Jump to content

Making ACs a Reality


Recommended Posts

I'd like to start off by saying that I've always been fascinated by mechanics and particularly robots. This is the primary reason why I like Armored Core so much and why it continues to be my favorite video game and the mech genre, the only type of game that truly enjoy (besides Soul Calibur). Armored Core has always been about the customization to me and now that I'm in college, playing video games and submersing my self AC online wont be my strong point. But what I'm really looking forward to is being able to customize the ACs and creating exceptionally good design that I can share with people.

 

But on to the point: Mechatronics is gonna be a part of the 21st century like the industrial revolution was a huge part of the eighteenth and nineteenth century and the technological revolution part of the 20th century. So now, more than ever, I look to Armored Core more as inspiration than just a simple video game. I think AC's are gorgeous, from a robotics fanatic perspective, and if they were ever actually produced/manufactured, would be an incredible feat of engineering.

 

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.

I'm currently going to school for a degree in mechanical engineering and mathematically, an AC is all too real. But its not easy to translate a mathematical model to reality. Lots of people think powering a mech would be a the main problem but we can actually power it through conventional methods like tank engines. Of course, it wouldnt have the durability of ACs in the game but it would suffice for an early prototype. Besides financing AC development, what would be the biggest dilemma with designing an AC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 565
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is why giant robots are stupid.

 

The reality of mechanics means that they would have to be armored to absolutely absurd levels, and have to be able to withstand fire from things like the RPG-32 "Hashim" which can penetrate 750mm (that's 75cm or 30 inches) of rolled homogeneous armor plate.

 

That's just the man portable systems you'd have to worry about.

 

Let alone, artillery, mortars, tanks, naval and air power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why giant robots are stupid.

 

The reality of mechanics means that they would have to be armored to absolutely absurd levels, and have to be able to withstand fire from things like the RPG-32 "Hashim" which can penetrate 750mm (that's 75cm or 30 inches) of rolled homogeneous armor plate.

 

That's just the man portable systems you'd have to worry about.

 

Let alone, artillery, mortars, tanks, naval and air power.

 

You would have to find a specific role on the field for these sort of machines. You wouldnt stack them up against conditions they wouldnt be able to survive. Every weapon system has an Achilles' heel. If every weapons engineer summing up a design for a system thought in these terms, nothing would ever get done. They'd run into something like this and go home. The grandness of engineering is that there's always a way to solve a problem, it just takes time, effort, and efficacy to do it. People a century ago couldnt even dream up the kind of technology we have today so dont sit there and tell me ideas are impractical because every idea starts out as am impractical concept. To top it off, robots are already in use on the battle field today. The ACs you might be thinking about look/work completely different than what I might be thinking of. An example of that is if youre thinking of a bipedal AC since joint would be an obvious and easy target to disable movement. Dont get me wrong, there's plenty of ways to cover for it but risk factor would skyrocket during combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't understand the destructive capacity of modern weaponry.

 

Tanks are good because they are ground mobile, but in any sort of engagement with well armed forces, i.e. forces with effective anti-tank caliber weapons; they are going to incur massive causalities.

 

There's no armor that could make a giant robot practical, period. Because anything of that sort would be a giant target, and get smoked.

 

Let's not forget the whole unstealthyness of something of that nature.

 

A huge radar, infrared, visual, and auditory flare for all to see. It's going to be loud, big, produce loads of heat (unless it somehow runs on a method of locomotion we haven't thought of yet, which is very unlikely) and be a pretty big radar target. Tanks are low to the ground, which is why they are not generally detected by radar equipment.

 

Secondly, what kind of advantage would get gain from having a walking mechanoid type deal?

 

Any sort of weapons platform you could possibly put on a giant mech would be the same sorts of things you can put on tanks.

 

How would you handle the logistics of moving these mechs? the fuel they use, the ammo they use, and handle the maintenance they would require just for regular use, let alone combat repairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to understand that modern warfare works completely different from what you see in AC games.

 

There's no armor that could make a giant robot practical, period. Because anything of that sort would be a giant target, and get smoked.

 

Especially considering the instant you find wonder armor, it's just going to get applied to smaller vehicles and people. Far better use. Army rangers with wonder armor > an AC, all day.

 

Hell, Raor @ wonder armor > an AC.

 

Let's not forget the whole unstealthyness of something of that nature.

 

Potentially the single biggest problem. All of the most destructive stuff we have (carriers, subs, and airplanes) all hit from way out, and two of those also are able to hide until it's time to smash on doods.

 

Secondly, what kind of advantage would get gain from having a walking mechanoid type deal?

 

Exactly. There's literally nothing a giant walking robot gives you as an advantage. The closest thing to an advantage it could give you, in theory, are:

 

1. support to ground forces, like say a heavy weapons platform that can maneuver with a team moving through urban environments (or whatever) like a really tiny tank

2. doing what Metal Gear was built for in that series of games, which was basically to hide in mountains and fire ICBMs. So a walking submarine, basically

 

Of course there's flaws in both of those lines of logic, too.

 

All that being said, the State of Danger damn well better have a Department of Wonder Armor Production. We're going to need this stuff.

 

Elton, Exorcet, and I all went to school for Aerospace Engineering degrees, and we'd all agree that ACs are not at all real.

 

Exorcet is almost done with his degree, whereas Elton and I have ours, to clarify that last statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bipedal ACs would never come into existence due to stability issues same with Reverse joints not practical in real life. The only way anything remotely like an AC would be made it would be a quad, 6 and 8 leg mechs are possible but if you seen The Beast from the History Channel Reality Show "Around the World in 80 Ways", you will know something like that will be extrordinarily slow, The Beast only went 2 mph, it would be a sitting duck not to mention a bitch to operate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

because every idea starts out as am impractical concept

 

Way the other way around. An accidental discovery may start that way, but engineering is all about application. AC's won't exist until there is a purpose for them. However:

 

 

Aircraft and tanks are pretty much superior for the reasons pointed out in this thread.

 

Large scale bipedal robots don't make much sense. If AC's were built, they would maybe be human sized and basically act like SWAT police units in urban combat, but even then they aren't necessarily at an advantage.

 

Something like this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lVDFauOLo&feature=related

 

or this

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RsuFyklIaA

 

Could do the job with much less cost and complexity. Just give it cameras and/or small arms to infiltrate a building.

 

 

 

Also, I made these pictures because this has been asked before

 

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/qqqqqqqqqq/Therealfight.jpg

 

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/qqqqqqqqqq/F-22vsALIYA.png

 

BTW, good choice on being Mech E. If your school offers FSAE, do it. It's better than class.

Edited by Exorcet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay

You don't understand the destructive capacity of modern weaponry.

 

Tanks are good because they are ground mobile, but in any sort of engagement with well armed forces, i.e. forces with effective anti-tank caliber weapons; they are going to incur massive causalities. (1)

 

There's no armor that could make a giant robot practical, period. Because anything of that sort would be a giant target, and get smoked.

 

Let's not forget the whole unstealthyness of something of that nature

A huge radar infrared, visual, and auditory flare for all to see. It's going to be loud, big, produce loads of heat (unless it somehow runs on a method of locomotion we haven't thought of yet, which is very unlikely) and be a pretty big radar target. Tanks are low to the ground, which is why they are not generally detected by radar equipment.(1)

 

Secondly, what kind of advantage would get gain from having a walking mechanoid type deal?

 

Any sort of weapons platform you could possibly put on a giant mech would be the same sorts of things you can put on tanks.

 

How would you handle the logistics of moving these mechs? the fuel they use, the ammo they use, and handle the maintenance they would require just for regular use, let alone combat repairs.

 

Ohh my gaawwwd.. You people are so pessimistic. You guys are seriously missing the point of the thread. As I explained in the opening, ACs serve more as inspiration for more complex weapon systems. If ever, we do not intend on replicating the design of an Armored Core but rather perfect the concept of a robotic weapon system. Why the hell would we replicate such mistakes into so costly a project.

 

What I find most astonishing is the amount of talk of this so called "wonder armour" which is essentially highlighting that the model most of you guys have envisioned is exactly that of ACs in the game. Where am I coming from??? ACs in the game are literally indestructible, taking hits from cannon fire to missile spam and still being able to roam around freely like nothing happened. Get it in your heads that a robotic weapon system would have no such thing as wonder armour; leave that to video games. All real weapon systems are destructible and no weapon system on Earth could take the beating an AC in the game takes. Most of us have experience in the game and know that its AC model is impractical so if we're gonna discuss this subject, lets detach our selves from the idea of a video game replica of a weapon system.

 

Everything you guys are bringing up, Ive honestly already thought about. Im not a mechanical engineer yet, but the idea of a robotic weapon system didnt pop into my head yesterday. I've been thinking about the idea for years and all of these problems, in my perspective, are incredibly obvious.

 

Some of the already have solutions:

 

(1)radars/stealth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception and to top it off, why the hell would it need to be so damn tall?? I mean, the game already disproved some of you guys's size argument. They shortened them by half to open up a wider field of possibility of game play. I'm not resorting to the game for solutions here, but the idea is along the same lines: make the weapon system as small as possible to increase mobility and evasion of detection along with tactical capability. You gotta stick to a plan when building a weapon and that means finding its nitch. An AC/robotic weapon system or what ever you wanna call it wouldn't operate in stand alone missions. I dont think any weapon systems operate stand alone, there's always other components that enforcement the main weapon system to do its job accordingly and with the best rate of success.

 

I know that my vocabulary for explaining all of this hasnt been the most appropriate in terms of weapons and military talk but bear with me in seeing the point of my argument.

 

Creating and successfully testing a mech would be a marvel of engineering. There's a ton of contradictory arguments but they can all be resolved, its just a matter of engineering ;)

http://www.gizmowatch.com/entry/20-marvels-of-modern-engineering/

 

I like to think of my self as a visionary. Adversity is nothing but a bump on the road. Contradictions are nothing but motivation to go on progressing. Nothing that humanity has accomplished up to this point would have been possible if engineers simply threw in the towel after someone opposed their ideas.

 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the purpose of this retarded "vision" of giant battle mechs on the battlefield?

 

What is the role they play in the larger game of maneuver warfare?

 

What sort of offensive and defense capabilities would it bring to the table?

 

What are it's advantages over more conventional systems? i.e. Tanks and Aircraft.

 

What kind of locomotion is it going to use? (hydraulic, pneumatic, electric motors, chain drives, friction drives)

 

What kind of maintenance is it going to take to keep it combat ready?

 

What kind of weight displacement are we talking about? and on what terrains would it be viable?

 

How much fuel does it take per operational hour? and what is it's effective range of operation without refueling?

 

~

 

You seem to miss the problem we all have with the facts of reality shitting on the idea of having giant robots.

 

#1. They aren't going to give you a platform for more capable weapons.

#2. They aren't going to give you a greater defensive platform.

#3. They aren't going to be really maneuverable.

#4. They are going to be big, cumbersome, obvious, high-maintenance targets.

 

If there was technology to make your "vision" of a battle mechs, it stands to reason tanks, aircraft, and infantry weapons would all similarly be of a higher level of refinement, and it would run right back into the same problems.

 

You would need something more maneuverable than a tank, that can survive being hit by weapons that can defeat counter-measures like reactive armor, and penetrate 30 inches of hardened steel. Not to mention all the other regular infantry scale weapons, rifle and machine gun fire, grenades, mortars, etc.. etc..

 

It also has to handle terrain. I don't know if anyone told you, but a gigantic robot is going to weigh alot, and it's footprint will be fairly small to it's weight. A tank can operate in austere environments because treads displace weight, meaning it doesn't get stuck in the mud or snow. Walking robots however, almost certainly will, let's not even talk about the problems of being 80 tons and walking in the mountains, because you'd be fucked. You are also taking on a gigantic liability in the systems that will move the body in any sort of "humanoid" fashion, which are all subject to Murphy's Law (if it can fuck up, it will), sand, gunk, grit, fouling, etc.. will all clog up into hydraulics or whatever locomotion you use, not to mention any ground equipment is going to suck up shrapnel, flak, bullets, and whatever other abuse infantry grunts put on it.

 

It also has to do all this, while giving enough to the infantry force to make up for it's short-comings and cost. It's not a cheap project no matter what you do. It has to make up for it's inevitable short-falls and cost with performance. There's only about 4 land animals that can out-run an M1 Abrams tank, and they can only do so in short bursts, the M1 Abrams has a top speed of 65mph. If you think you can get a similarly sized robot to run anywhere near that fast, you need a lesson in physics. Any sort of offensive potential your system would have, are going to be fairly limited by the sheer amount of space on the system taken up by locomotion, motion control, fuel, and armor; especially when you consider the complexity of a humanoid structure (head, body, arms, legs) versus that of a tank (turret, chassis).

 

Not to rain on your parade, but it isn't going to fucking happen.

Edited by Enganacious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Exorcet: thats a pretty nice picture you got there but again, these are specification from the ACs in the game. How about these stats for an AC/Robotic Weapon System/Mech, what ever you wanna call it:

 

Crew- 1

Hight- ~ 15 ft

Weight- ~ 4000 lbs

Max Speed- ~ 500 mph

Cruise Spd- ~ 150-200 mph

Cealing- < 20,000 ft

*Attack Range- VARIABLE

**Sensor Range- 100+ miles

 

*Who's to say you can equip the system with missile that can strike from dozens of miles away. Robotic weapon systems could act as highly mobile howitzers being able to fire high caliber rounds.

 

**Sensory systems on robotic weapons would be part of vast networks from satellite feed to UAV drone feed, relaying information straight to the pilot without having to fly the craft thousands of feet into the air to effectively deploy radars over huge distances like fighters normally do. Nevertheless, radar could still be deployed at ground level with varying degrees of range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would an armored core do good or bad for the world?

 

Bad.

 

Does the world need armored cores?

 

No.

 

Are armored cores even an engineering possibility with, say, our current technological breakthroughs?

 

Structurally, sure. Functionally, no. Not how you see them in the games.

 

What purpose would ACs serve on the battle field? Think about the roles current weapon systems serve and find gaps.

 

Fodder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Egyptian_M109_during_Operation_Bright_Star_2005.jpg

 

If you think you are going to be a mobile howitzer, quick reality check, this is an M109 Self-Propelled Howitzer, and it weights 27 tons, has a 450hp engine, and can go about 35mph for 216 miles without refueling. The barrel on this bad boy weights almost a whole ton, it's not armored beyond stopping small arms fire (up to rifle fire, 50 caliber weapons can punch through the armor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creating and successfully testing a mech would be a marvel of engineering. There's a ton of contradictory arguments but they can all be resolved, its just a matter of engineering ;)

http://www.gizmowatc...rn-engineering/

 

It would be yeah, but it still wouldn't serve a purpose except entertainment.

 

Also, one great thing about radar jamming is that it tells every radar in the world where you are. You're going to simply plop jammers on something and make it invisible. Using jammers is more complex than that, and true stealth vehicles benefit from it more than non stealths do.

 

@ Exorcet: thats a pretty nice picture you got there but again, these are specification from the ACs in the game. How about these stats for an AC/Robotic Weapon System/Mech, what ever you wanna call it:

 

Crew- 1

Hight- ~ 15 ft

Weight- ~ 4000 lbs

Max Speed- ~ 500 mph

Cruise Spd- ~ 150-200 mph

Cealing- < 20,000 ft

*Attack Range- VARIABLE

**Sensor Range- 100+ miles

 

*Who's to say you can equip the system with missile that can strike from dozens of miles away. Robotic weapon systems could act as highly mobile howitzers being able to fire high caliber rounds.

 

**Sensory systems on robotic weapons would be part of vast networks from satellite feed to UAV drone feed, relaying information straight to the pilot without having to fly the craft thousands of feet into the air to effectively deploy radars over huge distances like fighters normally do. Nevertheless, radar could still be deployed at ground level with varying degrees of range.

 

I picked the AC4 AC, because it has better stats than a real AC would (except senor and attack range).

 

Your proposed AC is probably made obsolete by mobile long range howitzers, attack helicopters, or gunships. 500 mph is not even close to realistic for a mech. You're getting high in the subsonic mach speed range which means transonic effects, which means you need buckets of power to actually sustain your speed. An AC at 500 mph would make a brick look like a bullet aerodynamically. Then, there is also the stability issue. Also, you would need buckets of fuel to sustain the buckets of power, and fuel = weight.

 

Also, the AC wouldn't have the same strike range as the F-22 even with the same weapons. The F-22 flies higher and faster which increases its range. You're correct to say that the AC would have off board sensors from satellites, etc, but so does everything else.

Edited by Exorcet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cars weigh 4000lbs, there's no way an armed 15ft tall robot is going to weigh the same, unless you are making it out of paper mache.

It'd be unarmed. Lets keep in mind that this would be an approximate weight. There'd need be significant developments in allow research to come remotely close to this weight but I find it ideal because it'd be easier to transport them in conventional vehicles not to mention greater mobility.

 

 

What's the purpose of this retarded "vision" of giant battle mechs on the battlefield?

 

What is the role they play in the larger game of maneuver warfare?

 

What sort of offensive and defense capabilities would it bring to the table?

 

What are it's advantages over more conventional systems? i.e. Tanks and Aircraft.

 

What kind of locomotion is it going to use? (hydraulic, pneumatic, electric motors, chain drives, friction drives)

 

What kind of maintenance is it going to take to keep it combat ready?

 

What kind of weight displacement are we talking about? and on what terrains would it be viable?

 

How much fuel does it take per operational hour? and what is it's effective range of operation without refueling?

 

~

 

You seem to miss the problem we all have with the facts of reality shitting on the idea of having giant robots.

 

#1. They aren't going to give you a platform for more capable weapons.

#2. They aren't going to give you a greater defensive platform.

#3. They aren't going to be really maneuverable.

#4. They are going to be big, cumbersome, obvious, high-maintenance targets.

 

If there was technology to make your "vision" of a battle mechs, it stands to reason tanks, aircraft, and infantry weapons would all similarly be of a higher level of refinement, and it would run right back into the same problems.

 

You would need something more maneuverable than a tank, that can survive being hit by weapons that can defeat counter-measures like reactive armor, and penetrate 30 inches of hardened steel. Not to mention all the other regular infantry scale weapons, rifle and machine gun fire, grenades, mortars, etc.. etc..

 

It also has to handle terrain. I don't know if anyone told you, but a gigantic robot is going to weigh alot, and it's footprint will be fairly small to it's weight. A tank can operate in austere environments because treads displace weight, meaning it doesn't get stuck in the mud or snow. Walking robots however, almost certainly will, let's not even talk about the problems of being 80 tons and walking in the mountains, because you'd be fucked. You are also taking on a gigantic liability in the systems that will move the body in any sort of "humanoid" fashion, which are all subject to Murphy's Law (if it can fuck up, it will), sand, gunk, grit, fouling, etc.. will all clog up into hydraulics or whatever locomotion you use, not to mention any ground equipment is going to suck up shrapnel, flak, bullets, and whatever other abuse infantry grunts put on it.

 

It also has to do all this, while giving enough to the infantry force to make up for it's short-comings and cost. It's not a cheap project no matter what you do. It has to make up for it's inevitable short-falls and cost with performance. There's only about 4 land animals that can out-run an M1 Abrams tank, and they can only do so in short bursts, the M1 Abrams has a top speed of 65mph. If you think you can get a similarly sized robot to run anywhere near that fast, you need a lesson in physics. Any sort of offensive potential your system would have, are going to be fairly limited by the sheer amount of space on the system taken up by locomotion, motion control, fuel, and armor; especially when you consider the complexity of a humanoid structure (head, body, arms, legs) versus that of a tank (turret, chassis).

 

Not to rain on your parade, but it isn't going to fucking happen.

 

I never thought it would come in the form of an opposing argument, but youre starting to flow along the lines on the actual purpose of the thread because youre establishing feasible guidelines. Im gonna get back to this in my next post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing that humanity has accomplished up to this point would have been possible if engineers simply threw in the towel after someone opposed their ideas.

 

The thing is, there is no benefit to a mech to even justify pursuit of the idea. If you had that, this would be a good discussion.

 

The proposed mobile howitzer AC has such benefits, but it can't realisticly obtain them, so it's basically magic. If we're dealing with magic, we can say anything we want.

 

It'd be unarmed. Lets keep in mind that this would be an approximate weight. There'd need be significant developments in allow research to come remotely close to this weight but I find it ideal because it'd be easier to transport them in conventional vehicles not to mention greater mobility.

This is not a very logical way of thinking about it. You're basically saying "I thought of something great but impossible. Since it's great, we should pursue it, and the fact that it's impossible doesn't matter because I'll assume that it will become possible at some point."

 

Also, how is your weight at all approximate? It sounds like it came out of nothing. It should at least be based on some first order calculation. Can you justify 4000 lbs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, there is no benefit to a mech to even justify pursuit of the idea. If you had that, this would be a good discussion.

 

The proposed mobile howitzer AC has such benefits, but it can't realisticly obtain them, so it's basically magic. If we're dealing with magic, we can say anything we want.

 

 

This is not a very logical way of thinking about it. You're basically saying "I thought of something great but impossible. Since it's great, we should pursue it, and the fact that it's impossible doesn't matter because I'll assume that it will become possible at some point."

 

Also, how is your weight at all approximate? It sounds like it came out of nothing. It should at least be based on some first order calculation. Can you justify 4000 lbs?

 

How can it not be realistically obtained? The howitzer capabilities I mean. And as for the weight, its relatively light so thats where Im getting the number but its an approximation like I said.

But how is it that youre studying to become an engineer but make all of this impossible talk. Its like defeating the purpose of becoming an engineer because thats what they do: make the impossible, possible. There is always a way you just gotta find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...