Armored Military Outfit

Nique · 01-15-2007, 03:20 AM

Master Cheif?

I put this in disscussion becuase I wanted to tackle to actuality of this. Is it realistic? Viable?

Also - this increased defensive move, if employed, means what for the future of military advancement? More deadly guns to overcome the armour? Bypassing ground battle altogethor?

Mannix · 01-15-2007, 05:36 AM

it means that anybody that can afford to use them on any kind of scale (the US and Western Europe) will have an edge against everybody that can't, just like with current body armor systems. since most wars are probably going to be fought against terrorists/rebel groups/3rd world militias in the future I doubt this'll lead to much escalation, as the other guys will just be running around with AKs just like they are now. Pretty friggin sweet suit though.

Sithdarth · 01-15-2007, 07:18 AM

Gimme a few years to get my PHD in materials science and I'll make it lighter and more impact resistant. Also, its perfectly possible with current technology. The problem is the US military would rather spend a few billion on some shiny new planes rather than making their troops safer.

adamark · 01-15-2007, 07:42 AM

That suit would be cool for Delta Forces and and other SpecOps type forces. Neat stuff.

Arhra · 01-15-2007, 08:26 AM

I must say, while better armour for troops is a good idea, that suit's laughable. I think I need only point out this little line from its creator:

"I did look at Star Wars. I did look at Halo."

I do not believe those are very good sources.

The suit itself doesn't exactly strike me as a masterpiece of design. Rather bulky and I couldn't help but notice the neck's rather exposed. Not to mention the fingers. I would think those are things you would like to be protected from explosions and such. While I think of it, crotch clock? What's wrong with having clocks on the forearm?!

Anyway, to move things along in the discussion area, there have been a lot of military projects to research this sort of thing. For example, a quick search came across this little press clipping about the US Future Force Warrior. Of course, that's a little dated, given the news is from 2004.

Funnily enough, there's a How Stuff Works article about it too.

Myself, I think a lot of this stuff is still pie in the sky, but some manner of armoured suit coming into use in the military is inevitable.

Sithdarth · 01-15-2007, 08:59 AM

Except that the Future Weapons system is at least 20 years away if it even works. That and its horribly complex. You need sensors to detect a bullet impact, ones that work damn fast at that. You need sensors to detect when the wearer decides to lift something. You need sensors to determine when the wearer wants to take a step. Then you need a computer to interpret the sensory data, again damn fast, and send out proper commands. Then you need one hell of a power generation/storage system to power all this stuff. The liquid bullet protection stuff itself seems like its going to need large amounts of power. (It only works if you concentrate as much energy into the impact sight as the impacting object has. This tends to be a hell of a lot with most modern bullets.)

Quote:

"I did look at Star Wars. I did look at Halo."

I do not believe those are very good sources.

Well at least he looked for examples. I mean its not like he copied verbatim he looked and took what seemed to work and left out what didn't work. Not all examples are good examples and sometimes looking at bad ones is as good as looking at good ones.

Quote:

The suit itself doesn't exactly strike me as a masterpiece of design. Rather bulky and I couldn't help but notice the neck's rather exposed. Not to mention the fingers. I would think those are things you would like to be protected from explosions and such.

Yeah because its so much better to have you head, legs, and most of your arms totally exposed. I mean its not like troops don't still get large chunks of limbs blown off in standard gear. I'm all for the armies future force suit but I think they shouldn't wait that long. We can build armor that's somewhere in between that and today's armor right now and save a lot of lifes. Oh and he seemed to be able to move quite well in that despite its appearance. I'm guessing its padding because traditional bullet resistant materials, and that new liquid metal stuff, don't do well against large scale high impact events. (Those would be explosions.)

Mannix · 01-15-2007, 11:35 AM

well, despite his being a nerd the guy did invent the bear-impenetrable suit. it's not like he's some random jackass that put together some fancy looking pvc piece of shit.

Darth SS · 01-15-2007, 08:15 PM

Him posing in it? Not furthering his cause.

I question really only four things about it:

1) Wear, tear and comfort. Most combat operations take place in deserts now. Sand is going to get inside that thing. Will that destroy from the inside out? Second, how long will that thing survive in a combat operation? Will falling and such slowly knock the armor plates off centre? Will weather erode it? Does it need maintenance, etc. Finally, is it comfortable to wear? I understand that's not exactly a paramount concern, but if you think about it, it is valid. You don't want to be walking about a fucking desert with sand grinding against your skin in a terribly uncomfortable tin can for 15 hours.

2) ...Good god, what's with the helmet. There's a few things I question about it, but it boils down to three primary points.

A) You'd have absolutely no peripheral vision. None. Sure, a bit to the sides, but nothing up and down, and not as much side to side. That would definitely be a problem.

B) It's fucking HUGE! I can't even imagine trying to room-clear with that on! You'd hit your head on everything, and if you bent over to duck, you'd be blind on account of that peripheral vision thing.

C) Afghanistan in particular is a war won and lost by getting the locals on your side. You want to show them that you are just a person like them. That thing is more likely to inspire absolute terror and further the message of "The people from the West are actually demons!"

3) Mobility. He had a hard time moving around in it, even if he said "I designed it to allow hand to hand combat." Something tells me his idea of hand to hand combat was "I'm in a blooming tank, they can hit me as much as they want."

4) Cost. You need to be able to ensure quality and then distribute to thousands ofsoldiers. Quickly.

Looking at Star Wars doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. Oddly enough, I think was the most innovative, realistic, and potentially functional armor designs was that of the Republic Commandoes. It accounted for range of motion, and the plates could be construed as ballistics protection.

Fifthfiend · 01-15-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

"I did look at Star Wars. I did look at Halo."

I do not believe those are very good sources.

If it weren't for science taking its cues from science fiction, where would the moon landing, laser pointers, or Japan have come from?

Funka Genocide · 01-15-2007, 09:23 PM

I was only able to see a still picture, as my current computer doesn't allow streaming video, but it looks as if the suit has a stationary helmet, I think someone mentioned that it wouldn't provide enough peripheral vision, however from a purely defense minded standpoint it makes sense, as even the most well padded helmet that's only secured to the skull will allow concussive trauma to vibrate the head or injure the neck. It basically bolts to the more secure skeletal structure of the torso thusly eliminating this possibility. It may be aesthetically unpleasing, but it would offer more protection. The vision ports are necessarily small to prevent a weakness in structural integrity I would suppose.

Something interesting is that peripheral vision in a firefight is not as important as one might suspect. We tend to think of things in Hollywood fashion, bullets flying and heros reacting with lightning fast reflexes to the merest twitch of enemy movement, but in reality accurate fire is done when you're facing forward, sighted down the barrel of the gun. Human beings aren't superheros, and it takes a lot of focus to have a chance of hitting a moving target while your adrenaline is pumping, most shots miss anyways. In a close range firefight, having a bullet proof head would be more important than unimpeded peripheral vision.

Thinking of a solution to this hindrance though, one could use three dimensional photography and a direct video feed to the eyes (like the virtual boy!) which would move as you moved your head within the stationary helmet. THis would require, I think, a motion tracking unit to determine which direction your eyes were pointed.

Then again, somebody mentioned the neck was exposed, I guess I was wrong. Shit. Oh well, I think my idea is better then.

It hink another main concern of body armor is comfort and durability. It doesn't make sense to be impervious to damage if you can't stand to wear the thing for longer than five minutes. In order to be effecctive it must be comfortable enough to remain on for prolonged periods of time. I think a lot of the stuff that Nike and other sports gear manufacturers do would help in this. Sweat wicking fabrices that breathe and allow air flow over the skin would sriously improve comfort levels I believe. How the armor actually fastens to the human frame is also important, I believe ergonomics is a prime concern, trying to cover the greatest and most vital surface area whil still maintaining an adequate range of motion is paramount.

Using substances that retain impact and piercing resistance even when they're not rigid for the joints and bulkier but more protective substances for the stationary parts of the body is the obvious decision. I believe the primary concern of body armor is to keep the wearer tactically viable as long as possible, while the secondary concern is to just keep them alive as long as possible. Joints will always be relatively vulnerable, as mobility is far more important than physical defense in a tactical situation. You can still kill without protection, you just might die yourself.

This all takes into account an unpowered armor suit, and things like this all ready exist and are in use. SWAT teams use the basic idea, though their helmets are mobile. Adding an energy source opens up all kinds of possibilities. Using a robotics program and some sort of assisted locomotion you could have a suit that responds to the movement of the wearer in predicted patterns, adding support and force to the movements and allowing the wearer to bear a heavier load. The SEALs have used something like this I think, a harness around the legs that lets them carry more weight while running, not sure where I heard that though. Basically it uses an exoskeletal structure to support and compliment the wearers actions. This would allow for the usage of heavier armor as well as for the inclusion of an onboard power supply.

Of course this is pretty much Space Marine armor, so it's nothing new. Whoever shot down science fiction as an improper source has obviously never played Warhammer 40K. heh.

ok I'm just rambling, I like power armor. My bad.

01-15-2007, 05:36 AM	#2
Mannix Tenacious C Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 991	it means that anybody that can afford to use them on any kind of scale (the US and Western Europe) will have an edge against everybody that can't, just like with current body armor systems. since most wars are probably going to be fought against terrorists/rebel groups/3rd world militias in the future I doubt this'll lead to much escalation, as the other guys will just be running around with AKs just like they are now. Pretty friggin sweet suit though. __________________ Dangerous, mute lunatic.

01-15-2007, 08:26 AM	#5
Arhra Ara ara! Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Neo Venezia Posts: 5,013	I must say, while better armour for troops is a good idea, that suit's laughable. I think I need only point out this little line from its creator: "I did look at Star Wars. I did look at Halo." I do not believe those are very good sources. The suit itself doesn't exactly strike me as a masterpiece of design. Rather bulky and I couldn't help but notice the neck's rather exposed. Not to mention the fingers. I would think those are things you would like to be protected from explosions and such. While I think of it, crotch clock? What's wrong with having clocks on the forearm?! Anyway, to move things along in the discussion area, there have been a lot of military projects to research this sort of thing. For example, a quick search came across this little press clipping about the US Future Force Warrior. Of course, that's a little dated, given the news is from 2004. Funnily enough, there's a How Stuff Works article about it too. Myself, I think a lot of this stuff is still pie in the sky, but some manner of armoured suit coming into use in the military is inevitable. __________________ This post is a good source of Ara ara, ufufu.* *These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This post is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

01-15-2007, 11:35 AM	#7
Mannix Tenacious C Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 991	well, despite his being a nerd the guy did invent the bear-impenetrable suit. it's not like he's some random jackass that put together some fancy looking pvc piece of shit. __________________ Dangerous, mute lunatic.

01-15-2007, 07:18 AM	#3
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	Gimme a few years to get my PHD in materials science and I'll make it lighter and more impact resistant. Also, its perfectly possible with current technology. The problem is the US military would rather spend a few billion on some shiny new planes rather than making their troops safer.

01-15-2007, 09:23 PM	#10
Funka Genocide Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,566	I was only able to see a still picture, as my current computer doesn't allow streaming video, but it looks as if the suit has a stationary helmet, I think someone mentioned that it wouldn't provide enough peripheral vision, however from a purely defense minded standpoint it makes sense, as even the most well padded helmet that's only secured to the skull will allow concussive trauma to vibrate the head or injure the neck. It basically bolts to the more secure skeletal structure of the torso thusly eliminating this possibility. It may be aesthetically unpleasing, but it would offer more protection. The vision ports are necessarily small to prevent a weakness in structural integrity I would suppose. Something interesting is that peripheral vision in a firefight is not as important as one might suspect. We tend to think of things in Hollywood fashion, bullets flying and heros reacting with lightning fast reflexes to the merest twitch of enemy movement, but in reality accurate fire is done when you're facing forward, sighted down the barrel of the gun. Human beings aren't superheros, and it takes a lot of focus to have a chance of hitting a moving target while your adrenaline is pumping, most shots miss anyways. In a close range firefight, having a bullet proof head would be more important than unimpeded peripheral vision. Thinking of a solution to this hindrance though, one could use three dimensional photography and a direct video feed to the eyes (like the virtual boy!) which would move as you moved your head within the stationary helmet. THis would require, I think, a motion tracking unit to determine which direction your eyes were pointed. Then again, somebody mentioned the neck was exposed, I guess I was wrong. Shit. Oh well, I think my idea is better then. It hink another main concern of body armor is comfort and durability. It doesn't make sense to be impervious to damage if you can't stand to wear the thing for longer than five minutes. In order to be effecctive it must be comfortable enough to remain on for prolonged periods of time. I think a lot of the stuff that Nike and other sports gear manufacturers do would help in this. Sweat wicking fabrices that breathe and allow air flow over the skin would sriously improve comfort levels I believe. How the armor actually fastens to the human frame is also important, I believe ergonomics is a prime concern, trying to cover the greatest and most vital surface area whil still maintaining an adequate range of motion is paramount. Using substances that retain impact and piercing resistance even when they're not rigid for the joints and bulkier but more protective substances for the stationary parts of the body is the obvious decision. I believe the primary concern of body armor is to keep the wearer tactically viable as long as possible, while the secondary concern is to just keep them alive as long as possible. Joints will always be relatively vulnerable, as mobility is far more important than physical defense in a tactical situation. You can still kill without protection, you just might die yourself. This all takes into account an unpowered armor suit, and things like this all ready exist and are in use. SWAT teams use the basic idea, though their helmets are mobile. Adding an energy source opens up all kinds of possibilities. Using a robotics program and some sort of assisted locomotion you could have a suit that responds to the movement of the wearer in predicted patterns, adding support and force to the movements and allowing the wearer to bear a heavier load. The SEALs have used something like this I think, a harness around the legs that lets them carry more weight while running, not sure where I heard that though. Basically it uses an exoskeletal structure to support and compliment the wearers actions. This would allow for the usage of heavier armor as well as for the inclusion of an onboard power supply. Of course this is pretty much Space Marine armor, so it's nothing new. Whoever shot down science fiction as an improper source has obviously never played Warhammer 40K. heh. ok I'm just rambling, I like power armor. My bad.