The most aswome thing you can not buy! [Archive]

Paper

04-09-2009, 02:33 PM

I think it has great potential for military use, especially for future droids! Or even as a means to rapidly deploy reinforcements to an area. Great also for preforming patrols too!

I don't know much about future droids, but I doubt any soldier in his right mind would take this thing into a combat zone. From what I saw, the guy riding it looked like he had to give a fair bit a concentration to keep on it. So that takes away from the attention he's paying to his surroundings. Add in his overall vulnerability to... well, anything that his armor won't stop and you may as well just be on foot. Plus, when you take into account that many of the patrol casualties are caused by IED's, you have to consider how much safer it would be to stay inside an armored Humvee.

weeman2412

04-09-2009, 02:59 PM

holy crap id buy it right now... if its less then 500 dollars that is..

ManBearPig <ibis>

04-09-2009, 03:20 PM

I don't think zero means right now put it into military action, but with some further development a personal patrol vehicle may be used.

ZERO

04-09-2009, 05:55 PM

I was thinking more for inside bases and such, basically to replace the soldiers actually walking. Also that is because in the video he is going 32mph though woods so that it a bit different. Image if the control could be wireless and attached to your gun. You could use it for so many different things. Toss a camera on it and you could use to scout down the street really fast, or lets say your unit gets separated and you need to transfer equipment across a street or something. It could be too far to throw but you could use this to send it over. Lets say you have two squads of infantry one needs support but the second is quite far away, with this they could catch up faster verses running and use less energy. Also if you start taking fire there could be a way to jump off it and then roll into some cover. I think that in its present state it could server more supporting roles to help mobilize ground troops that lack vehicles faster. But who knows, maybe in the future it could even act as a high speed delivery system for supplies

weeman2412

04-09-2009, 06:32 PM

or they can server as civilian mobile vehicles :) // i can actually imagine going through the mall with this

Hodgie

04-09-2009, 06:47 PM

or they can server as civilian mobile vehicles :) // i can actually imagine going through the mall with this

I'll go ballistic if that happens. I can barely contain the urge to run over those mopeds and scooters.

inthebutt

04-09-2009, 06:52 PM

I don't know much about future droids, but I doubt any soldier in his right mind would take this thing into a combat zone. From what I saw, the guy riding it looked like he had to give a fair bit a concentration to keep on it. So that takes away from the attention he's paying to his surroundings. Add in his overall vulnerability to... well, anything that his armor won't stop and you may as well just be on foot. Plus, when you take into account that many of the patrol casualties are caused by IED's, you have to consider how much safer it would be to stay inside an armored Humvee.

That's why you join the air force. strap yourself inside a multi-million dollar jet and watch the action from 10,000ft. Plus you get to drop 5000lbs bombs on people's heads. use the latest surveillance video technology to watch people and you don't have to worry about someone coming around a corner and unload a full clip into your FUBAR armor.

Paper

04-09-2009, 07:22 PM

That's why you join the air force. strap yourself inside a multi-million dollar jet and watch the action from 10,000ft. Plus you get to drop 5000lbs bombs on people's heads. use the latest surveillance video technology to watch people and you don't have to worry about someone coming around a corner and unload a full clip into your FUBAR armor.

I know, that's what I plan on doing :P

A-10 here I come :smirk:

Hodgie

04-09-2009, 07:26 PM

I know, that's what I plan on doing :P

A-10 here I come :smirk:

I wish I had gone that route. Side note: One of my teachers was on the design team for the A-10

Paper

04-09-2009, 07:30 PM

I wish I had gone that route. Side note: One of my teachers was on the design team for the A-10

That's awsome, I love that thing. The F-22 might be the sleekest, most advanced fighter we have, but I just can't get over the durability and brutal efficiency of the A-10, needless to say I was happy when they extended the planned service to 2028 with the new upgrades.

Hodgie

04-09-2009, 07:42 PM

That's awsome, I love that thing. The F-22 might be the sleekest, most advanced fighter we have, but I just can't get over the durability and brutal efficiency of the A-10, needless to say I was happy when they extended the planned service to 2028 with the new upgrades.

Yea, he had some funny stories about problems they had during testing. Apparently the propellant they were using in the bullets for the gun had to be changed. The gun shot so fast that the fumes exiting the barrel would cause the engines to stall.

While we're talking about military planes, this is a cool video. An israeli pilot loses a wing on his f-15 and still manages to land it

-_EXtBEaBbs

Paper

04-10-2009, 06:34 PM

Yea, he had some funny stories about problems they had during testing. Apparently the propellant they were using in the bullets for the gun had to be changed. The gun shot so fast that the fumes exiting the barrel would cause the engines to stall.

While we're talking about military planes, this is a cool video. An israeli pilot loses a wing on his f-15 and still manages to land it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs

That's video is pretty nuts.
Don't the South Koreans have the most advanced version of the Eagle now?

I remember reading something a while ago about the engine flare-outs from the GAU-8, didn't know it was a propellant change that fixed it though.

inthebutt

04-10-2009, 08:17 PM

Hodgie

04-10-2009, 08:33 PM

something a while ago about the engine flare-outs from the GAU-8, didn't know it was a propellant change that fixed it though.

They also added two plates to the bottom of the fuselage. They are attached to the bottom of the fuselage and point down. They channel the exhaust from the GAU-8 under the aircraft and keep it from going over the wing and into the engine.

Hodgie

04-10-2009, 08:43 PM

Your both wrong. The F-14 Tomcat is what many fighter pilots want to fly. Earning your top gun wings is the great honor in the air force. The tomcat is so versatile as a mulit-role plane. Plus the 8 mavericks it carries are deadly to anything worth putting on the battlefield.

Yea, but it was retired a few years ago. Although retiring an aircraft doesn't always mean it's no longer flown...the SR-71 was also "retired" and given to the CIA. The problem is that you can only do so many upgrades to an existing design. Our aircraft fleet (in design terms) is relatively old. F-14,F-15,F-16 are from the 70's and the F-18 is from the early 80's... I'm not saying they aren't good aircraft and that their upgrades have allowed them to remain effective, but like I said, you can only do so much with a single design.

Paper

04-10-2009, 10:16 PM

ZERO

04-11-2009, 11:37 AM

Tank busters FTW

I have edited my first post to show how much better the forums are with youtube support.

Rated EC-10

04-14-2009, 10:58 AM

Back to the toy shown, I think Zero's assessment holds up decently. This would never be something you would want to be on while being shot at, but truthfully you don't want to be in an unarmored humvee that's being shot at either but they still mount guns on the things.

These things are definitely a possible force multiplier though. Given current tendency toward low density conflict and MOUT, these things could be a godsend for militaries capable of fielding them and hell on earth for insurgents.

As a commander, I can reliably expect about a 10 minute mile from infantry in full gear/packs. With slight improvement these things could do a 2 minute mile for a soldier in gear. As an insurgent, the infantry reinforcements I'm worried about that used to take 5 minutes to get there now start arriving in just over a minute.

And this is exponential, as with evenly distributed patrols the longer the time period the greater the number of reinforcements arrive per interval. Traditionally there is a greater limit to this because I have to worry about how fast I can return the now combat-exhausted troops to their assigned locations after a firefight, but with these, I can draw from a larger area and return them to it faster and with less fatigue.

Infantry are absolutely essential to urban warfare, and the biggest issue with using them is getting them where needed. This solves getting them there. Granted, an insurgent could still ambush arriving reinforcements with planning, but that's no different than now. And with these, an infantry squad would travel with much larger spacing, reducing the vulnerability of the squad overall. IED's are what they are, being on foot wouldn't make you less vulnerable than being on one of these, and depending on their construction, this could offer some protection against some lighter anti-personnel mines. Getting thrown off and breaking an arm sure beats the hell out of getting a new leg. There are some anti-personnel mines that might never get set off by these; the tracks have a larger footprint than the boot soles the soldier would have on the ground so there is reduced ground pressure; and the track crawls so there is no percussion of a foot impacting the ground.

That last part is why one of these could also make a soldier using one vastly superior at dealing with mud/snow etc. If it's built right, you could glide across without getting your feet stuck in. Like high speed snowshoes.

Now of course, the big issues are: reliability/maintainability, maintenance complexity, supply logistics, and of paramount tactical importance; does it look sexy enough? :)

Paper

04-14-2009, 01:56 PM

Was just getting to the end of your post thinking about maintenance issues and then you mentioned it lol. Don't forget cost, already costs something like $17,000 to equip a single soldier, this thing would tack on an extra couple thousand.

Hodgie

04-14-2009, 01:58 PM

Rated EC-10

04-14-2009, 03:17 PM

Well maintenance isn't something you can tell before playing with one of the things, could be a nightmare could be easy as an AK.

Costs, of course can drop massively with mass production, and with this design certainly will. There is nothing about it that looks inherently more complex than a very light motorcycle. (Then of course you have to multiply the price back up cause it's military spending.)

Changes would be needed though, I think the wired control would need to be replaced by a stick/grip control on a post in front similar to some scooter designs. When you have to hop on and move in a hurry you don't want to go hunting for the controller. (The other option would be a wireless [jamming/hacking issues] or uniform-networked control [not perfected for production, added expenses].)

However, I think this does have a lot more potential than some of the sillier Land Warrior ideas I've seen floated. It is immensely more practical and easier to employ than the exoskeletons I've seen worked on, and would allow similar benefits for carrying heavier equipment loads. (I still think the standard pack should attach to the soldier's back by design, but I think the thing should have an attachment to mount a backpack directly to it and it likely would be in most situations.)

The M1A1 75mm Pack Howitzer was designed to be broken down into small hundred to two hundred pound loads to be carried by mules. I think this thing without a rider could take the place of a "mule" to carry heavier weapons for infantry teams, like .50 cal M2 Browning MG's and the like. That sort of use could easily precede usage of this sort of device as a personal vehicle.

Hodgie

04-14-2009, 03:51 PM

I love your sig EC-10... That was an awesome epic comeback

Christmas

04-14-2009, 10:51 PM

I can't take an army seriously that uses motorized surfboards to reinforce a position.

Rated EC-10

04-15-2009, 12:24 AM

I can't take an army seriously that uses motorized surfboards to reinforce a position.

Excellent... your hysterical laughter will allow them to overrun you that much faster.

It's all going according to plan...

Paper

04-15-2009, 10:55 AM

I do think this would be a pretty good way to transport materials, but I just don't see it working for troops going into combat, it seems too awkward.

Controlling it is definitely one of the biggest problems. And even though it could allow troops to carry heavier loads while riding it, how are they supposed to balance? I'm sure some troops could do it no problem, but I could never do anything on a skateboard/snowboard, and I'm sure there's more than a few troops who have similar board-balancing skill levels to myself.

ZERO

04-16-2009, 11:20 AM

It is not as if the thing could be standard issue but what I am saying is I am sure that there would be plenty of scenarios where such a device could change the outcome and thus would be a good investment. The thing about war is that it is unpredictable, the army that adapts and takes the latest technology into account has a huge advantage. Being able to develop or anticipate new types of warfare are essential to the success of any campaign even our best games and simulators are a joke when compared to the unimaginable ways that humans can come up with to destroy one another. Think solders on skateboards sounds funny lets have a look at the past:

Unites States invests millions to develop a weapon more powerful than thousands of a single bomb put together.

Allies develop a special blend of ice called piecrete that they planed to use to build giant floating battle islands across the world.

Troops could be given a large sheet in the form of a circle that is attached via rope to a backpack and then thrown out of plains to attach a position by surprise.

Instead of standing in a long line and then attacking one individual unit in 1v1 combat regular people can be trained to hold a spear and simply stand in place with a shield and attack as one unit (Development of the phalanx, first used against Sparta)

Equip bats with explosives and lure then to key structures though the use of high frequency sound waves. Developed by Marines with a special congressional funding in WWII.

Instead of building high walls construct shorter thicker walls with angled sides to repel cannons

Get on a horse and then using a long metal stick hit other people at high speeds without getting killed.

Spy on enemy harbor by placing a clay pot upside down in water and having it held underwater by 4 rocks. User then walks around underwater for short times and also collects additional air by use of snorkel when at lower depths. (Punic wars)

Computer invented to better calculate accuracy for artillery later used to decode enemy encrypted transmissions.

A ship that can go underwater and attach bombs to the hulls of other ships (Civil War)

Putting a human in a big rocket and landing him on the moon.

Building a ship out of metal or a materiel that does not float.

Putting a flame thrower on a wooden ship.

Creating floating platforms so that ground troops can battle at see.

Developing M&M candy so pacific divisions can have candy that melts in the mouth and not in the sand.

Placing a pice of cloth around a musket ball to improve accuracy.

Using an armor plated vehicle to storm trenches

Weaponizing the gas given off when one tries to make mustard.

Using lazes like in the movie starwars to blow stuff up like missals.

Others that I can not think off the top of my head.

Rated EC-10

04-17-2009, 01:09 AM

Weaponizing the gas given off when one tries to make mustard.

Swing and a miss. But one strike out of the rest aint bad. (Mustard gas isn't named for any relation with the condiment or plant seeds.)

As for other stuff Paper... Balance? I do not see any reason this thing needs to behave like a skateboard, that is a whim of the current design. A miiltary usage one would not be based on a tilting platform for control. It would be based on a more solid footing. If it had a tilting platform at all, it would be one controlled by electronics to make it steadier, more controllable for the rider. The goal wouldn't be for performing stunts or neat tricks so the maneuverability would be less important.

As for controls, I definitely think having a vertical stick in front would solve most any issues, giving an additional point of balance and a way to hang on during acceleration. The wired grip would HAVE to go no matter what, it's completely ill suited for practical uses. The best ergonomics I can think of right now would be a wide-motion thumb hat/stick for throttle and turning, so your fingers could be used only for hanging on.

Hodgie

04-17-2009, 02:46 AM

While he may have missed on the true developments of mustard gas, it is a fact that the development of chemo-therapy for cancer is a direct result of mustard gas... Its one of the times that something harmful and negative has resulted in a benefit to society.

Paper

04-18-2009, 10:25 PM

The current design seems to be (from the videos) for negotiating terrain, like the military would be using it for. Were it a more solid platform that didn't require as much balancing, I don't think it would be able to get around terrain, at least not without getting much bulkier.

If you put a stick on the front, wouldn't it be just one more thing to break (picture a soldier going down the street, a rifle fires from a window, he dives, the board flips)?

Btw, wasn't the laser project essentially scrapped with the new budget (the 747 mounted laser I mean, I don't know which one you were talking about)?

ZERO

04-19-2009, 02:07 PM

Actually if you try to make your own musturd and use a microwave you can produce a toxic musturd gas I was not referring to WWI weapon.

ZERO

04-19-2009, 02:13 PM

They have ground based systems, also Obama basically says he is against the defense shield (mainly because Russia does not like it and we best do what they say) but I am sceptical as to if he acutally is chaning anything about it. Obama does not always say and do the same things nor does he think about the consiquences of the things he sometimes does cary out. For example lets shut down Guantamno bay, great but where do we put the people? Our gov over the last 10+years likes to say and do two different things.

As for the controlls I always figured it would be wireless and could be intigrated onto the gun somehow so you can drive from your gun and be able to shoot.

Rated EC-10

04-20-2009, 10:11 AM

As for the controlls I always figured it would be wireless and could be intigrated onto the gun somehow so you can drive from your gun and be able to shoot.

OK, speaking as someone with some fair range time under my belt... since I was 8... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING?

You'd either make the gun heavier (without firing benefit), make it less reliable, or make a very awkward system. The orientation of the weapon MUST be independent of the vehicle vector if you are going to use it, and frankly using a weapon from one of these on the move would almost always be a waste of time and ammo. We are not talking about a video game here.

Wireless is bad, because it is jammable. We've seen what happens to player's internet ping when wifi gets interference right? Now imagine that happening to you when you are on a platform moving at 30 MPH. Given any real level of deployment, this tool could NOT be made proof of jamming. You could make it proof of hacking with encryption procedures but you can never make something that small and low power resistant to jamming. And it would suck to have your trooper break a kneecap just cause some old lady was heating soup in a crappy poorly shielded microwave. Plus, you now have the soldiers leaking radio waves which can be detected far beyond the range they are useful at.

It offers infantry mobility. I don't see a use for it beyond moving people and small loads from point A to B and then engaging, but they would really shine at that. If you had to fire on the move at all it would be better to create some mount interface with the vehicle for at least some firing stability. That would require a post standing up, which might as well have controls on it, and now we have a control stick anyway.

Paper, a control stick is absolutely necessary for an average rider to use this if it has speed up to 30 MPH simply to help the driver maintain footing during acceleration. We are talking about acclerating an inherently unbalanced load. The balancing system would be needed to make this simple to use, and it needs to be. As far as terrain goes, if you run into a point too rough (and there would be even with the current design) you just pick the thing up and toss it over then climb over yourself. Simplicity of use trumps other issues, it has to be simple in usage. And ROFL at not wanting to put a STICK on something cause it could get broken, a lot of military gear is made of sticks of one kind or another.

Paper

04-20-2009, 04:11 PM

ZERO

04-20-2009, 05:04 PM

It could always be possible to have a cable based system as a backup for wireless failure. But wireless would be needed so that it could double as a remote droid to preform multifunction tasks.

Rated EC-10

04-20-2009, 05:07 PM

In regards to my comment about the stick breaking, remember how Hodgie said there would be some pretty inventive ways to break this thing? Well that applies to the stick too and I don't think it would be a good idea to equip troops with something that had to be ditched because it's control stick broke.

Yes but your logic also applies to rifles, relatively complicated sticks soldiers do break and not unusually ditch that generally cost over $1000 apiece for frontline infantry models.

But you don't see any military abandoning issuing them because of that. The same applies to everything from canteens to goggles all the way to humvees and fighter jets. "Someone could break it", when applied to a group of people whose job is breaking things will receive the reply "Of course". Everything can be broken, EVERYTHING. It's not a reason not to use it.

Wireless could be useable for droid purposes, but I definitely think that is a peripheral application. If it dumps a load of ammo at 30 MPH it's no big deal. Human interface leans toward something more solid and balance is something that has to be addressed. (And if this thing uses the balance of its rider, shooting from it would be right out. Try controlling an automatic weapon from a skateboard to hit an also-moving target, now multiply the problems by 3.)

Droid uses could work from something far simpler in practice, 9 times out of 10 it could be based on optical or other method of playing "follow the leader" behind the soldier it's working with. Tight line optical or IR methods are superior for that sort of work in the lower power ranges.

(I would also point out that most off-the-shelf multi antenna wifi devices have all the hardware needed to guide a small rocket to a target close enough to make a small grenade lethal to a wifi user.)

Paper

04-20-2009, 08:24 PM

Yes but your logic also applies to rifles, relatively complicated sticks soldiers do break and not unusually ditch that generally cost over $1000 apiece for frontline infantry models.

But you don't see any military abandoning issuing them because of that. The same applies to everything from canteens to goggles all the way to humvees and fighter jets. "Someone could break it", when applied to a group of people whose job is breaking things will receive the reply "Of course". Everything can be broken, EVERYTHING. It's not a reason not to use it.

Yes, but rifles are rather essential to a soldier. This isn't. The easiest comparison I can think of to this (In terms of cost-> effectiveness) is the V-22. The MH-53 could do it's job just fine, but the V-22 could do it a bit faster and at longer ranges. Is that really a good enough reason to spend loads of money developing (modifying in this case) something new to implement?

Rated EC-10

04-20-2009, 09:35 PM

Yes, but rifles are rather essential to a soldier. This isn't. The easiest comparison I can think of to this (In terms of cost-> effectiveness) is the V-22. The MH-53 could do it's job just fine, but the V-22 could do it a bit faster and at longer ranges. Is that really a good enough reason to spend loads of money developing (modifying in this case) something new to implement?

If the payoff is worth it, yes. MOBILITY IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO A SOLDIER. If it allows frontline infantry groups to mass on targets in a matter of minutes instead of hours, that's a dynamic enough change to warrant it. Sticks, even control sticks, are simple and highly developed. They are not an argument against use and your attitude against a control stick is absurd. No matter what alternative you come up with for control, it will always come down to a stick or wheel.

There is a huge difference between this and the V-22: this has no significant comparable technology. THAT competes for a job already filled, this fills a need that remains unaddressed.

Two of my best buddies are former 82nd AB, this would be absolutely beautiful for AB divisions to improve mobility. Call it a "Mobility Implement" if you would, as a distinction from the idea that it's a fighting vehicle. (It couldn't be.) You could make a drop with this thing in your personal kit. Even motorcycles are too big for that.

Paper

04-21-2009, 08:18 PM

If the payoff is worth it, yes. MOBILITY IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO A SOLDIER. If it allows frontline infantry groups to mass on targets in a matter of minutes instead of hours, that's a dynamic enough change to warrant it. Sticks, even control sticks, are simple and highly developed. They are not an argument against use and your attitude against a control stick is absurd. No matter what alternative you come up with for control, it will always come down to a stick or wheel.

I have nothing against sticks, I just think that if you use the same type of control on this thing that is used on a motorized scooter, it's not going to work out well. Which is my biggest problem with this thing, I just don't think it would work out well. Yes, I know mobility can give troops a huge advantage, yes I know that something that could give troops the advantages that you guys are listing would be great, I just don't think that this is the product that could give them that advantage. And to be totally honest, I can't think of anything that would give them that advantage that would satisfy all the complaints I have about this thing.