nanis@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Jeff Nanis) (05/24/91)
From: nanis@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Jeff Nanis) camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) writes: >When queried, he ran off a whole list of stuff: 5 lbs >personal airconditioners (7 lbs if you want filtration), >layered Kevlar armors, reactive armors, heads up displays, >integrated circuits, modular systems, power augmentation >for hadicapped that run on neural inputs that funcion much >like orginal limbs, hand/shoulder held/fired antitank weapons, >etc. > [Who's going to do the maintenaince on all that? --CDR] Contractors, like the 4000+ who maintained all the high-tech toys in Desert Shindig. How else do you think things like the Apache were able to achieve >98% availability rates? It's interesting to look at the growth of contractor support during operational/combat employment over the last 50 years. Much of the early days of EW (up through Vietnam), the "electronic warriors" were civilans - DoD employees or contractors. Although that particular function has been hard-wired into the system a little bit, things like depot-level maintenance are still handled by civilian professionals with many more years experience than an E-6 whose been rotated around two or three times in his 8 years of service. Currently CVs have more than a hundred contractors for support at all times. Does the future hold an increase in this trend? -- Jeff Nanis Radars 'r' us. nanis@ll.mit.edu An official opinion? Not on my life.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/25/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) >...contention that we are near the tech level needed for [Powered Armor] There are a couple of crucial shortfalls in our current technology, I think. One is the need for force-feedback technology for effective control. We will see powered armor after, not before, we have high-quality "waldos", robot arms that follow the motions of a separate human operator. Current waldos are decidedly crude, and in particular do not give the operator any tactile feedback on what's going on at the other end. Worse, there is little work being done on improving them. Second is the sheer mass of both the necessary motors and the necessary power source. Portable energy-storage systems have pitifully small energy capacities for their mass. I'd guess you would end up with some sort of fuel-burning engine (baby gas turbine?) driving a hydraulic pump. Batteries are hopeless; don't expect battery-operated powered armor until electric cars are plentiful and perform well. The motor situation is improving, but energy storage isn't, much. >What real use would PA have in combat? I think this is the real question. Its advantages will be minimal unless it's good enough armor to make it just about invulnerable to well-equipped infantry. Otherwise it is cheaper and simpler to just field more infantry. Considering rifles, heavy machine guns, grenades, and the smaller shoulder- launched missiles, that level of protection is a tall order. You can't assume that the armored soldier has superior weapons, because it will be easy to equip infantry with the same weapons -- the infantry won't find them as easy to carry, but there will be lots more infantrymen to carry them, and the infantry is used to doing pack-mule duty :-). One possible exception is if the armored soldiers make heavy use of chemical and biological weaponry, since they'll have a much easier time carrying full life support and adequate cooling. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
abennett@athena.mit.edu (Andrew Bennett) (05/25/91)
From: abennett@athena.mit.edu (Andrew Bennett) > If we really wanted to, could we actually produce effective > PA? If not, what advances still have to be made and what is > the estimated time frame for developement of the respecive > technologies to arrive? > > What real use would PA have in combat? Would they be a cost > effective alternative to convential weapons? A quickie estimate (backgrtound - I've had about a year of robotice/man-amplifier systems experience, as well as about 3 years of weapons design). PA requires three main features: a dense, long-lasting power supply, a robust control/feedback system to manuver it, and a reason to build it. 1) Power supply - you need enough power to keep the systems running for a few hours if you want to make it worthwhile (a suit that only runs for an hour or two between refuelings isn't going to be able to range very far afield). Figuring that it has to propel the user quickly (to avoid being a target), carry a considerable weight in weapons, air conditioning/purifying systems, radiation hardening (optional), shock-proofing (otherwise a near miss is as good as a hit), and supplies (water is probably the most important), it is going to need a very dense, relatively light power source. That means some form of combustion like an internal combustion engine or turbine system (possibly, some new form of fuel cell might work, too). All of these tend to get large quickly. 2) Control system - It has to be able to balance as well as a human, or at least offer feedback good enough for the human's sense of balance to work. Either way, that's a lot of real-time processing and sensing going on. So, figure each suit requires a processor in the 10-100's of mflops, maybe more. Add to that the threat sensing, target acquisition systems and whatever other targeting/weapons goodies you want, and the total processor is definitely not a trivial device. 3) Reason to build it - What does PA offer to make it worthwhile? It will definitely be an expensive proposition to build it. You'll need the latest in strong, light technologies for it, and those aren't cheap (see: B-2). You'll also need state of the art computer and sensing systems, their accompanying software, and all of it has to be robust and *very* reliable. In return, the PA offers a smaller, more nimble target than a tank. That, unfortunately, is about it. The economics tend to point away from such a device. Think of it this way: you generally don't use a weapons system against a target unless the return on your efforts is greater than the loss if you lose your weapon. i.e. you don't attack individual tanks with cruise missiles (unless it's one **** of a dangerous tank), since the effort to produce the missile is much greater to you than the loss of the tank would be to the other side. So, you'd only employ PA against very valuable targets. BUT, if they're valuable, then they're probably well defended. In that case, why risk trained soldiers when an automaton (smart bomb, cruise missile, etc.) may do the job just as well (and cheaper)? 3a) Tactical consideration - PA has one operator, so he/she has to do *everything*: maneuver, targeting, threat monitoring, etc. This can quickly become overwhelming. So, you'll have to develop even *better* sensing/warning systems to help. More cost, sigh. Finally, for the cost of the PA, the other side may deploy a swarm of infantry with small missiles. They can afford more losses then the PA side can (much like your PA vs. tank scenario in the original posting). Summary: I don't think it's worth the $$. Sorry. -- Andrew Bennett MIT Network Services abennett@mit.edu MIT Room 11-124H abennett%athena@mitvma.bitnet 77 Massachusetts Ave. Phone: (617) 253-7174 Cambridge, MA 02139 <Standard disclaimers apply>
fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/25/91)
From: fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) writes: >When queried, he ran off a whole list of stuff: 5 lbs >personal airconditioners (7 lbs if you want filtration), >layered Kevlar armors, reactive armors, heads up displays, >integrated circuits, modular systems, power augmentation >for hadicapped that run on neural inputs that funcion much >like orginal limbs, hand/shoulder held/fired antitank weapons, etc. I think you friend's numbers are somewhat low. I know the all the required systems except "power augmentation" can be built today. In fact, there is a guy at NASA/Ames building one right now (he calls it a "Hard Space Suit" and has not considered any military applications...) From the numbers I have seen, a closed-loop air supply (e.g. full CBW gear) and cooling systems, together with the armor itself, would weigh about 75 to 150 kg. Most of it could, as I suggested above, be taken from space suit design, including the armor. The Hard Space Suit I mentioned above has been tested to withstand damage from micrometeors. They fired 0.1mm projectiles at the suit at up to 10,000 m/s. What sort of armor this is equivilent to, I'm not exactly sure. >Royal even postulized that it might be possible to field >20 or more PA equiped troops for the cost of normal armored >vehicles. I rather doubt these cost figures. >What real use would PA have in combat? Would they be a cost >effective alternative to convential weapons? There are two big advantages I could see. First, with some sort of "power agumentation" an infantryman could carry more and better weapons. Second, he would be much more survivable in combat. HE and anti-personel weapons would be as deadly. Infantry Fighting Vehicles (such as the M-2 Bradley) are intended to do this, but as long as the infantry is safe, they are also much less effective (e.g. they can't fight well from a IFV). This would not be a problem for infantry in "power armor" Frank Crary
nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) (05/30/91)
From: nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >I think you friend's numbers are somewhat low. I know the all the >required systems except "power augmentation" can be built today. In >fact, there is a guy at NASA/Ames building one right now (he calls it a >"Hard Space Suit" and has not considered any military applications...) [rest deleted] Power augmentation is required for a 1G environ. It's the one thing you cite as lacking, and on earth it's the most important (possibly tied with feedback/control to go with it). Space suits live in 0g. Walking a 75-150 kg (your numbers, deleted above) suit around would be too taxing for a human powered suit. Neil Kirby
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (05/31/91)
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) writes: >If we really wanted to, could we actually produce effective >[Power Armor]? If not, what advances still have to be made and what is >the estimated time frame for developement of the respecive >technologies to arrive? The two major blocking technologies keeping PA from deployment are power packs and neural/force actuator technology. Current laboratory experiments with neural control still result in shakey control after elaborate training/tuning and must be custom fit to the individual and retuned if the individual's emotional state changes. Force sensor/amplifier/actuator technology is closer to reality, but still requires elaborate custom fitting and training to be effective. Application of DSP and AI techniques may make both control methods feasible in the fairly near term (<20 years). Considerable training/conditioning will likely still be required. This training would be akin to athletic training for complex neuro-motor sports. There are no current power pack designs that can supply the necessary power for reasonable amounts of time and still be carried, even by an augmented man. New battery and fuel cell designs are in the lab that might work for fairly short missions, but cracking the 24 hr unrefueled barrier is going to be tough. >What real use would PA have in combat? Would they be a cost >effective alternative to convential weapons? If the refueling problem can be licked, they'd make ideal long range patrol forces. With current sensor technology, they'd be good jungle warfare troops. Their uses on urban battlefields should be obvious. Use in an open enviornment where tank killers have field days wouldn't be so good. They'd still be slower, less well armed, and less well armored than real tanks. The primary advantages of PA are the enchanced sensors (nearly real today), body armor against light weapons (again nearly real), heavier weapons (nearly real), and the ability to quickly move that load anywhere a man can walk or crawl on the battlefield (this isn't real yet). >Hey, is someone already working on PA? What is the progress so far? I'm only aware of some Army experiments nearly 20 years ago with powered exoskeletons. The control technologies weren't up to the task then. They may be soon. The design goal was a man who could run, climb, and crawl at least as well as an unagumented man while carrying the heavy armor, armaments, and sensors envisioned. Ideally, a top burst speed of 35 mph was desired. What was achieved was a slow walking pace of 3 mph and poor agility. Control technology has advanced dramatically since then, I have no information on current attempts to build PA. Gary
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (06/10/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes: >There are no current power pack designs that can supply the necessary >power for reasonable amounts of time and still be carried, even by an >augmented man. New battery and fuel cell designs are in the lab that >might work for fairly short missions, but cracking the 24 hr unrefueled >barrier is going to be tough. This is not the case. Moving around a 100-kg suit should be roughly the maximum power output of a human (E.g. doing this by your self would be the most one could do, but not impossible. Note I said power NOT force.) Using this as a guess as to power requirments, this implies a 2 kW, or roughly 3 horsepower output. Allowing for efficiencies, I can't see such a suit requiring more than 10 hp. Are you saying that a 10 hp motor is too big? Frank Crary
bsercomb@gara.une.oz.au (Katani) (06/12/91)
From: bsercomb@gara.une.oz.au (Katani) > maximum power output of a human (E.g. doing this by your self would be > the most one could do, but not impossible. Note I said power NOT > force.) Using this as a guess as to power requirments, this implies a 2 > kW, or roughly 3 horsepower output. Allowing for efficiencies, I can't > see such a suit requiring more than 10 hp. Are you saying that a 10 hp > motor is too big? the original idea was for the suit to be completely self powered, carrying a fuel payload for about 1week+, having optical/detection enhancement and weapons. The weapons can be carried on the body or in the hands. Integrating such a piece of technology is a tough chore. The optics have to be independant of the movement processing hence 2 computers. Next, how big are the assisting units [which supply power to the skeleton]??
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (06/13/91)
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >kW, or roughly 3 horsepower output. Allowing for efficiencies, I can't >see such a suit requiring more than 10 hp. Are you saying that a 10 hp >motor is too big? No, the motors, or force actuators, are really quite small and light nowadays. Supplying more than 6 kw for 24 hours to run the motors is the problem. Note that your power estimates are based on a human just barely carrying a suit. What is required is a suit that can exhibit the speed and agility of an unencumbered man or better while carrying relatively heavy weapons and perhaps even having the strength to bash heavy doors or tip a jeep. In addition to power for movement, power is needed to operate the sensor and control system and to supply enviornmental conditioning for the occupant. Some weapon systems, for example an electrically operated minigun, would require power as well. That implies higher power figures than you quote. I'd guess more like 15 to 20 kw peak. Even a 6 kw peak system that can supply 144 kwh without refueling is not small or light. A further constraint is that the power generation be quiet and have a low IR signature. A screaming gas turbine would negate much of the stealth advantage of PA. Nearly all the technologies to build PA are available or expected in the near term. The power supply problem is the major stumbling block. Whether PA is really militarily useful is another question. With the occupant buttoned up for NBC protection, with a sensor system capable of working in low light, low sound level, low olifactory level, radar, lidar, and god knows what else, with protection against most light weapons, with fairly heavy offensive weapons, and the agility of an unencumbered man to walk, run, crawl, crouch, or fight, PA would be a formidable tool on the urban battlefield. Slipping through the jungle with the enhanced senses provided by PA, it would be a formidable jungle fighting tool. Sauntering across an open tank killing ground, it would be suicide. Gary
phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (06/15/91)
From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes: >Whether PA is really militarily useful is another question. With the >occupant buttoned up for NBC protection, with a sensor system capable >of working in low light, low sound level, low olifactory level, radar, >lidar, and god knows what else, with protection against most light >weapons, with fairly heavy offensive weapons, and the agility of an >unencumbered man to walk, run, crawl, crouch, or fight, PA would be >a formidable tool on the urban battlefield. Slipping through the >jungle with the enhanced senses provided by PA, it would be a formidable >jungle fighting tool. Hm, I wonder how much this thing would weigh and how big its feet would be. Could it swim? Cross a rice paddy? What if you spent the money instead on rifles and cheap drafted soldiers? I'm not sure how this thing could really be economic. Or even more effective, a squad of soldiers with radios calling in air dropped smart weapons. This idea of armor seems of limited value. A dozen soldiers with machine guns ought to be able to hose up the PA's sensors pretty well. The only value I see to PA is the ability to carry more than a human can. Well, airplanes can do that too.
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (06/24/91)
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) In article <1991Jun18.074541.15334@amd.com> phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: > >Hm, I wonder how much this thing would weigh and how big its feet would >be. Could it swim? Cross a rice paddy? What if you spent the money >instead on rifles and cheap drafted soldiers? I'm not sure how this >thing could really be economic. A guestimate on weight would be around 150 kilos depending on the weight of the problematic power supply and it's fuel. Since the suit would be capable of operating totally buttoned up for NBC protection, it could simply walk across the bottom of rivers, and need not be able to swim. I doubt it would float, but it might be able to swim if necessary. A number 12 shoe should be big enough to have about the same ground loading as a normal man. As to it's value versus cannon fodder, US doctrine has lately been to expend money on high tech rather than accept high casualty rates. The Chinese might have a different perspective. >Or even more effective, a squad of soldiers with radios calling in >air dropped smart weapons. This idea of armor seems of limited value. >A dozen soldiers with machine guns ought to be able to hose up the >PA's sensors pretty well. The only value I see to PA is the ability >to carry more than a human can. Well, airplanes can do that too. Airplanes aren't very good at house to house fighting in civilian neighborhoods. And you never seem to be able to find air support when you need it. The fly boys always seem to want to go off chasing other airplanes, or somebody with more rank wants *their* anthill smashed first. The advantage granted by the sensor net is that you would know about those dozen soldiers before they knew about you granting you the advantage of surprise or evasion. In most cases in Vietnam, jungle ambushes were over long before air power could be brought into play. Gary
kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Kemp Ashby) (06/27/91)
From: kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz(Kemp Ashby) In <1991Jun18.074541.15334@amd.com> phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >Hm, I wonder how much this thing would weigh and how big its feet would >be. Could it swim? Cross a rice paddy? What if you spent the money >instead on rifles and cheap drafted soldiers? I'm not sure how this >thing could really be economic. Generally, I agree. However, don't forget that the 'Quantity beats Quality' argument was somewhat disproved in the gulf, though I appreciate that the scales are different. Also PA would obviously be more effective in some settings than others. >Or even more effective, a squad of soldiers with radios calling in >air dropped smart weapons. This idea of armor seems of limited value. Yes, but that means that you need to have at your disposal a large number of aircraft to target a possibly highly mobile enemy - this doesn't sound very economic either. >A dozen soldiers with machine guns ought to be able to hose up the >PA's sensors pretty well. Assuming you can hit the target that accurately. How often in modern combat would it be the case that a man-sized target can be hit often enough to be able to hose off all of the (probably highly redundant) sensors? What if the range to the PA is over a couple of hundred yards? Assuming you can even hit the target, you'll need more powerful weapons than current assault rifles to have any effect that far out, ie the 12 soldiers you speak of will have to carry M60s or something - very tiring. And its not very good for morale to know that you are facing a superior enemy, even though there may be less of them.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (06/29/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Jun27.020204.3941@cbnews.cb.att.com>, kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Kemp Ashby) writes: >>Or even more effective, a squad of soldiers with radios calling in >>air dropped smart weapons. This idea of armor seems of limited value. > >Yes, but that means that you need to have at your disposal a large number >of aircraft to target a possibly highly mobile enemy - this doesn't sound >very economic either. Why bother with that? SADARM munitions (Search And Destroy ARMor) are currently being fielded. Launchable by 155mm shell now, but the form factor is such that you could fit it down a mortar tube. SADARM is about the size of a tomato can and fires a self-forging fragment down into the engine compartment of a vehicle. Given current processor advances, it would be easy enough to design a smart munition to find a PA-sized target and punch a SFF through it. The Merlin 81mm (?) mortar shell also is a smart weapon which could be reworked to counter the PA threat should it evolve. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --