Genetically engineered supertroops and power armor illogical

[Broomstick]

The biggest physical demand is handling the G-forces. I forget what the experimental evidence showed for people being able to handle G-forces, I'm thinking smaller bodies handled it better but I'm not 100% sure I'm remembering that correctly. But aside from that, a lighter pilot makes for less wasted weight and a smaller fuselage and a more nimble aircraft. If we were genetically engineering pilots, I'd expect to see more Bruce Lee's and less NFL linebackers in the pilot corps.

Actually, Brenda Lee's - after allowing for all other variables such as height, weight, etc. on average women handle g-forces better than men.

And yes, shorter people have a higher g tolerance than taller people. The reason is simple - the distance from their heart to their brain is shorter and requires less work to pump blood upwards that distance.

Weight isn't such a factor these days for military aircraft, but it does make a difference. Beyond that - I've never seen a roomy cockpit. Small, slender people do have an advantage.

Basically, the ideal pilot is going to be under 5 feet tall, fit but slender, and female. Except that US military cockpits are, if I recall, engineered for pilots 5 foot 6 to 5 foot 10 (about 168 to 178 cm).

[Oni Koneko Damien]

On the subject of dealing with G-forces: A smaller person not only leaves more room for a functioning acceleration-couch to help mitigate those forces, but I expect said acceleration couches can also function a lot better per-kilo when it only has to deal with an eighty kilo guy rather than a hundred-fifty kilo guy.

[Justice]

But how much muscle do you really need? Remember, the whole point here is that the armor does most of the load-carrying. There's no obvious reason why the user needs to be the Incredible Hulk even with the armor out of the picture. In any situation where he has to abandon the armor, it's probably for the best if he has to abandon a lot of the heavy weapons and shit that go with it.

It depends on the supersoldier, really. For a 40K Space Marine, the size really comes from having so many modifications and augmentations to fit into their body, among other things. I figure that most supersoldiers, even genetically enhanced, would need space to fit things like a second heart, third lung, etc etc.

...Uh, no? "Motive power" means that the physical force needed to make the suit go is coming from somewhere. The definition of powered armor is that motive force comes from the armor itself, reducing the burden on the user. At which point there's really no reason to bulk up the wearer until they can bench-press a dozen anvils or whatever, because he is NOT the motive force for the suit, any more than he would be in a tank or a jet fighter.

Ah, I apologize. I'm a mere history buff; sometimes I get my physics terms mixed up. But see my above reasoning; some super soldiers are required to be big by their very design. A Space Marine wouldn't work without their incredible strength in part because of how big they physically need to be. Also, their strength is augmented by their suit, not completely replaced, so it benefits them when they (inevitably) get into close quarters. Obviously this isn't necessary for all universes, but I don't fault the logic behind it.

Why is this a critical feature? Normal soldiers don't have special blood filter enhancements or whatever. Why does putting them in armor make that more important?

His first post mentions it. Originally he was talking weaker candidates rather than super-enhanced guys, and referred to the suit augmenting them rather than them simply having awesome physiques. Hence the 90-pound weakling references in some of the previous posts. I was simply arguing that being of at least a decent level of strength would be probably required simply because you wouldn't want to overtire your muscles even on the small amount of work you would be doing.

The debate has shifted to more about "What if you could get a reasonably strong guy who wasn't very big rather than hulking space marine-type guys". To me, I'm okay with that; I feel that anyone at the proper level of fitness to serve in the modern armed forces to be fine. I'm not sure if there are a huge amount of advantages to it, though; extra space might be offset if you had to make the armor smaller, etc. I think there wouldn't be a huge functional difference, if at all.

[Starglider]

In the Halo series they actually had to put super soldiers in the armor, since it killed normal marines who went in it, because baseline humans do not having the reflexes to use the suit's enhanced speed and strength properly. In the novel the marine testing it moved his arm just a bit, and the suit moved it faster and farther than he thought it would, which broke the arm, which made him spasm in pain, which made the suit respond, and that is what killed him.

That's one spectacularly incompetent software team.

"Have you fixed that shitty excuse for a servo-control loop yet?"
"Nah, why risk missing our delivery date, we'll blame the hardware guys and let the bio team come up with a workaround. You know they want as many bullet points as possible for their budget request slides."

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, the ideal pilot is going to be under 5 feet tall, fit but slender, and female. Except that US military cockpits are, if I recall, engineered for pilots 5 foot 6 to 5 foot 10 (about 168 to 178 cm).

Well, you can do it, naturally; I think they're trying to compromise. If they hired all-female pilots they'd get the discrimination lawsuit from hell, and the idea of doing so would be utterly inconceivable to the Air Force brass. They might also suffer (they would argue, might or might not be true) some loss in the 'killer instinct' department, but I'm not going to go into that because I have no idea if it's bullshit or not.

If you accept that a significant fraction of your pilots are male, restricting your hiring to men under about 5'9" means sacrificing a very large portion of your potential candidates (a big chunk of the middle of the bell curve, height-wise). At some point, the marginal bonus from making the cockpit more compact is offset by the fact that you just made the cockpit too small for the next Baron von Richthofen to fit inside.

[Sarevok]

While helpful being slightly more tolerant of gee forces is not relevant in modern air combat. This is not ww2 anymore. Better engines, sensors, stealth etc are far more important than wasting money on special pilots who bring marginal improvements. If you really interested in an aircraft that pulls incredible g forces than a purpose designed ucav is the way to go.

[Broomstick]

Basically, the ideal pilot is going to be under 5 feet tall, fit but slender, and female. Except that US military cockpits are, if I recall, engineered for pilots 5 foot 6 to 5 foot 10 (about 168 to 178 cm).

Well, you can do it, naturally; I think they're trying to compromise. If they hired all-female pilots they'd get the discrimination lawsuit from hell,

At which point part of me started laughing because back when I was young enough to consider a military career it was perfectly legal for the military to discriminate on a gender basis in regards to pilots... but let's not get derailed, of course.

Of course, there's more to being a pilot than just physical traits - one has to be mentally suited to the job as well.

and the idea of doing so would be utterly inconceivable to the Air Force brass. They might also suffer (they would argue, might or might not be true) some loss in the 'killer instinct' department, but I'm not going to go into that because I have no idea if it's bullshit or not.

I suspect it's bullshit. The only gender-based difference in pilot performance noted (aside from g-force tolerance) is that, for lack of a better term, women tend to have a lower accident rate. Apparently, they're less prone to doing dumb shit to show off. (Not immune, of course, just less likely)

If you accept that a significant fraction of your pilots are male, restricting your hiring to men under about 5'9"

Under 5'10".

means sacrificing a very large portion of your potential candidates (a big chunk of the middle of the bell curve, height-wise). At some point, the marginal bonus from making the cockpit more compact is offset by the fact that you just made the cockpit too small for the next Baron von Richthofen to fit inside.

Except that the Air Force has pretty much always had more qualified people interested in flying than they have pilots slots, and since they lifted restrictions on women they've doubled their candidate pool. There is no shortage of wannabe Top Guns.

[PeZook]

There's a difference between being well-muscled for a little guy and being a roid freak. This is why I dropped the 90lb weakling example and suggested a wiry Bruce Lee vs. the NFL linebacker, though a Space Marine tends to make even the largest unaugmented humans look tiny.

What's your point here, exactly? You can engineer a supersoldier in more ways than "huge muscled freak". Space Marines are huge, but that doesn't mean real future soldiers will be, too. It still makes some sense that you give them power armor first (unless your civilization can make power suits cheap enough to equip everyone with them) and use them as shock troops or special forces (like Starship Troopers, who were unaugmented, and formed an elite strike force), while regular troops get cheaper equipment that's easier to mass produce and replace.

To go back to SOCOM example: US Special Forces can afford to have several weapons per operator in stock, and pimp them out however they want. The Army, on the other hand, won't buy half a dozen custom rifles per soldier. This doesn't mean giing SOCOM custom kit is somehow bad, or the cliche that SF use a lot of custom guns is unjustified.

[Broomstick]

While helpful being slightly more tolerant of gee forces is not relevant in modern air combat.

On what do you base that statement? (That's not snark, that's curiosity - I want to know the basis of that statement)

This is not ww2 anymore. Better engines, sensors, stealth etc are far more important than wasting money on special pilots who bring marginal improvements.

It's not a matter of "wasting money" on pilots that bring marginal improvements, it's a matter of taking only the very best out of a pool of applicants. If all other things are equal you'd still want to take the person with marginally better g tolerance if only because they are slightly more tolerant of the flight environment.

Of course, things are almost never "otherwise equal" in real life.

If you really interested in an aircraft that pulls incredible g forces than a purpose designed ucav is the way to go.

Civilian pilots need to perform a couple maneuvers that exert up to 2 g's just to get a private license in the US. It's not at all unusual for a civilian pilots to pull more than that at some point (and some even do it for fun). Certain types of emergencies may require maneuvers that exert such forces. It is certainly conceivable for a military airplane to find itself in circumstances that require unusual maneuvers, even if said aircraft is not intended to be used for front-line attack combat. It's OK to have someone being carried as a passenger to pass out from g-loc but not the pilots up front, and even before you get to that point there will be tunnel vision and loss of effectiveness.

[Purple]

Space marines and their ilk are usually genetically engineered to be muscle freaks because they can be expected to operate their armor unagumented if the need arises. They can also be expected to face off against opponents that will damage and disable their armor.

We have instances in fluff where Astartes move their armor and keep fighting in it even after something disables the servo systems. Naturally, they are not as effective, fast etc. But they can do it. And I think that was probably within the design specifications. They needed to make sure that on a battlefield that might well surprise you with things that can make your armor malfunction, the troops can still fight, and in the case of the Space Marines mele with an ork.

It's the same reason why modern tank crews tend to have personal weapons. To allow them to fulfill their role, even marginally at least without armor protection. You just can't expect that everything will work perfectly. And when it comes to that, a stronger soldier makes for a good backup.

[PainRack]

What would be more interesting to see in a setting with power armor is for all of the genetically-engineered suit troopers be these gaunt, 90lb weakling types who are perfectly suited for fitting into the tight confines of the suit and using them effectively while being bugger-all effective for combat outside of the suit.

You mean Protomechs?:D

That being said and done, are you making a critique on technology and warfare, science fiction trends/tropes or what?

[The Dark]

The biggest physical demand is handling the G-forces. I forget what the experimental evidence showed for people being able to handle G-forces, I'm thinking smaller bodies handled it better but I'm not 100% sure I'm remembering that correctly. But aside from that, a lighter pilot makes for less wasted weight and a smaller fuselage and a more nimble aircraft. If we were genetically engineering pilots, I'd expect to see more Bruce Lee's and less NFL linebackers in the pilot corps.

Actually, Brenda Lee's - after allowing for all other variables such as height, weight, etc. on average women handle g-forces better than men.

And yes, shorter people have a higher g tolerance than taller people. The reason is simple - the distance from their heart to their brain is shorter and requires less work to pump blood upwards that distance.

Weight isn't such a factor these days for military aircraft, but it does make a difference. Beyond that - I've never seen a roomy cockpit. Small, slender people do have an advantage.

Basically, the ideal pilot is going to be under 5 feet tall, fit but slender, and female. Except that US military cockpits are, if I recall, engineered for pilots 5 foot 6 to 5 foot 10 (about 168 to 178 cm).

I'd imagine there'll be some compromises with powered armor, too. After all, if the suit winds up useless for some reason (damage, ran out of power, whatever), you'll need the soldier inside to be capable of functioning as a soldier without the suit. So, while a 4'8" female gymnast might be the premier type for powered armor use, most likely it will be scaled back to the same sort of human average - 5'4" to 6'0" or thereabouts, simply because those body sizes are far more common and far more useful outside of the armor.

G-Forces won't be a problem with any near-future units. The Raytheon Sarcos XOS-2 runs at 3 miles per hour, and the Lockheed Martin HULC at 7 miles per hour for distance, 10 miles per hour sprinting.

(as an aside, the HULC exoskeleton is designed for wearers 5'4" to 6'2", which I found right after typing the paragraph about size)

[Connor MacLeod]

See.. these are a kind of thread where you can get a wide range of answers depending on the factors involved.

For genetic engineering for example: How widespread is the technologies used? Is there just one process, or multiple ones? How much engineering do you do (are you trying to create supermen who can lift tonnes, move faster than the eye, and withstand multiple gunshot and knife stab wounds, or do you want troops who are only a few times better than normal, or are you doing something exotic like "see better in the dark"?) What is the cost of the procedure(s)? How much time does the procedure itself require? Is there a recovery period needed and if so how long? Do they need post-procedure training to handle their abilities and if so, how long? Is there a risk of injury and/or death and if so how high? Is the procedure permanant once it is done, or does it need some sort of support structure (Space Marines for example apparentl do need some sort of support structure to keep them at peak for example, although the degenration is not neccesarily rapid.) And so on and so forth.

For power armour there are cost and resource concerns, logistical and maintenance concerns, design concerns (what sort of capability and how much capability are you building in? Power armour could boost strength speed, but it could also just be designed to add computer, communication and sensory capability to the trooper. Or defense shields.), detection/stealth issues, durability issues (how much does power armor cost vs anti-armour or anti-tank weapons, for example?)

Other factors may include human ones (religions, ethical or personal reasons avoiding their use), magictech technical limitations (EG Mass Effect's Mass Zero element, or X-Com's Elerium), political factors, military situations - any sort of "cost/benefit" analysis really, or many rational/irrational reasons. You might have a universe with widespread cybernetic/genetic engineering, cloning, and sophsiticated electronics, and where the resources and capability and even economy allow for mass-production of powered armoured super soldiers relatively cheaply. But if there is no perceived need for it (or a bias against it, a fear of it, or whatever.) or some other factor (EG greed and corruption over practicality or efficiency) may dictate against it - Lower tech stuff may still work adeqautely and still be far cheaper and easier to maintain.

[keen320]

Imperial528 wrote:
In the Halo series they actually had to put super soldiers in the armor, since it killed normal marines who went in it, because baseline humans do not having the reflexes to use the suit's enhanced speed and strength properly. In the novel the marine testing it moved his arm just a bit, and the suit moved it faster and farther than he thought it would, which broke the arm, which made him spasm in pain, which made the suit respond, and that is what killed him.

That's one spectacularly incompetent software team.

"Have you fixed that shitty excuse for a servo-control loop yet?"
"Nah, why risk missing our delivery date, we'll blame the hardware guys and let the bio team come up with a workaround. You know they want as many bullet points as possible for their budget request slides."

Halo MJOLNIR armor doesn't use servos and electronics to amplify the wearers strength. It uses "a layer of reactive metal liquid crystal" (Cough! Magic! Cough!) that doubles lifting capability and increases reaction time by a factor of five. So it does increase the armor's capabilities to be used by a superman. Although your explanation is funnier and makes more sense.

[Imperial528]

In the Halo series they actually had to put super soldiers in the armor, since it killed normal marines who went in it, because baseline humans do not having the reflexes to use the suit's enhanced speed and strength properly. In the novel the marine testing it moved his arm just a bit, and the suit moved it faster and farther than he thought it would, which broke the arm, which made him spasm in pain, which made the suit respond, and that is what killed him.

That's one spectacularly incompetent software team.

"Have you fixed that shitty excuse for a servo-control loop yet?"
"Nah, why risk missing our delivery date, we'll blame the hardware guys and let the bio team come up with a workaround. You know they want as many bullet points as possible for their budget request slides."

I think you give the software team too much credit, in-universe they didn't even consider fixing the problem. Although, I don't see how it broke his arm, unless the elbow bent backwards or some shit like that. Definitely would've torn tendons if he resisted it, but it shouldn't have killed him. Of course, the test suit should have been deactivated immediately, but instead they let the poor bastard die.

[Rabid]

Of course, the test suit should have been deactivated immediately, but instead they let the poor bastard die.

Guess some people never understood the true meaning of "test & safety protocols".


Concerning power armor, what you'll build depend on your technological level and what you'll likely face on the battlefield.

If we speak about likely conflict of the 2020's, power armor as a great chance to be of very marginal use, if just to allow the wearer to carry more armor without altering the mobility of the soldier (as a bonus, it can control body heat, if you have the budget for it). Added strength is better, but it's not necessary.

If we speak about transhuman amoral MegaCorporation/SuperState fighting some kind of rebellion with shock troop, then, I can recommend to use genetically altered human who just have a nervous system, the rest being vestigial body, and put onto cyborg pod ; those pod being able to be plugged into various kind of vehicle like tanks or jet or "power armor" (in fact just transforming them on cyborg). They are enhanced for increased reflexe, better response to stress ("They shall know no fear"), and a good ability to follow order and don't think about it. In fact, a wet-ware dumb AI. The advantage being that it's harder to take down the CPU with radiation damage (just send them on Ground Zero, after all they're expendable !), or to simply hack it.
You'll just have to mass produce these Bio-Processor, it can be done separetely of constructing the vehicle ; just have to adapt the memory of the wet-ware to fit its expected role.

[PeZook]

I think you give the software team too much credit, in-universe they didn't even consider fixing the problem. Although, I don't see how it broke his arm, unless the elbow bent backwards or some shit like that. Definitely would've torn tendons if he resisted it, but it shouldn't have killed him. Of course, the test suit should have been deactivated immediately, but instead they let the poor bastard die.

Well, they apparently also subscribe to the "Abuse during training makes for good soldiers" school of thought, so they kidnap kids for augmentation and replace them with clones.

Then again, so does the Imperium, except they at least make it known the kid is gonna be a superduper soldier and treat it as a Great HonorTM.

[Black Admiral]

Then again, so does the Imperium, except they at least make it known the kid is gonna be a superduper soldier and treat it as a Great HonorTM.

That depends on the Chapter, really - some (the Ultrasmurfs and Salamanders, for instance) are relatively civilised when it comes to training & augmentation procedures; then you've got others like the Blood Ravens and Doom Eagles who are gigantic arseholes about both (mind, the entire purpose of the Doom Eagles' selection process is to reduce an aspirant to a state of utter depression - sucks to be you if you're not depressed enough at the end of it).

[Rossum]

Halo MJOLNIR armor doesn't use servos and electronics to amplify the wearers strength. It uses "a layer of reactive metal liquid crystal" (Cough! Magic! Cough!) that doubles lifting capability and increases reaction time by a factor of five. So it does increase the armor's capabilities to be used by a superman. Although your explanation is funnier and makes more sense.

And from the suit design team:

"Hey, you think we should adjust the joints on this armored suit so that the reactive liquid metal crystal stuff can't bend the armor into unnatural positions? The angle on this thing looks like the elbows can bend backwardsabout 15 degrees. And the spine..."
"Listen, the military guys said they want these suits to provide maximum range of movement. You ever see those contotionist video..."
"You mean that really weird porn you keep trying to hide on the server?"
"Ahem! Those are for research, like I said before. But anyway, we're fighting the Covenant and they're going to be sending in superhuman Spartans and stuff. If they're superhuman then they should be able to bend in all sorts of oddball directions."
*points at the design of the suit* "You mean like bending their spine backwards 270 degrees and kissing their own ass goodbye?"
"Of course! The design specs said that our soldiers need maximum mobility and that's what we're giving them. If one of those Spartans gets killed because their armor inhibits their range of movement then I'm going to be the one having to explain it."
"Eh... okay... can we at least give it a trial run with one of the test dummies before we ship it out?"
"We're behind schedule already. Besides, test dummies don't have the training that spartains do."

Later:

New recruit: "Oh GOD! My spine is shoving my head up my own AS-mffff! Heffff... AHHHH!!!!" *crunch* *crunch* (as the suit twists itself into a pretzel)

[lance]

What about going the full brain in a shell method?

[PeZook]

What about going the full brain in a shell method?

It can't be mass produced with an untrained workforce

If you understand the brain well enough to use it as an organic processor, you probably either already have AI, or are just about to have it. In that case, build a robot.

[Ford Prefect]

Or he might suggesting full-body cyborgisation, ala Ghost in the Shell or Appleseed or Battle Angel Alita.

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, the ideal pilot is going to be under 5 feet tall, fit but slender, and female. Except that US military cockpits are, if I recall, engineered for pilots 5 foot 6 to 5 foot 10 (about 168 to 178 cm).

Well, you can do it, naturally; I think they're trying to compromise. If they hired all-female pilots they'd get the discrimination lawsuit from hell,

At which point part of me started laughing because back when I was young enough to consider a military career it was perfectly legal for the military to discriminate on a gender basis in regards to pilots... but let's not get derailed, of course.

Oh I know. The point is that, empirically, that would happen: every male high school AFROTC student in the country would sue. It's a practical problem with trying to do it: a disproportionate number of their volunteers are already male, and trying to exclude them all would put a big hole in their recruitment.

I suspect it's bullshit. The only gender-based difference in pilot performance noted (aside from g-force tolerance) is that, for lack of a better term, women tend to have a lower accident rate. Apparently, they're less prone to doing dumb shit to show off. (Not immune, of course, just less likely)

Wouldn't be surprised. On the other hand, women don't make up 50% of combat pilots. If someone tells me that's not a coincidence and that there is in fact some disproportionately-guy thing that contributes to good combat piloting, I'm not going to argue the case one way or the other. It's not my ball game, and that's all I'm saying.

Except that the Air Force has pretty much always had more qualified people interested in flying than they have pilots slots, and since they lifted restrictions on women they've doubled their candidate pool. There is no shortage of wannabe Top Guns.

This much is true. On the other hand, they really do want to optimize their candidates for things like learning ability, eyesight, coordination, and so on... factors other than physical size. Height isn't the only thing they're looking for.

The tighter the size restriction, the more otherwise best-of-the-best candidates you disqualify. The marginal improvement in making pilots a little shorter would have to offset all the really good potential candidates you didn't take because they're now an inch too tall.

Think about it. In any other business where you have far more applicants than positions, you still want to hire the very top-scoring candidates of the available pool. The more you restrict the pool (with things like height limits) the more otherwise top-tier candidates you disqualify. Many of them will be replaced by people whose eyesight, test scores, coordination, or whatever weren't as good... but who still passed the test and have the advantage of not being too tall.

So the Air Force's cockpit size standards are probably, I'd think, set by a compromise between making the cockpit smaller and not eliminating too big a chunk of their potential recruits, forcing them to settle for second-best candidates because they arbitrarily imposed a very rare requirement on people in pre-selection.

[PeZook]

Frankly, most air combat today is going to be decided by missile spam. Arguably, it's better to have a pilot who can't tolerate as much G-forces but who is great at operating the plane's systems, than one who's marginally smaller and more tolerant of g-forces who's not that great.

So putting height and sex above other more important considerations is probably not such a good idea: if the guy is an awesome navigator, excels in operating the onboard gear and has no trouble building situatoinal awareness, who cares if he's a guy and an inch too tall?

[Wing Commander MAD]

In the Halo series they actually had to put super soldiers in the armor, since it killed normal marines who went in it, because baseline humans do not having the reflexes to use the suit's enhanced speed and strength properly. In the novel the marine testing it moved his arm just a bit, and the suit moved it faster and farther than he thought it would, which broke the arm, which made him spasm in pain, which made the suit respond, and that is what killed him.

That's one spectacularly incompetent software team.

"Have you fixed that shitty excuse for a servo-control loop yet?"
"Nah, why risk missing our delivery date, we'll blame the hardware guys and let the bio team come up with a workaround. You know they want as many bullet points as possible for their budget request slides."

In the journal from the scientist behind the whole Spartan project that came with Halo: Reach, she comments on this incident after recieving a report on it. I seem to recall there being mention of safeties being disabled, and the test being unauthorized, or at least highly ill advised in her eyes. How practical it is to have safeties that can be disabled (albeit on a prototype) I don't know.

Regarding, why not use the power armor on regular marines, for Halo at least. I seem to recall talk of it being super expensive(maybe as much as a cruiser) per unit. I believe that expense came in part from the whole funky magic crystal stuff requiring a zero gravity environment for creation, and only handful of such facilities existing, or at least being secret/remote enough (IIRC it came down to one facility). Hence it got regulated exclusively to the whole ultra secret counter insurgency super soldier program, which was viewed as the only viable method of keeping the Outer Colonies in line/from rebelling. Supposedly, advances from the power armor program(s) did eventually make their way into more common grunt equipment (atleast some ODST stuff), according to the flavor text in the Halo: Reach armory where you customize your multiplayer character.