Making ACs a Reality

[13th Knight]

As far as I knew, Eng, it was Chobham armor with depleted uranium plate on the inside, with ceramic. You've proved me wrong, so eh. Apparently, during the M1A1 phase, they added depleted uranium as another component to the Chobham armor, which was added to the front of the hull and turret as a mesh inside.

 

After that, it says that depleted uranium was distributed throughout the tank's Chobham armor. If you know better, go right ahead. That's as much as my sources said. One being Wikipedia, the other being a couple tank history books. Army-technology.com also says that depleted uranium armor was incorporated into the tank's defense.

 

I don't know about the F-35's defensive systems. I've never worked with it, nor have I seen really any information about it though it's probably out there. I just didn't look. I do know that C-130s also carry missile defense systems, such as the ALR-69 and AAQ-24 (chaff, flare, and then LAIRCM lasers). Also, the newest KC-130J, the Harvest Hawk package, has the ability to put up an entire drone 'monitor station' in one of the places where they put observation bubbles. Granted, it was jury-rigged for the operation, but it gave them full access to specific drone camera feeds.

 

Tanks can't defend themselves from aircraft. They need support equipment such as AA guns, ECM, or the like. The way I thought of an AC was not a walking ball of gun IRL, or even a main battlepiece, but instead a heavy infantry support weapon that, while it couldn't face off directly against an MBT or a fighter jet, the key would be that it would be able to utilize whatever landscape much like a person could, except with much heavier weaponry. It would need support too, in the form of AA guns and the like, as it's an armor piece and a larger target.

 

Honestly, I was thinking of something more along the lines of Blacklight: Retribution's hardsuits, or the suits from Appleseed, or Ghost in the Shell.

 

Btw...thank you, Ogawa.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Between tanks, MRAPs and similar vehicles, fire support assets, drones, air support (both planes and helicopters), and battlefield conditions in general.. I fail to see how any "mech" could become an asset.

 

You can put some serious ass-whooping power on a truck.

 

M2 .50BMG heavy machine gun.

 

 

Which can fire everything from ball rounds, to armor-piercing high-explosive incendiaries, or tungsten alloy sabots. There's few things short of tank armor a 50 cal Browning won't slap the shit out of outright.

 

Mk19 40mm grenade machine gun

 

 

If you're worried about anything from shredding mass infantry formations, to destabilizing structures or just general explosive carnage; the Mk19 has it all in spades. Although it does use a silly lube all of it's own, due to some of the components.

 

~

 

One other thing you have to realize is tanks or IFV's don't carry the same sorts of weapons as aircraft because the reality of what weapons work best in those situations if vastly different.

 

So here's my questions.

 

#1. What would your "mech" be armed with?

#2. What sort of fire could your "mech" take?

#3. Does it provide anything beyond fire support? (tangible not psychological)

#4. What terrains can it handle? (walking multiple-ton machines do not fair well in mud or most environments for that matter, lighter ones can, but they can't provide heavy weapons assets)

#5. How mobile will it be? (not just on the ground, but can it be flown into and out of theater on aircraft (C-5, C-17, C-130) and/or helicopter (Chinook)

#6. What intel assets will it provide and/or support?

 

Then I also want you to think about how obvious a walking machine is, in an urban environment. And just remember the element of surprise can be everything to a ground assault force.

[13th Knight]

The mech could be armed with 30mm chaingun, like that on the Apache, rocket tubes also found on helicopters, could possibly mount TOW missiles (might be difficult, but we'd have to see) and there could be ways to slave smaller SAMs or a ground-launched version of a Hellfire missile. Larger mortars, like 81mm to 120mm mortars, could be mounted on the back and the unit stabilized. There are probably more possibilities, but these are more of the ones I can think of.

 

The mech would...at the most, be able to take 30mm cannon fire, and possibly one RPG to certain areas, much like how an IFV (depending on what type and what kind of armor, as well as what kind of RPG) can only take a couple before being incapacitated. I'm not expecting it to have the armor of a main battle tank.

 

A lot of infantry units have to carry their own antitank or antibuilding munitions, things that can break through bunkers. What this can do in an urban scenario, or something with more cover for the enemy, would be able to provide much heavier assault firepower, with a weapons system able to roll with the unit in question that has recoilless rifles with HEAT ammunition or the like, or has heavy 30mm AP rounds, or can provide white phosphorous or heavier grenade types while on the move. This would eliminate the need for lighter vehicles like Humvees which don't have nearly the armor capacity (I think) to survive RPG hits effectively and still be able to move. And plus, adding more weapon systems to a mounted one on an IFV with no turret might make the detachable unit much too heavy and hamper its purpose of providing automated fire.

 

I wasn't thinking of a bipedal unit...I was thinking of a quadruped, but whose main method of locomotion is not moving the legs like a spider or something to that degree, but instead using wheels mounted on it or treads to get it where it needs to go. The feet would be secondary. If all went well, with the suspension that would be used, it might be able to handle the same kinds of terrain as an LAV-25 or Piranha IFV.

 

I...can't give a solid indication on weight. I really can't. Because I don't have the engineering degree or experience or classes to know how to calculate this at all. It could be too heavy to be flown by helicopters, unless specially designed, but it could be flown in on a C-130J or similar type of aircraft. Or it would be limited to larger, turbojet driven aircraft such as the C-17. I can't tell right now. In fact, this was more of an experiment to see if I could come up with a more logical and useful one than what's been presented so far.

 

If so equipped, like MRAPS and other specialized vehicles, it could actually be used as a very mobile packmule, able to carry more cargo than a couple AFVs/IFVs to travel along with the unit. If also equipped, it might be able to carry the wounded, adding trailers and such and carrying larger first aid kits that would help sustain a unit longer than just their IFAKs. As I was going on about the Harvest Hawk addition to KC-130s, it could be used to tote around extra fuel tanks, but on the other hand you could mount a sensor suite and jamming pods, thermal optics, FLIR cameras, low light television sets, and then a remote drone command where you could command three or four at once, or at least get the feed from three or four at once. It could be used as a mobile platform for launching larger drones, but I highly doubt that.

 

I wouldn't want a walking unit. I would want a unit that looks armored vehicle enough so that if the enemy doesn't catch wind of it, they have no idea what it is. A mech with two legs would be a dead giveaway. From what I've seen, this is one reason why they can't replace tanks or be there as support-too obvious, and there are vehicles already with treads. Instead, add wheels, add four legs, and make its body setup low to the ground, where it can raise up and 'spiderwalk' if it needs to.

 

= = = = = = = = = =

 

All that aside, Eng, the videos and pics and statistics you've shown do prove that a mech wouldn't be the most useful thing on the front. In fact, far from it, and probably useless altogether on a battlefield.

 

This was...more trying to satisfy my curiousity in seeing if it was POSSIBLE to come up with a design, not make it, but to come up with one that MIGHT possibly work.

 

I might have failed. 75% likely.

[Talos]

Doomed from the start. These people liv​e to prove ya wrong m8t. Almost as if they didn't want ACs to become a reality. Edited February 13, 2013 by Talos

[Shirtless Crackhead]

The mech could be armed with 30mm chaingun, like that on the Apache, rocket tubes also found on helicopters, could possibly mount TOW missiles (might be difficult, but we'd have to see) and there could be ways to slave smaller SAMs or a ground-launched version of a Hellfire missile. Larger mortars, like 81mm to 120mm mortars, could be mounted on the back and the unit stabilized. There are probably more possibilities, but these are more of the ones I can think of.

 

So it would have basically attack helicopter firepower, plus SAMs and/or mortars. Mortars being a terribly bad idea outside an extremely stable platform. Let's not remember that rockets are also not very effective ground weapons or surface to air, so that point is frankly mute. An M230 30mm Hughes chaingun would also be alittle on the weak side as there's the Bradley Fighting Vehicles and LAV-25 both equipped with M242 25mm Bushmasters (smaller diameter, much more punch).

 

You could try going for a more streamlined weapons package as having multiple systems means you need to support multiple munitions, as well as have fire controls for all of them. A more reasonable candidate would be something like the 30x173mm Bushmaster II which is currently used as a Naval Gun and on the latest models of the Spectre gunships (replacing the aging 40mm Bofors). But the 30mm Bushmaster II or the M242 25mm Bushmaster would give it significantly more punch and versatility in a ground role.

 

The mech would...at the most, be able to take 30mm cannon fire, and possibly one RPG to certain areas, much like how an IFV (depending on what type and what kind of armor, as well as what kind of RPG) can only take a couple before being incapacitated. I'm not expecting it to have the armor of a main battle tank.

 

You realize that 30mm cannon (from either an M230 Hughes or a Bushmaster II) will disable an M1 Abrams, it might not cleanly punch threw the armor; but the fire can and will shred the treads, drive-train, and various other components. RPG's are also a lot tougher to defeat that you might imagine. The basic (PG-V and PG-VL) rockets (the cheapos) can punch threw 10-19 inches of RHA. Just make sure you realize that the armor doesn't have to be that thick, with composite materials, reactive armors, and design enginuity; but it's also not going to skate by lightly in the weight department.

 

A lot of infantry units have to carry their own antitank or antibuilding munitions, things that can break through bunkers. What this can do in an urban scenario, or something with more cover for the enemy, would be able to provide much heavier assault firepower, with a weapons system able to roll with the unit in question that has recoilless rifles with HEAT ammunition or the like, or has heavy 30mm AP rounds, or can provide white phosphorous or heavier grenade types while on the move. This would eliminate the need for lighter vehicles like Humvees which don't have nearly the armor capacity (I think) to survive RPG hits effectively and still be able to move. And plus, adding more weapon systems to a mounted one on an IFV with no turret might make the detachable unit much too heavy and hamper its purpose of providing automated fire.

 

Demo, which is easily taken in the back of a truck, and usually ordered to the expected mission role. Granted there's been some serious FUBAR moments with Demo in every conflict. Breaking bunkers is extremely hard to do, hence why bunker-buster bombs are usually a minimum of 500lbs. You don't use WP as a defensive measure, WP produces extremely hot, and irritant gas; which would be like using CS grenades to smoke your movement, which isn't entirely effective in the first place. Humvees or HMMVW's can actually be pretty well up-armored, enough to take small arms to RPG fire. They're just not great at soaking IED's. IFV's with turrets are pretty nimble and pack one helluva whallop. They're also generally not that common because they're too big to do Urban capture/kill raids and such, and they're too small to level shit outright like a tank or CAS can.

 

I wasn't thinking of a bipedal unit...I was thinking of a quadruped, but whose main method of locomotion is not moving the legs like a spider or something to that degree, but instead using wheels mounted on it or treads to get it where it needs to go. The feet would be secondary. If all went well, with the suspension that would be used, it might be able to handle the same kinds of terrain as an LAV-25 or Piranha IFV.

 

Quadrupedal locomotion being an inordentaly complex system of hydraulics, pneumatics, linear motors, chain drives, or some combination thereof; ontop of the power generation which would likely be a diesel-electric generator. Why have the legs if it needs wheels to get around? Why not just have wheels? Why build articulated arms, when you can just have a turret? You're already basically saying your "mech" is an overly-complicated IFV. Which would be tank bait in any conventional sense, just FYI. It also would be hard to imagine an armored mechanical spider being amphibious.

 

I...can't give a solid indication on weight. I really can't. Because I don't have the engineering degree or experience or classes to know how to calculate this at all. It could be too heavy to be flown by helicopters, unless specially designed, but it could be flown in on a C-130J or similar type of aircraft. Or it would be limited to larger, turbojet driven aircraft such as the C-17. I can't tell right now. In fact, this was more of an experiment to see if I could come up with a more logical and useful one than what's been presented so far.

 

Weight shouldn't be a massive problem for cargo purposes, as we fly in multiple M1's on C-5's. The problem will be fitting it effeciently into the cargo bay, and then further deployment in country. You'll either have to convoy it out to a FOB or whever you want it to be, or find a helo big enough to drop it in.

 

If so equipped, like MRAPS and other specialized vehicles, it could actually be used as a very mobile packmule, able to carry more cargo than a couple AFVs/IFVs to travel along with the unit. If also equipped, it might be able to carry the wounded, adding trailers and such and carrying larger first aid kits that would help sustain a unit longer than just their IFAKs. As I was going on about the Harvest Hawk addition to KC-130s, it could be used to tote around extra fuel tanks, but on the other hand you could mount a sensor suite and jamming pods, thermal optics, FLIR cameras, low light television sets, and then a remote drone command where you could command three or four at once, or at least get the feed from three or four at once. It could be used as a mobile platform for launching larger drones, but I highly doubt that.

 

Very mobile packmule being an LMTV. You'd have to be a couple cans short of a six-pack to try and build a giant mechanical spider half-assed IFV to take the job of a fucking semi-truck. Also, in the Stan, most of the packmule work is done by the locals in "jingle trucks" because they're expendible. If you're talking about keeping troops supplied, the fucking truck isn't an unlimited resource, it has to be refilled too. Which is why resupply is generally done by air. It would be insane to carry a huge target that breaksdown just to hold onto some extra twinkies, when the Air Forces delivers on demand. And if anyone gets lippy, they'll drop scunion on their domes.

 

I wouldn't want a walking unit. I would want a unit that looks armored vehicle enough so that if the enemy doesn't catch wind of it, they have no idea what it is. A mech with two legs would be a dead giveaway. From what I've seen, this is one reason why they can't replace tanks or be there as support-too obvious, and there are vehicles already with treads. Instead, add wheels, add four legs, and make its body setup low to the ground, where it can raise up and 'spiderwalk' if it needs to.

 

Big, tall, walking mechanical thing; that the enemy doesn't catch wind of. You're obviously not thinking of having this thing in reality. If you want sneaky, get a Striker; or just suppliment with surprise and force of violence and use MH-6's and light infantry to fast rope onto the objective with CAS and just party hard. Low to the ground negates ground-clearance, another FYI; and without ground clearance, there goes your all-terrain power.

 

= = = = = = = = = =

 

All that aside, Eng, the videos and pics and statistics you've shown do prove that a mech wouldn't be the most useful thing on the front. In fact, far from it, and probably useless altogether on a battlefield.

 

This was...more trying to satisfy my curiousity in seeing if it was POSSIBLE to come up with a design, not make it, but to come up with one that MIGHT possibly work.

 

I might have failed. 75% likely.

 

You failed, conclusively.

 

The fact is, wheeled vehicles on the ground, and planes/helicopters in the air work; and they'll work better than walking "mechs" ever will.

[Fukei]

Almost as if they didn't want ACs to become a reality.

 

We don't. Some of us aren't children and are capable of differentiating fantasy from reality. Sorry, but "It would be cool!" isn't a good reason to spend untold amounts of money and time developing pointless, inferior humanoid weapons.

 

All of you who choose to ignore the facts of our reality should really stop using the word reality.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

i bet half of dem wud try 2 sex wit it

[Talos]

We don't. Some of us aren't children and are capable of differentiating fantasy from reality. Sorry, but "It would be cool!" isn't a good reason to spend untold amounts of money and time developing pointless, inferior humanoid weapons.

 

All of you who choose to ignore the facts of our reality should really stop using the word reality.

It probably wouldn't happen, I'm not saying it would, I'm just saying that if they wanted to hell yes they could. So long as they are well supplied with untold millions.

[13th Knight]

Oddly enough Eng, I thought you were going to be more vicious than that. That 'truck' thing was kind of a...throwaway lol. I was trying to think of some logistics use for it.

 

Failed conclusively, I do agree though. You put up a lot of things that mean it wouldn't be any good. Sure, I may not have this in reality, I just thought it might be an interesting idea. If I ever put this to the test in CAD and ran simulations to see if it would work...I could probably give you a more conclusive idea.

 

Still, you didn't rip it apart nearly as bad as the other guy who started this thread, so I must've done something right to not earn your ire. Heh.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

Doomed from the start. These people liv​e to prove ya wrong m8t. Almost as if they didn't want ACs to become a reality.

 

That and several of us have worked in or have experience with the field of inquiry.

 

Also 13k he didn't rip you apart cuz you weren't calling everyone blind idiots like the OP ahahahah

[13th Knight]

Engineering, aerospace and similar fields, which is why I can tell you can disprove something without 'hating it.' You're disproving it because it is exceedingly complex/useless after all that you have studied and possibly designed too.

 

I don't ever want to go against Eng again lol...I took some time off of here to cool my jets, like I did with a lot of things. I matured a bit more and then started seeing more of what everyone was talking about and then...'shit, you're all right' happened. I'm going with what I thought might work, logically, he broke it down as he' seen it/worked on it/ studied it and told me why it wouldn't work.

 

He killed the idea with practicality and proven information and designs. I can't argue that.

[SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD]

Billions.*

 

Honestly, whatever fucking system you think up will be way too expensive. I don't know if you people understand just how expensive it would be to develop entirely new battlefield tech. Practically nothing these ACs would need in order to exist is available in a combat-ready platform. That means you're not just piecing existing tech into non-existing tech; it means you have to develop each system practically from scratch. It probably wouldn't be F-35/F-22 expensive but it'd be ludicrously expensive for the role you people have intended. Bradley development reached ~5 billion and each one costs about 3 mil. Fully pimped Stryker's are around 5 mil. MRAP project looks to be ~48 billion.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

whatever JOHN

 

whatever.

[Talos]

Billions.*

 

Honestly, whatever fucking system you think up will be way too expensive. I don't know if you people understand just how expensive it would be to develop entirely new battlefield tech. Practically nothing these ACs would need in order to exist is available in a combat-ready platform. That means you're not just piecing existing tech into non-existing tech; it means you have to develop each system practically from scratch. It probably wouldn't be F-35/F-22 expensive but it'd be ludicrously expensive for the role you people have intended. Bradley development reached ~5 billion and each one costs about 3 mil. Fully pimped Stryker's are around 5 mil. MRAP project looks to be ~48 billion.

http://www.plagiarismchecker.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/batman.jpg

 

Lol.

 

That and several of us have worked in or have experience with the field of inquiry.

 

Also 13k he didn't rip you apart cuz you weren't calling everyone blind idiots like the OP ahahahah

No, I'm sure they are quite knowledgeable to call up so many factors as they have. The only thing is that I sort of expected people to stand up for ACs on an AC forum is all. With that said, I don't mean they should but idk.. AC is a sci-fi game-series in itself so naturally, it is based far from our current capacity. Call it foolishness but, I see nothing wrong with a little blind patriotism towards Armored Core here and there, am I right?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Talos

[SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD]

Nope.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Who'd want to pilot something that would just fall over?

[Aokiryu89]

Only if it's female.

[KORTOKtheSTRONG]

http://i.imgur.com/6U4kyrX.png

[Talos]

Who'd want to pilot something that would just fall over?

Think, if ever they made something like that (not saying they will) they'd make sure it wouldn't fall over before it sees the light of day. (if it ever got that far)

[Necron]

Tallgeese

Tallgeese III's gun is too large, it would just fall over

[Aokiryu89]

VVVVVV SHOULD BE FALLING OVER VVVVVVVVVVVVVV

 

 

 

http://www.estarland.com/images//Extra_Product_Images/Anime_Merchandise/Figures/JAN11/armored_core_sunshine.jpg

[CELTICMUTT7]

Blasting opression from loudspeakers at the ppl while i walk around in a weapon of mass destruction hmmmmm interesting though...STAY IN YOUR HOMES...DO MY BIDDING... things of that sort hmmm it would probably be bad for humanity XD

[Shirtless Crackhead]

 

That will punch threw 15 inches of steel.

[CELTICMUTT7]

An at4 cant touch a javelin but is fun touch

[CELTICMUTT7]

No not explode in my hands go off and explode downrange if ur gonna doctor a quote at least make it sound like me FUCKS SAKES

 

Ac are possible and attainable and would be badass with strength exosuits declassified almost 20 years ago there is more advances to a mobile suit and then sn armored core i can only imagine how many gyros would be needed for stabilizing it would not be effective everywhere but could be made effective using something like a nuclear generator could make large ones have a smaller powersource id pull one off a sub overall it would really just be a show of mass affluence and technological resources as well as military resources but im sure its limitations would stop it from being used much

"DONT SHIT ON MY DREAMS OF OPRESSING THE MASSES FROM A 50METER TALL MOBILE SUIT"