Making ACs a Reality

[Nomrah]

Evolution rules.

[Wong]

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50333_315844394020_5694430_n.jpg

[Koroshiya Hunter]

I had read, last year, that the Japanese Democratic manifesto was to include the initial stages of attempting to build a type of mobile suit. Originally, they wanted to produce a Gundam-like machine. They quickly found out that would be impossible. A 15m tall biped would have a damnedest time staying upright. And once it falls over, it's not getting back up very easily. Add in impact damages from the fall plus whatever made it fall, assuming the wind didn't just knock it over.

 

Instead, they have decided that they only type of mobile suit that could be feasible is something along the lines of AppleSeed or Patlabor. However, they'd be more for labor purposes than combat. As stated earlier, in this thread, there are various reasons why robots aren't fit for the battlefield. I love the idea, but logic says "it's not gonna happen."

[Azure Knight]

The future of turtles?

 

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h141/mshernandez182/powered.jpg

 

The future of turtles is clearly them becoming aliens.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

This all will make turtle soup alot harder to come by.

[DrXIII]

• Would an armored core do good or bad for the world?
  
• Does the world need armored cores?
  
• Are armored cores even an engineering possibility with, say, our current technological breakthroughs?
  
• What purpose would ACs serve on the battle field? Think about the roles current weapon systems serve and find gaps.
  

1. Depends on the intentions of their creator.
   
2. Not right now.
   
3. Yes, but start with TANK LEGS FIRST.
   
4. Defense.
   

[KORTOKtheSTRONG]

1. See 2

2. See 3

3. See 4

4. ACs would just fall over.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Mechs are stupid irl, they'd fall over, and even if they didn't fall over; they'd fall over.

 

http://i.imgur.com/vRlgj.gif

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

So are we any closer to making ACs a reality yet?

[The Talentless]

I think everyone in the world is too close-minded on the subject. We'll have to wait until beserkfury, someone who isn't weak-minded, builds his first test model.

[Taurus]

So I wanna get your perspective on the matter:

• Would an armored core do good or bad for the world?
  
• Does the world need armored cores?
  
• Are armored cores even an engineering possibility with, say, our current technological breakthroughs?
  
• What purpose would ACs serve on the battle field? Think about the roles current weapon systems serve and find gaps.
  
• If so, show us some of the stuff you come across on the web dealing with robotics technologies and research!
  
• Post your own question about robotics! Share your insight on the matter.
  

- they could be bad more than good. as long as RPG-7 around the world are very low price and can handle 2-3 warheads with one person.

- no. at lease, not right now.

- possible to make an AC in present but it will fail for practical. (I think AC would be real and practical in 50-100 years later....if they want to do it)

- no weapon, just shield or some small defensive weapon and do the support jobs like carrying stuffs, defend infantries, constructions, or something like that.

- but I don't know about technologies, what I know is ASIMO could do their stuffs that I said if they want to.

- don't have question. but this is that I think about robotic in future, "it should be small vehicle and drive by 4 wheels, same protection performance as tank but moving more faster (as super car is good for me), also carried many weapons (4-5 types) and handle these weapon with one person"

[Shirtless Crackhead]

If building a tank of similar size (by weight) isn't practical, making a walking robot which will be mechanically less efficient and slower on that means of mobility alone, would be even less practical.

[poopscootsMcgee]

why is this even being debated.

[BerserkFury]

I gotta say, gettin criticized by everyone crushed my ideas at one point, but if it hadn't been for that, I would've never dug deeper into the concept. Tanks are hell of machines, practically moving fortresses which make them so effective; they've earned their place on the battlefield. But did you guys know it takes 200+ muscles working in perfect harmony for a human to walk? Bipedal movement is no joke and an arduous feat to replicate in machines. Now building a military grade weapon system based on this sort of displacement would be illogical, given that you'd have to maintain survivability, cost effectiveness, and rational operation time to maintenance time ratio. Building a weapon to meet these conditions is beyond me and any strategic weapons firm's top design team. Enganacious was right about treads being the most optimal displacement system so that would probably be a start. The issue I still find with tanks is that the turret rotates to slow. Yes, it weighs ~20 tons but even so, it can only fire one gun at a time, yes a very big gun, unless a soldier exposes him/her self to use the heavy machine guns mounted ontop. My renewed concept is to get rid of a one gun turret and replace it with a multy weapon turrent that can rotate faster and accommodate all sorts of other weapons not limiting it to any built it gun. Anyhow, this thing is still in development so I cant give out all the details but they'll start piecing together soon enough.

 

As for the model: I gotta find loads of information then schedule meetings with the engineers, which I need to mention are very busy people, to finish it. School is keeping me busy enough atm so no model for a while. But there will be one, eventually. Best part is when Im done Ill be able to graphically display it cause Im taking a class to learn to do just that right from the start of engineering school. Pretty cool how Im already applying what Im learning to actual engineering situations.

Edited May 12, 2012 by BerserkFury

[Nomrah]

So is it bipedal or tread? It sounds like you want to make a newer tank rather than a bipedal machine. What your moving towards reminds me of one of them rolling chromehounds, which is a good idea.

[Exorcet]

My renewed concept is to get rid of a one gun turret and replace it with a multy weapon turrent that can rotate faster and accommodate all sorts of other weapons not limiting it to any built it gun. Anyhow, this thing is still in development so I cant give out all the details but they'll start piecing together soon enough.

 

I like the idea of quick interchangeable weapon system more than a turret full of a million guns, but both of these already sound more practical than a mech. Just make sure that everything you do has a reason behind it. What benefits does the multi gun turret have? Does it have any drawbacks? How do you get around the drawbacks? etc.

 

Best part is when Im done Ill be able to graphically display it cause Im taking a class to learn to do just that right from the start of engineering school. Pretty cool how Im already applying what Im learning to actual engineering situations.

 

You should waste of tons of hours doing CAD, even if it is CAD of ridiculous and impossible things. CAD skills are good to have.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

They will all be pointless when armies have swarms of airborne UAV's with multi-purpose warhead intelligent guided missiles and next-gen networked observation systems.

[Exorcet]

Small mass produced UAV's will be vulnerable to SAM's and aircraft, and an adaptable tank type thing with anti air capabiliy would be a good counter against them.

 

Large UAV's wouldn't be any more numerous than manned fighters are right now. And those are vulnerable to SAM's anyway.

[Aokiryu89]

They will all be pointless when armies have swarms of airborne UAV's with multi-purpose warhead intelligent guided missiles and next-gen networked observation systems.

 

http://thislmm.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/railgun_by_scarledian.png

[Nomrah]

Super AA defense systems and super flak rolling machines that are able to push forward under the most relentless conditions. A game of stressing stealth and anti-stealth technologies. A lot of no mans land will be seen, one must find a proper method of securing locations.

 

Time to stress ant-air anti-missile capabilities.

Here's a one prospect.

http://en.wikipedia....gh_Energy_Laser

Edited May 13, 2012 by Nomrah

[BerserkFury]

@ Exorcet: A battle tank's role on the field is "direct fire" where as an interchangeable weapon turret would be able to fill the role of "direct fire" and "indirect fire". Now you might be thinking we dont need that, we already have indirect fire vehicles on the field so deploy tanks and back up indirect fire vehicles. But on the other hand Im thinking, if we can deploy one direct and one indirect fire weapon, why cant we deploy two multi purpose systems with equal superiority?

 

@ Nomrah: I've never played Chromehounds but Im familiar with the looks of the machinery and my idea goes along those lines. You could call it a renewal of the battle tank but Im trying to move away from the four-five man crew to a one-two man crew since most of the reconnaissance would be left to sensors and computers then relayed to the pilot(s). My goal: a drive and a gunner OR one driver/gunner.

Edited May 13, 2012 by BerserkFury

[Aokiryu89]

Makes me think the best solution, albeit possibly more ridiculous than walking mechs would be drilling underground or moving massive amounts of land. Something to negate having a terrain advantage. Maybe just make a guided indirect fire railguns with ammo that is resistant to lasers and anti air weapons? Homing Lasers a la Panzer Dragoon?

 

Maybe a Plasma weapon, I read something about using a concentration of plasma instead of attempting to bend light itself to create a weapon that can function as an indirect fire homing weapon that could hit targets hiding behind terrain.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Ogawa Lou

[Nomrah]

Just go straight for the sun gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Gun

[Exorcet]

@ Exorcet: A battle tank's role on the field is "direct fire" where as an interchangeable weapon turret would be able to fill the role of "direct fire" and "indirect fire". Now you might be thinking we dont need that, we already have indirect fire vehicles on the field so deploy tanks and back up indirect fire vehicles. But on the other hand Im thinking, if we can deploy one direct and one indirect fire weapon, why cant we deploy two multi purpose systems with equal superiority?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say equal superiority. I think the biggest benefit is the ability to quickly adapt to unanticipated situations. You could have the actual vehicle chassis standarized and deployed everywhere, but logistics would only need to move around interchangeable weapons and armor rather than ship in a whole bunch of new vehicles to your location just because you need more anti armor capability.

 

Also, I'd point out that the trend today is to move away from tanks to lighter armored vehicles like Bradley and Striker, especially in urban combat. You should take that into account.

 

Are you going to design an entire vehicle based on new methods of combat, an entire vehicle that fits in with current combat tactics, or just the turret?

 

Keep at it, maybe this could become your thesis.

[KORTOKtheSTRONG]

SUN GUN!