First Military Exoskeleton Reaches Prototype 397
JonathanGCohen writes "The U.S. Military has created the first ever prototype for an exoskeleton to be worn by soldiers capable of making its 100 pound weight and a 70 pound supply package feel like five pounds." From the article: "Bleex 1 consists of a pair of hydraulically powered leg braces, more than 40 electronic sensors, a control computer, and an internal-combustion engine providing power from an attached backpack. The plastic and carbon-fiber braces are affixed rigidly to the soldier through a customized pair of standard Army boots, with more compliant and giving connections at the chest and waist. These looser connections prevent blisters and abrasions."
15 minutes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Responsiveness? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:15 minutes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which would you rather do? Ride a stagecoach for months to cross the country? or Fly for 15 minutes
I think you see where I'm going with this.
Tin soliders... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Responsiveness? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:15 minutes? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would definitely suck once the equipment fails (totally or partially) in the field. A soldier could be ditching up to 80% of their supplies after a failure.
Walking is not fighting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Boom! (Score:0, Insightful)
When will people learn the difference between it's and its?
Re:Responsiveness? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're talking about the response time here of the system, and yes on a big system it gets to be an issue. Rule of thumb is to keep the response time to under 100ms worst case which is usually doable.
Another issue is not only removing the apparent weight of what you are holding but also the inertia. Removing the weight in a control loop just requires good velocity sensors which are commonplace, but you still feel the weight when you change velocity. Removing the inertia means you have how measure the acceleration very accurately so you either get the acceleration directly from the sensor (high precision = expensive) or take the derivative of the velocity sensor which introduces delay and noise. Stable inertial compensation is not trivial.
Re:If they only up-armored it (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be good if they figured out how to enclose a soldier in plated armor strong enough to withstand a IED (although that maight be a lot of armor).
The main benefits of that would be that even though you are slow you can take a punishment and still be able to get into alleys, buildings, and other places a M1Abrahms can't get into.
Then again... It would be more logical to send in a remote controlled robot with a machine gun on it.
Just a Prototype (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we have the prototype stage when we build something.
When Goddard launched his first rockets, people didn't say "Yeah, but how're you going to get to the moon on that?"
You build, find the shortcomings of your design, improve, and test again.
The suit probably doesn't have any practical application now, but future versions in five - ten years might allow military mechanics to fix heavy vehicles quickly, and in 20 - 50 years, our soldiers might be able to carry better body armor into combat with less restrictions than the current body armor (which is heavy in its own right).
I like the idea that our soldiers who are being shot at will eventually be able to move faster, shoot more effectively, wear more protection, and be better equiped than their enemies.
Re:15 minutes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or point out, that the ability to move 200lbs up rugged terrain and trenches which are inaccessible by vehicle would allow a vehicle level weapon to be brought by a light mechanized infantry unit.
For example: such a system could allow a heavier caliber gatling machine gun to be mounted on a mountain side. A ordinance not normally able to be carried by infantry; to a position unreachable by vehicle. Where as currently, an infantry unit may have one heavy infantry weapon (machine gun, anti-tank weapon, bazooka, stinger, etc.) Such a system if it could be powered for prolonged use would allow every member of a squad to have heavy armament. When a platoon of mechanized infantry have the means to quickly move and engage with heavy ordinance an armored unit (tank) it makes the tanks much less viable.
Furthermore, this doesn't even address if they were to replace the ICE with a nuclear powerplant. Often the case for such a design as this specifies to design a unit that operates and functions on a powerplant of "X" amount. Then the powerplant is developed seperately and eventually substituted.
For instance, with fighter jets, most prototypes do not use final engines. Often they are told to design the jet with the expectations that the final engines will provide x thousand lbs of thrust/lbs of engine. But are first tested with engines that often do not provide such power levels. Later in the final prototypes the engines are replaced with the new final units.
I imagine the plan of feasibility is that these things will eventually run off a non ICE power plant.
Re:Boom! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:15 minutes? (Score:4, Insightful)
At this time, that is true. But historically, nations rise and fall based on either economics or military. Overall, We are quickly losing the economics to china. And quietly, GWB is losing ground on the military to china. The longer that we stay in a protracted war introducing all of our elements, the easier it is for an somebody to figure out how to counter it.
Interesting but not a future question (Score:2, Insightful)
Cruise missles, ICBMs and even just vastly superior artillery and aircraft make the "causing of pain to [other men] with no risk to [themselves]" a reality now.
Cruise missles were launched on Bagdad from ships in the Red Sea. That ship was not in any danger from the people it attacked. Even the stealth bombers that participated in the first attacks on Bagdad were not in any credible danger from Iraqi forces.
What is my point? Well, I'm not sure, execpt to point out that your question is immediate and requires thought now. We don't need to wait for robots to need the discussion.
Backyard science project (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:15 minutes? Nuclear Power Plant! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:15 minutes? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can get a bigger gun in a more advantageous location, then I would want these in my army. They're certainly not being implemented as replacements for forklifts.
You're right though. This would not help in Iraq. Neither would gauss rifles mind you. It would be nice to see some more technological advances for the urban war.
Re:15 minutes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If they only up-armored it (Score:4, Insightful)
A foot soldier can already take on a tank. http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm [defense-update.com]
Imagine a soldier carrying a ton of armour, yet able to move almost as quickly as a man, yet impervious to most weapons...
Well, based on other posts, it looks like armor ain't what it used to be. But imagine a soldier carrying a hornet's nest of anime-style swarming missiles. He'd be a like a mobile squad-level point defense station.
Re:15 minutes? (Score:1, Insightful)
Give me a fucking break. This thing, just like an APC or anything else lighter than a full blown Abrams is going to be anti-tank missile fodder. There will be a guy crawling along in a ditch with another guy hauling a video camera and it (the exoskeleton and its wearer) will get capped. Want to see how it happens? Do a little creative querying for uncensored video on ambushes in Iraq. Even with the armor of the Abrams AT-14 Kornet missiles can give them a run for the money.. and somehow these weapons keep showing up in the third world. And no, being more "maneuverable" won't give them an advantage when they're getting sucker punched.
Yeah, I'm sure a jihadist that's willing to die is going to be intimidated by jack and shit. We're not fighting the cold war, and we're not playing Battletech. If you need a gun emplacement to secure an area, then build an emplacement. Otherwise, weapons need to get lighter, soldiers need to get stealthier, and overall we need to infiltrate the opposition and get deadlier. If you're going for sci-fi weaponry create lethal nanomachines and turn em loose in enemy enclaves. Big and armored is out. Small, fast, quiet and lethal is in.
Re:If they only up-armored it (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget the anti-armor missiles, a good hit in the upper portion of the thing would probably be enough to knock it down even if the round doesn't penetrate the armor. Once it's down, you could probably pick it apart pretty easily.
internal combustion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If they only up-armored it (Score:5, Insightful)
For peace-keeping, of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Gotta love those peace-keeping missions. Keep up the good work, USA. At this rate, the world WILL be full of people wishing you blown to high heavens. Surely US taxpayers' money would be better spent making ammends with the victims of the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, and other countries ravaged by US foreign policy
Re:Prototype includes legislator-ready PR photo (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, plan your multi-billion dollar expenses on the sexiness of the machine boys, not on the functionality. I too get "the willies" thinking that people this infantile are sitting with their finger on the metaphorical nuclear button.
You don't suppose that rather than try to dig up classified information, or try to determine the objective criteria used in the decision(things like unrefueled range, weapons load, maintainability, cost, situation awareness aids, etc. ) that the producers took an easy out and said it won because, " Oooooh, its pretty and fast!" I find that notion easier to believe than the assertion that a major defense program providing the primary air superiority fighter for the Air Force, the F-22 [f22-raptor.com] would be decided primarily on aesthetics and that said selection would survive scrutiney by the Department of the Air Force, DOD, Congress, and the President. There are many philosophical positions that can impact programs like this, (purpose built vs general purpose, heavy vs light) but ugly vs pretty isn't really one of them. If it were, two of the most effective aircraft the US has built would never have seen the light of day: the F-117 Nighthawk [af.mil] stealth figher, and the A-10 Thunderbold II [af.mil], AKA Warthog.