Power Armor?

Insignius said:

On the other hand, a special force or infantry that is being weighted down by all their gear (its getting more, not less in the future), is equally useless.

And dont say that Chinese infantrymen should carry less. They are already, and this is bad. Cultural Revolution-tier of bad. Born from military delusions of a worse era, where Generals and soldiers alike thought that due to some special 'chinese revolutionary spirit' a soldier only needs his straw sandals and an Type 56 SKS to win against all the imperialists.

It's good to see the PLA is thinking ahead and going with the times.

After issuing actual body-armor with those heavy ballistic plates, and more than three magazines per man, along with personal communication equipment and AT weapons, even the Chinese soldier will share the troubles of thousands of western soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan: The damn weight of load that will ruin their joints for life after a few years of service.

Exoskeletons are the future. There's no way around them.

Click to expand...

If Exoskeleton breaks down than what...drop all that gear? It takes only ONE of those exoskeleton to break down to hinder an entire squad and platoon operation plans as they can't leave that man behind.

Heck even during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaign the US couldn't even provide body armor to all of it's combat and combat support units. And this will be more expensive even in mass production. I can see it usefulness as for mechanize infantry but not always for the light infantry with recon and quick strike missions.

Equation said:

If Exoskeleton breaks down than what...drop all that gear? It takes only ONE of those exoskeleton to break down to hinder an entire squad and platoon operation plans as they can't leave that man behind.

Heck even during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaign the US couldn't even provide body armor to all of it's combat and combat support units. And this will be more expensive even in mass production. I can see it usefulness as for mechanize infantry but not always for the light infantry with recon and quick strike missions.

Click to expand...

I rather have the exoskeleton break down and having to drop off some non-essential gear, while the otherwise healthy (and well rested! - due to the exoskeleton) soldier carries on, than to have an exhausted soldier whose spinal disc and joints are about to be grinded into dust, to break down and unable to do anything but to be a burden for the rest of the team. Former will be able to fight with a traditional rifleman loadout, while the latter will be a case for Medevac, while ALL of his gear, not only the non-essentials, have to be either carried by the rest of the team or dropped off.

Aside of costs of maintenance, logistical burden and energy, exoskeletons have only advantages for the soldier on the field.

For urban combat it may pay at least for now to focus on providing better situational awareness and networking than brute protection. If you have only a fixed amount of power carried would you spend it on power armour or longer/more sensor operating options? There's little practical armour may do to stop a .50 cal or rpg or IEDs, at least without screwing with the integrity of the powered armour.

Also some urban environments may actually favour a small frame to maneuver and work through them. In Vietnam war you have men chosen for their small stature (tunnel rats) to go inside dug tunnels to hunt out vietcongs.

Insignius said:

I rather have the exoskeleton break down and having to drop off some non-essential gear, while the otherwise healthy (and well rested! - due to the exoskeleton) soldier carries on, than to have an exhausted soldier whose spinal disc and joints are about to be grinded into dust, to break down and unable to do anything but to be a burden for the rest of the team. Former will be able to fight with a traditional rifleman loadout, while the latter will be a case for Medevac, while ALL of his gear, not only the non-essentials, have to be either carried by the rest of the team or dropped off.

Aside of costs of maintenance, logistical burden and energy, exoskeletons have only advantages for the soldier on the field.

Click to expand...

I understand you, but in a perfect combat unit world where every soldier knows every technical specialties therefore if one goes down the other can take over. But that's not the case here, every soldier in a light infantry unit have a certain specialty and skills to provide for that unit. Like a grenadier, RTO, machine gunner, and along with POW search teams, recon teams, demo team, etc. If the unit misses anyone of those soldier whether through casualties or captured than that unit can not be as a cohesive fighting unit as it was before.

Therefore if those exoskeleton hinders not only just a single soldier but also an entire unit mission due to a technical break down. Because there is no way a Platoon leader and Platoon Sargent are not going to leave out their demo guy or any kind of specialists for that particular mission behind, otherwise the mission has already been compromised and you can't just go call for another replacement behind enemy lines.

Equation said:

I can see it usefulness as for mechanize infantry but not always for the light infantry with recon and quick strike missions.

Click to expand...

first things first. Light infantry is Mechanized infantry. The Idea that light Infantry is foot bound is antiquated. In the modern army of the 21st century Light infantry are the Stryker Brigade combat teams and Air assault brigades and Marine Expeditionary units. They are based around Helicopters, humvees, light tactical vehicles, and light armor. foot infantry are cannon fodder to be slaughtered mobility! mobility! mobility!
infantry is about Fire and maneuver, and the maneuver demands mechanization. moving a battalion of troops across terrain open or urban farther then a few hundred meters is open killing ground. that the lesson of world war 1.

no_name said:

For urban combat it may pay at least for now to focus on providing better situational awareness and networking than brute protection. If you have only a fixed amount of power carried would you spend it on power armour or longer/more sensor operating options? There's little practical armour may do to stop a .50 cal or rpg or IEDs, at least without screwing with the integrity of the powered armour.

Click to expand...

IED's are primarily target against Vehicles. when targeted against infantry the aim is more along the fixed points. Vehicle born IED's are targeted platforms. All Armies face issues in Urban. Realistically speaking the term "Powered Armor is false. the Armor is not powered. it's the the soldier who is augmented not his protection. look at the Real systems not the Hype what you see is the existing armor, not Iron Man.
This
NOt This.


So what? Powered suits whether Exoskeletons or Exosuits are targeted to give extra endurance with heavier loads. So? So What do you thing are in those loads? Sensors, Ladders, Breaching tools, Antitank weapons, Ammo communications gear mini UGV's.

no_name said:

Also some urban environments may actually favour a small frame to maneuver and work through them. In Vietnam war you have men chosen for their small stature (tunnel rats) to go inside dug tunnels to hunt out vietcongs.

Click to expand...

True, and in that situation a soft exosuit would not encumber the tunnel rat. that said a small UGV would be a safer choice then a Tunnel Rat. in order to scout those tunnels they basically stripped to there underwear and were armed only with a pistol and flashlight.

wtlh said:

I see the main challenge in the concept of power armour lies in the "power" part. The current battery/power technology is still not adequate.

I believe years back the Russians had a leg attachment/running mechanism similar to the device shown in the last video in the post above, which uses petrol to power the mechanism. They basically had a small cylinder and piston on each of the devices, and the running motion of the operator cycles the piston, which draws in petrol from a small tank mounted as a part of the attachment, that ignites inside the cylinder, giving a powered push, making each step jumping some 3 meters or more. It was claimed the top speed could exceed 60 Km/hour, but I guess it would be extremely dangerous to do so, as it would be difficult to stop.

I have seen this once on TV, and a person demonstrating it, and it appears to work just as described, with the guy running it sounded like a locomotive. It was said at the time that some Russian riot police had adopted/or expressed interest in the thing, and believed it to be beneficial when charging the crowds. I have only seen it once, and that was very long time ago, and I have not heard it since.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. this is the biggest issue for powered suits. the mechanics are here the power supply is the issue. Internal combustion is not the answer for true operation it's loud, it's dangerous it's messy. I mean if you want to use a powered suit for more then a day or two you need a gas tank.
Carrying a gas tank on your body in combat has been done before.

the problem? such a pack is dangerous. vapors are highly flammable and if the pack leaked potentially deadly. also if the soldier is in a vehicle the gasses from the engine would be lethal if not vented and if said vehicle were to hit a IED, It would be come a brazen bull. no batteries are the best answer but that kind of power cell is still yet to truly emerge. given advancements in military power systems of late the US TALOS program managers have predicted that by 2018 a practical portable power cell would be available

Equation said:

Heck even during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaign the US couldn't even provide body armor to all of it's combat and combat support units. And this will be more expensive even in mass production.

Click to expand...

Finally numbers. Fact the Army that invaded iraq in 2003 was smaller than the one that fought in 1991, And Although it then spent the next 10 years in occupation that still proves something. In the opening action fire and maneuver was the edge. they cut through Iraqi forces and other then having to slow for support cut right to the heart of a conventional force. the occupation then faced a different mode of warfare with different rules that demanded expansion and garrison.
What does this prove? the tenets of Transformative warfare
1) the opening force of a action IE the standing army for conventional and rapid reaction does not need to be as large as it used to. a Network centric force should be aggressive, fast, powerful and on the move. with Combined arms of Infantry, Armor, Artillery and air power.
2) holding territory requires more manpower then the seizure of it.
3) be Flexible. the Forces the US faced in 2003 was the Iraqi military, the Force faced there after were Asymmetric insurgents. The Force faced in Afghanistan was and remains the Taliban a Asymmetric insurgency. The Future is more and more likely to switch back and forth between Insurgency, Conventional warfare and Hybrid. ( see Ukraine and Iranian IRGC)
What does this all mean? All of the fighting forces of all major nations are downsizing and specializing. Smaller Smarter with longer legs More firepower and faster reaction times this is the heart of Transformation. And it's not just the US, The Russians The Chinese, the Europeans all target to create that aim.
Battles Once fought by Field armies and Corps in the 1850's moved to Divisions by the second world war to Brigades today, and maybe by the 22nd century it will be regiments.
As armies have gotten smaller there sophistication has gotten higher. there speed and fire power more powerful the types of terrain have expanded and the length of battle shrunk. in the Roman legion days could be spent in battle today it's hours and minutes in contact. but the amount of devastation brought by a modern fighting force in the form of a single action would dwarf those of Caesar.
As they Shrink they are becoming more and more specialized and optimized for Urban and fast paced. In Iraq and Afghanistan they called the Stryker the "Mothership" This was because they acted as just that. infantry would drive up in to targets for raids in the middle of the night, drop the ramp hit the target get out. the same holds true for Heliborne troops. Unless the whole Army has collapsed chances of employing infantry alone in the field for weeks is low.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

first things first. Light infantry is Mechanized infantry. The Idea that light Infantry is foot bound is antiquated. In the modern army of the 21st century Light infantry are the Stryker Brigade combat teams and Air assault brigades and Marine Expeditionary units. They are based around Helicopters, humvees, light tactical vehicles, and light armor. foot infantry are cannon fodder to be slaughtered mobility! mobility! mobility!
infantry is about Fire and maneuver, and the maneuver demands mechanization. moving a battalion of troops across terrain open or urban farther then a few hundred meters is open killing ground. that the lesson of world war 1.

Click to expand...

Awww...but whose responsible for the maintenance for those humvees and APC? Yes the light infantry is not foot bound as you said, but they are NOT assign to those vehicles like the Mechanize infantry unit does. That includes cleaning, oil changing, along with any vehicular services that's needed. I see the exosketon system like another mobility tool, like a helicopter or bradley fighting vehicle, the ability to move troops and equipment into the combat zone. But like any mobility tool if it breaks down, so is the unit. Maybe it's me I'm just not sold on exoskeleton as the new infantry game changer.

There are five points of Failure for a Hard Exoskeleton, The Joints, the Frames, the powercell, the harness and the motor.
if it is built modularly, which was the most logical form then for the harness that mates the frame to the wearer then it's a case of duct tape. if it's the frame then parts will have to replace the broken portion this is the "Hard" Structure the "Skeleton". If it's the Motor then you will have to remove and install the replacement requiring wiring. If it's a joint that will require writing and replacing possibly an entire limb, If it's the powercell then just swap it out.

For a Soft Exosuit you have four. The Harness, the Joints, the motor and the powercell.
For the motor then you have to wire in the replacement, the Joints would be easier as it would be more weaving in the new ones then connecting the old ones, the powercell would be swapped. the harness though. well in the case of the harness just take all the salvageable bits and toss the harness. a soft one would be easier to produce in numbers and ship as it's a garment.

Equation said:

Maybe it's me I'm just not sold on exoskeleton as the new infantry game changer.

Click to expand...

To be honest it is being hyped up alot and on it's own it's not. what it is is a component to be integrated. a Systems upgrade for the Infantry. To be integrated with other sub systems and allow their use in conjunction.
I can't kill a tank but it allows the wearer to carry the rocket that does. It won't shoot around the corner but lets the Soldier equip his weapon with the system to do so. IT does not allow the soldier to see in the dark but lets him carry the device to do so.
It does not probe the hole in the wall for baddies but lets the squad carry the UGV that does.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

To be honest it is being hyped up alot and on it's own it's not. what it is is a component to be integrated. a Systems upgrade for the Infantry. To be integrated with other sub systems and allow their use in conjunction.
I can't kill a tank but it allows the wearer to carry the rocket that does. It won't shoot around the corner but lets the Soldier equip his weapon with the system to do so. IT does not allow the soldier to see in the dark but lets him carry the device to do so.
It does not probe the hole in the wall for baddies but lets the squad carry the UGV that does.

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know does it enhance or hinders the soldier or Navy SEAL from swimming like crossing rivers and bays? Is it float-able material?

Equation said:

I'm curious to know does it enhance or hinders the solder or Navy SEAL from swimming like crossing rivers and bays? Is it float-able material?

Click to expand...

That depends on the maker, the type and what it is aimed for.I suspect HULC and the PLA Unit would be questionable. infact I question hard suits as a whole in the Amphibious. one may be able to make it from say carbon fiber or materials that is positively or neutrally buoyant. but still the drag on the suit may become a issue. a soft exosuit being form fitting and made more like a harness might do better but then again it come down to who and how it's built and what the aim is.
For Marines you would want something positively buoyant so you would naturally float.
for Seals Neutrally buoyant.
In order to optimize movements though I think you need something like .