilians). This would require a number of breakthroughs in computing. Also, you'd need extremely large amounts of computing power. Such is likely to be expensive. Especially after being ruggedized to what field conditions would require.

Frankly, computing is advancing much more quickly than other kinds of technology such as high-density EV fuel storage. I don't see why we should assume that the latter will develop more quickly than the former.

In Somalia, RPGs were use freely, but they weren't used against individual soldiers. A common usage was to fire them at helicopters (not exactly small targets). Another usage is against groups of troops, as frag grenades. That usage wouldn't be effective against power armored troops.

The choppers were also flying at many hundreds of feet off the ground and moving at much higher speeds. A power-armoured trooper would be relatively easy to hit compared to a chopper, unless he's actually not significant bigger or slower than a normal infantryman: a rather wanky proposition.

[Sea Skimmer]

Bullshit. One RPG = dead power armour pilot. Same goes for IEDs or even .50cal sniper rifles. And here you are talking about how you can't use a drone because of HARM missiles

No one would use a HARM for that job, a few salvos from an artillery battery will do fine.

In Somalia, the militias had something like a thousand RPGs, and they used them freely. Don't tell me that it would be particularly difficult to acquire or deploy weaponry that can kill these walking budget busters.

RPGs have a big black blast that makes the user easy to spot, and the huge numbers fired (its 1000+ fired at the helicopters alone) vs. 18 US dead point to the inaccuracy of the things. It’s not something I would especially worry about in regards to power armor. Even with the most basic level of protection the suits going to be completely proof against all possible fragments and secondary fragments from both the HEAT and HE warheads. That should make up for any increase in risk of direct hits vs. a solider with body armor.

Its pretty much a matter of the more mechanized an enemy becomes, the more you just want tanks, self propelled howitzers and aircraft. Nothing else is ever going to compare to that kind of firepower and the need to try to keep up as produced 35 ton infantry carriers like the Bradley with only five or six infantry.

[[R_H]]

The bit with the RPGs. Doesn't the self-destruct go off ~300m. I vaguely remember reading in Black Hawk Down that AQ taught the Somali militas to mess around with the self-destruct in order to use RPGs as anti-helicopter weapons...I wonder if those helicopters would have been downed had they had NOTARs instead of tail rotors.

[Zixinus]

All you need to know about mono-molecular blade edges is that they're pure fanboy wank. Even if you sharpened a blade to a monomolecular edge through some imaginary process, it would lose this edge immediately upon striking anything. It would start to degrade from air friction alone.

I'm not thinking of a single, oversized molecule, rather like a shave razor (the one with multiple blades) or the nanomaterial "lined" up (sorry for the poor description, I'm not familiar with describing properties of material) like a pyramid.
Although I do see your point.

Okay, how about materials that are made from similar strength, such as encased or somehow-made-less-brittle diamond? I also recall that Isaac Asimov mentioned in one of his musings a material that is of similar strength to diamond but has a higher melting point.

[Ford Prefect]

'Monomolecular' in sci-fi is really just a catch-all term for 'really sharp'. You could essentially get away with never actually mentioning how the blade edge actually cuts through stone/tree/bone with insidious ease, by giving the blade a brand name, or another catch-all term for all impossibly sharp and durable* edges.

*Or, if you want you can give them a limited amount of durability, so that constant use against materials actually degrades the effectiveness, thus allowing you to add drama in a fairly subtle way.

[Nyrath]

Indeed. But most people also relate better to a person with a visible face in a sci-fi movie. It's really only the wankers who furiously choke the chicken to the idea of power armour. In other words, if we're worried about audience sensibility, why go with any kind of power armour at all?

It is interesting to note in this context the incredible popularity of the series of computer games HALO, HALO II, and HALO III. A game where the main character's face is never seen.

Some have theorized that the facelessness allows the target demographic to fantasize that it is their own face that lies beneath the helmet.

[Ford Prefect]

It is interesting to note in this context the incredible popularity of the series of computer games HALO, HALO II, and HALO III. A game where the main character's face is never seen.

Some have theorized that the facelessness allows the target demographic to fantasize that it is their own face that lies beneath the helmet.

While we never seen the Master Chief's face (though it gets a description in one of the novels, I think), he does actually have defined personality and his own voice. That he doesn't have a face is irrelevant; Bolos like Hector don't have faces, nor do Culture Drones like Skaffen-Amtiskaw, yet they have character, which is more important. Even HAL 9000 is an example, as though he does have a 'face' so to speak, it lacks all form of human expression.

[Zixinus]

'Monomolecular' in sci-fi is really just a catch-all term for 'really sharp'. You could essentially get away with never actually mentioning how the blade edge actually cuts through stone/tree/bone with insidious ease, by giving the blade a brand name, or another catch-all term for all impossibly sharp and durable* edges.

I like making senseless details. Almost impossibly strong, nanowire-based edge in titanium reinforced steel (is that a good match?) sounds good?
Also, in the fuller there is container for impact-fluid. For that extra punch you need.

[Adrian Laguna]

The choppers were also flying at many hundreds of feet off the ground and moving at much higher speeds. A power-armoured trooper would be relatively easy to hit compared to a chopper, unless he's actually not significant bigger or slower than a normal infantryman: a rather wanky proposition.

Two choppers were hit in Somalia, both of them large UH-60 Blackhawks. The first one was conveniently hovering in place, 20 or 30 metres off the ground. I'm not sure whether the second one was stationary or not, but I am fairly sure it wasn't that high off the ground either.

[Shroom Man 777]

In other words, if we're worried about audience sensibility, why go with any kind of power armour at all?

Or any kind of clothing at all?

My god, 300 in space! And after they tear robots apart with their monolecular swords, they get smeared in copious amounts of motor oil that the robots are bleeding forth, ejaculating from their ravaged bionic orifices. Man, it'd be so glorious, three hundred naked space marines glistening in a resplendent spectacle!

*weeps with joy*

And it's not just for the men, the ladies can join in too. I mean, if those ballistic-bikini armors are dumb and just show off skin at the expense of reason, then why not go all the way?

Screw ranged weapons. Screw wanked out swords and close range weapons in sci-fi. Let's have some man-to-man combat!

Realistically, it'd be awesome.

Hrm, and the Space Persians are the ones who wear Powered Burkhas. And then they get killed by the millions, by our heroic naked space marines.

[Ryan Thunder]

Purely out of curiosity, has the venerable Shroom Man here always been this... vacuous?

RPGs have a big black blast that makes the user easy to spot, and the huge numbers fired (its 1000+ fired at the helicopters alone) vs. 18 US dead point to the inaccuracy of the things. It’s not something I would especially worry about in regards to power armor.

Might the inaccuracy have something to do with the fact that they're shooting them at a fucking helicopter?

Even with the most basic level of protection the suits going to be completely proof against all possible fragments and secondary fragments from both the HEAT and HE warheads. That should make up for any increase in risk of direct hits vs. a solider with body armor.

Yeah, because light vehicles totally can too...

[Darth Wong]

RPGs have a big black blast that makes the user easy to spot, and the huge numbers fired (its 1000+ fired at the helicopters alone) vs. 18 US dead point to the inaccuracy of the things. It’s not something I would especially worry about in regards to power armor. Even with the most basic level of protection the suits going to be completely proof against all possible fragments and secondary fragments from both the HEAT and HE warheads. That should make up for any increase in risk of direct hits vs. a solider with body armor.

Given the likely visibility of these things and the fact that the power armour wankers are envisioning them being used much like armoured vehicles, I don't see why they wouldn't get nailed the way the Soviets did in Grozny, by people shooting volleys at them from above in the streets. Anyway, Somalia was a good example of how easy it is to acquire RPGs, but it's no secret that those guys have the tactical skill of feral animals, so it seems a bit unfair to gauge the tactical effectiveness of the weapon on the basis of the Mogadishu mobs.

Its pretty much a matter of the more mechanized an enemy becomes, the more you just want tanks, self propelled howitzers and aircraft. Nothing else is ever going to compare to that kind of firepower and the need to try to keep up as produced 35 ton infantry carriers like the Bradley with only five or six infantry.

Yeah, the whole idea of power armour begs the question of what kind of weapons they plan to use with these things. It can't be a really big weapon for many reasons, so what would it carry in order to make its price tag worthwhile?