Anyone ever hear of Battletech?

[Accelerando]

What puzzles me is why people insist, in realistic discussions, on having the mechs be crewed. If your walker has control systems good enough to keep the machine balanced under human input (or if you have the technology to build a neurohelmet for Christ's sake) why can't it be controlled by software or remote operator?

[Roastduck]

I still think helicopter+legs might be a goer. A vehicle that was a bit slow and clunky under it's own power might not be so bad if it was coupled to a helicopter that could rapidly put it where it was needed. It'd limit the upper weight quite a bit, it might be worth taking the man out and making it semi-autonomous to save on volume under armour. The crew operating it could even stay in the helicopter.

[Seret]

Lol, but I meant the helicopter could drop the mech off, not that the actual mech itself could fly.

[Red Iron Crown]

What puzzles me is why people insist, in realistic discussions, on having the mechs be crewed. If your walker has control systems good enough to keep the machine balanced under human input (or if you have the technology to build a neurohelmet for Christ's sake) why can't it be controlled by software or remote operator?

Remote operators are vulnerable to jamming, and latency becomes a problem if the distances involved are long.

Software control is vulnerable to becoming Skynet and enslaving humanity. Seriously, though, it's good to have a human decision maker in a weapon system's control loop.

[Roastduck]

I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.

[Red Iron Crown]

I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.

Clearly you are composed of living tissue over a mechanical endoskeleton, sent from the future to build public acceptance of automated weapons.

[Seret]

Remote operators are vulnerable to jamming, and latency becomes a problem if the distances involved are long.

Jamming is less of an issue than it used to be. Modern fighting formations rely on having a fair bit of secure reliable bandwidth at all times. Units have their own secure wireless networks. Latency is an interesting point, but it's obviously one the military have dealt with. Drones in Afghanistan are routinely flown from the US. There's no reason why the operators couldn't be within a few km though. It's not like we're talking about a system that would be deployed unsupported.

Seriously, though, it's good to have a human decision maker in a weapon system's control loop.

Yep, although there's no reason some tasks couldn't be automated and some under human control. Driving is an obvious one to automate, firing weapons would need to be under human control.

[Red Iron Crown]

Jamming is less of an issue than it used to be. Modern fighting formations rely on having a fair bit of secure reliable bandwidth at all times. Units have their own secure wireless networks. Latency is an interesting point, but it's obviously one the military have dealt with. Drones in Afghanistan are routinely flown from the US. There's no reason why the operators couldn't be within a few km though. It's not like we're talking about a system that would be deployed unsupported.

That's been true in recent conflicts with enemies that are relatively unsophisticated technology wise. Might be different against an enemy with a more similar technology base.

The network-centric fighting force that the US is keen on implementing is vulnerable, IMHO. Even a disruption in the GPS network would have a serious impact on their ability to wage war effectively.

[Seret]

GPS is a bit of a weak link, it can and has been spoofed. Comms are pretty secure though.

[Red Iron Crown]

GPS is a bit of a weak link, it can and has been spoofed. Comms are pretty secure though.

Secure from interception, yes; from jamming I'm not as confident.

[Seret]

I'm not really an RF guy, but the modern equipment does hop around frequencies, so is pretty hard to jam. Civilian kit actual does this now to avoid interference too.

[Red Iron Crown]

That does make jamming more difficult, that's true.

Thinking about the latency issues a bit more, there's a qualitative difference in the latency requirements for getting a drone to drop a PGM on a target (a process that is largely automated, the operator basically authorizes it) and carrying out combat operations against direct resistance in a changing battlefield. Satellite links are out for that kind of scenario, meaning the control center must be fairly close to the action. That makes the control center a high value target, which if taken out would render combat ineffective all units controlled from there. Better, I think, to have an operator on board that cannot be cut off from the combat asset, whether it's a mech, tank or something else.

There is definitely a place for RPVs in the modern battlefield, but I'm not convinced that a vehicle that operates in close combat conditions is one of them.

[Accelerando]

Remote operators are vulnerable to jamming, and latency becomes a problem if the distances involved are long.

Software control is vulnerable to becoming Skynet and enslaving humanity. Seriously, though, it's good to have a human decision maker in a weapon system's control loop.

Ah, truth... needing too little reaction time for long-range control.

Have a soldier near the area operate it from a laptop, and have it go autonomous if it loses human control. Can this be done without a dedicated control center? Whaddya think?

[Red Iron Crown]

What happens when the laptop gets captured by the enemy?

[Accelerando]

What happens when the laptop gets captured by the enemy?

Not sure. Fry itself after three wrong access strikes? Operator could have a manual kill switch on their body in case of an attack, plus an automatic switch that fries the laptop if they die.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd say biometric authentication would be better, but this is a case where "cut off the needed body part" is a realistic scenario.

I guess some balance between security of the operator and keeping distance down to minimize latency needs to be struck. I'm not sure if it's better to have the operators concentrated into an operations center that's a high value target but more easily secured, or if it's better to distribute the operators, maybe embedding them in near line units.

I'm also imagining some unpleasant things that could be done with radiation homing missiles keyed to the control frequency range.

[Mecha Pants]

I'll lead in by saying that I am a fan of Battletech, and Mecha science fiction in general. Something about the knight in armor taken to its technological extreme... I dunno, giant combat robots are just cool.

I'm also the first to admit that the combat utility of such vehicles is marginal in the very best of circumstances. Even in tabletop battletech, mechs are only really useful because the rules favor them very heavily in terms of maneuverability, critical damage effects, and they have more numerous potential hit locations to spread damage around.

WARNING: longish tabletop rules explanation ahead

For example:

I have a mech, and my opponent has a tank, they have the same weapons, lets say a 5-class autocannon, (5 points of damage, medium range) and the same overall armor tonnage.

Protection wise, he has more armor per hit location because he doesn't have as many (front, left, right, back, and turret for most tank-like vehicles) while I have less armor per location, but spread across a few extra (head, left torso, center torso, right torso, left arm, right arm, left leg, right leg, rear left torso, rear center torso, rear right torso). Odds are good that my shots will land in the same areas more often, and his will be more spread out, so I have more time before any one area takes enough damage to be destroyed. Additionally, Some of my hit locations are disposable so if I lose them, I'm not out of the fight yet (arms, side torsos, losing a leg only keeps me from moving). He does not have that same luxury, if any of his hit locations run out of internal structure he's out of the fight. Advantage Mech.

Offensively we're the same, unless I close to close combat, (one map hex away, or same map hex) then I have melee attacks as well. Advantage Mech, sort of.

In terms of mobility, in all likelihood, I will move faster. Additionally, I can enter some terrain that he cannot (woods). If I have jump jets, then I can even ignore some terrain altogether. Advantage Mech.

Critical damage effects are generally worse for vehicles as well, usually resulting in complete destruction of some aspect of the unit (broken axle means you can't move, locked turret means you can only fire out of the facing last used for that turret) while mechs tend to favor penalties (-2 on pilot checks, -2 movement points, etc..). Advantage Mech.

For all this, the only thing the vehicle has on the mech is heat management, which vehicles don't worry about at all.

end of rules explanation

Without advantages like those built into the very fabric of the universe, mechs will never win out against conventional armor.

[Red Iron Crown]

*snip*

For all this, the only thing the vehicle has on the mech is heat management, which vehicles don't worry about at all.

They do a little bit. When designing a vehicle from scratch, heat from missiles and projectile weapons is ignored, but the vehicle must carry enough heatsinks to fully dissipate the heat of all energy weapons fired simultaneously. And the vehicle doesn't get 10 free heatsinks like a mech does. All this is IIRC, as I haven't played tabletop Battletech in years.

Mechs also had the advantage of partial cover behind level 1 terrain, while vehicles were all-or-nothing in the line of sight rules.

But yeah, they basically nerfed all other vehicle types to make mechs competitive. Even four-legged mechs were penalized with fewer critical spaces (though this was somewhat offset by a piloting buff and a seldom used crab motion).

[Seret]

Tthe control center must be fairly close to the action. That makes the control center a high value target, which if taken out would render combat ineffective all units controlled from there.

If they were operating close to their mechs you'd definitely have them distributed, although it's conceivable that one team could operate more than one mech, even if it's only because that mech's own control team were out of action for some reason.

There is definitely a place for RPVs in the modern battlefield, but I'm not convinced that a vehicle that operates in close combat conditions is one of them.

The kind of roles actual UGCVs such as Black Knight are being developed for include recce, so you will see them in close combat on a battlefield somewhere in the coming years.

[KASASpace]

Cost isn't an issue, legs wouldn't be significantly more expensive than wheels or tracks. The issue is that legs are inherently unstable, are more complicated, and don't have 100 years of automotive experience behind them to ensure reliability. On a combat vehicle they'd also be quite vulnerable, as to keep efficiency up you'd want them to have a very minimal amount of armour on them. When you weigh up the pros and cons there really aren't a lot of reasons to put legs on things.

Your right, legs don't have 100 years of experience, more like thousands.

The real problem is the cost, because it costs a lot of money to develop and design the legs, not to mention testing.

And legs wouldn't be as vulnerable as you think, because the legs would have to be the strongest part of the vehicle.

And I never said right now, but in the future, perhaps in a century or two, when power sources are small enough and the like.

And BTW how is it hard to control legs, all you need is a Gyro and a simple program that compares the leg's and body's orientation, see:

[DaveofDefeat]

Legs

[Seret]

Your right, legs don't have 100 years of experience, more like thousands.

As a mechanical system, obviously.

And BTW how is it hard to control legs, all you need is a Gyro and a simple program that compares the leg's and body's orientation, see:

Go build a robot that can walk and balance, then come back and tell us all how easy it was. Good walking robots are absolutely on the cutting edge of robotics.

[Mecha Pants]

If no one minds walking away from completely mechanical systems, I would put up Metal gear solid 4's Gekko units as an "optimal" mech unit. They have conventionally designed and armored weapons platforms (containing the control and life support systems, weapons, and power plant) and armored mechanical upper legs with vat-grown biological lower leg assemblies.

The upsides are plentiful, the biological lower legs require less electrical power than a mechanical equivalent, heal minor injuries on their own, and in the event of catastrophic damage, can be replaced as any other part. They are more flexible and operate with a greater combination of speed, strength, and fine control than is possible with servos and purely mechanical systems. They can also self-report damage through pain receptors and severed control nerve endings.

The downsides come from needing to carry nutrient paste and life support systems, along with waste disposal systems, to keeps the legs from getting sick and/or dieing. The biological legs would require special considerations in storage and handling at any resupply depot, needing life support at ALL TIMES, even when in storage, for the same reasons. Units would need special considerations in food, fuel, and power supply logistics because now your combat armor can starve, and if the fuel goes out their legs die. In a lot of ways, it becomes taking care of a car, a horse, and person in a coma all at once.

[Camacha]

Here is the Marine Corps version of the DARPA program.

Low unit cost with fuel and maintenance available through indigenous vendors.

Damaged units can be re-purposed into MREs.

Huh, interesting. Transportation that can get spooked, make noise, run off with your important gear or that could injury friendly crew. I can not imagine why you would want to replace that with something that could stealthily and autonomously resupply troops in the field

While we are at it, we might as well get a bunch of them in front of our armour. Much more reliable than those maintenance sensitive turboprop engines

But seriously, there is no reason that heavily armed and armoured mechanised troops will not be fielded sometimes in the near future. We are rapidly developing the technology and as shock troops they would probably shine. For long term operations in the field - we will see.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Camacha

[KASASpace]

Go build a robot that can walk and balance, then come back and tell us all how easy it was. Good walking robots are absolutely on the cutting edge of robotics.

I said it was easy, but it is tedious. Although I would like to build a "box with legs".

Congrats if you get the reference.