Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HULC Robotic Exoskeleton MK II Undergoing Tests

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-know-what-i'm-getting-grandma-for-christmas-this-year dept.

The Military 72

fergus07 writes "Lockheed Martin is putting an updated, ruggedized version of its HULC Robotic Exoskeleton through lab evaluation tests. The hydraulic 'power-suit,' which enables the wearer to carry up to 200 lbs and run at 10 mph, now boasts better protection from the elements, improved fitting and easier adjustment, increased run-time and new control software."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

sup yall (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34073350)

let's get chatty

Where is the shoulder mount? (0, Offtopic)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073504)

They state the payload in pounds. Boring. Where are the weapon systems?

Where is the shoulder mounted gun with HUD fire control?

This thing needs a shoulder mounted heavy gun with auto-stability and HUD based targeting.
Not to mention vertical launch munitions with precision placement.

I have seen another better exoskeleton (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34073686)

While it doesn't have the guns, it won't be hard to mount them there [goo.gl]

Why was this modded Troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34073892)

Nothing wrong with the link

Mod parent and grandparent troll (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34077706)

The link is goatse.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073768)

Don't worry, you'll see all that being "tested" in the next war they buy.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34076136)

Don't worry, you'll see all that being "tested" in the next war they buy.

You mean in Iran or America?

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34076162)

"Don't worry, you'll see all that being "tested" in the next war they buy."

I don't think it will be the next one but the next after that.

Did you notice they are photographs, not video there?

Why do you think that's the case? Maybe because it looks good enough while standing still but once you see it moving you understand there's no way the military would use it in real combat?

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (3, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074204)

Why are those things necessary?

If you look at "kill ratios", the US soldier (moreso the US Marine) is quite effective as it stands.

A HUD with targeting/fire control wouldn't prove entirely useful until Friend/Foe systems are worked out to the point of being infallible.

You're not going to get any vertical launch munitions with a mere 200lb payload, and they wouldn't be terribly effective without substantial control systems. (For instance, SAW alone is going to weigh in at 20lb or so. Ammo for that is going to be another 50lb-100lb. Add in gyros for stabilizing and aiming/etc. controls, and you're looking at the full support weight of the system. It's never good to design to the system's maximum capabilities.)

And, guess what? All that would rely on vertical support systems, and communication with them. If you're sending data to request data, the enemy can detect your location. The ability to detect your enemy's location is a big part of being able to effectively kill them.

What this will do is making existing soldiers more capable on their own. They will have motorized assistance to carry their 80lb rucks, so they will be able to do everything they do today - faster, more agilely, and for a longer period of time - without being exhausted in combat.

For this thing to be effective in combat, what they need to do now is figure out a means to make it self-carrying (say, a 'low power' mode that would only support its own weight + a little, relying on the soldier to do the rest, combined with solar trickle charging), and improve its ability to hold things independently/not use those stupid pads. This way it'd improve effectiveness without actually interfering when not directly in use. (Soldiers spend a lot more time just standing around and walking than they do fighting. Something that just adds weight during this period of time will be quickly discarded/taken off, even if it's effective at other times.)

Short term, the linked Raytheon XOS2 looks like it'd be more useful, short-medium term. Think: the skid loaders in Aliens. You'd be able to (as a group of 3-5 men, say) quickly and easily move 500lb to 1/2-ton crates on and off vehicles and the like. 30 cal or 50 cal cans would take a single person, and they'd be able to move them quickly.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34074678)

Combat at the front gets all the glory, but you're right. Such devices would make much more sense working under the supply department as a glorified fork-lift.

I can also see devices like this used in rescue/firefighting. It would increase the endurance and effectiveness of a firefighter because they'll no longer be bearing all the weight of air-tank, hoses, and protective gear. Might also provide some armor against partial collapses or explosions in a hazardous environment. Not to mention it could have support for add-ons like "jaws of life" in order to extract people from wrecked vehicles or structures. Much more research should be applied in this aspect.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (0, Redundant)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074762)

so they will be able to do everything they do today - faster, more agilely, and for a longer period of time

Wow, so they will basically murder more innocent people in far away countries just to keep the war industry going than ever before? Awesome.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075058)

or more positively, they'll be able to carry from food aid / supplies in disaster areas.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (0, Troll)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075316)

Oh, you mean like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/us-halts-haiti-patients-evacuations [guardian.co.uk]

Or you are talking about the "they are niggers, let them die" policy used in New Orleans after Katrina?

The US military for 2010 was 685.1 BILLON. Got that? 685.1 BILLON. Haiti's GDP is ~6BILLION. Ok? Got that? Haiti's GDP is less than 1% of the money the US spends on murdering people every year. If the US military had done any amount of actual work in Haiti, it would be MORE than noticeable. All they did was send a few planes, then cancel them.

The only reason the US military exists is to maintain the very profitable war industry, which keeps the right pockets full. It also takes care of shaping the political layout of the world so that certain markets such as oil can stay extremely profitable for the US.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (0)

trevinlovett (1583855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34077752)

that was the dumbest shit i have ever read. um... guess what fucker? the united states navy sent the USNS Mercy to help out in Haiti which by the way is not a small ship at all. the ENTIRE thing is one big ass hospital. and along with that ship were a couple of other ships. and planes. what so the us sends 21 planes to help out haiti and calls back 3 and all of a sudden its a sin? really? there would still be 18 planes going to help out. and the US government told the residents of new orleans to get out but they didnt listen. and the government did help the katrina survivors.. where you are getting your information is beyond me. and the best defense is a good offence. because if terrorists fuck our shit up and then we fuck ALL of their shit up that says to other would be terrorists 'dont fuck with us. at all.' and who do we 'murder' have you even read up on the military's 'law of armed conflict' ? im guessing not. and have you even looked up about the quality of life before we entered those countries? yeah im guessing that you havent. at all. and guess what mr spock if the us military's only use was to fuel the war industry then WHAT WOULD FUCKING HAPPEN IF WE GOT ATTACKED? oh shit you didnt think of that now did you? yeah... the military is a defense for that.. dang did it occur to you that we didnt start a single war. at all. it was all started by someone provoking america. and we more or less told them to 'knock it the fuck off' by the way im Enlisted in the Navy so i do know what im talking about.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (0, Troll)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34077898)

See, your reasoning is wrong. You say that you know what you are talking about because you are enlisted on the navy. That doesn't make you an informed person. That makes you brainwashed, and a potential murderer.

I love the way you talk with that big macho style, it's a classical in all the small minded people that sign up on the military. You have to make up for that small penis of yours, so you need big weapons and a bad guy attitude.

But all that attitude and the fact that you've been brainwashed already changes nothing. Facts are facts, and, in your own words, it's not the world that is fucking with the US, it's the US that is fucking with the rest of the world. Remember operation condor? The CIA has been organizing coup d'etats around the world for 50 years. You have an active intelligence, economic and military presence all over the world.

Let's take Iraq as a quick example:

Iraq was an awesome place on its own since the dawn of civilization. 6000 years ago, they were the most advanced civilization on earth. They were invaded by just about everyone: The Sumerians, the Persians, the Romans, The Mongols, The Ottomans. But throughout all that time it was pretty clear: They were part of one empire, then they become part of another empire. In the meanwhile, they went on with their lives, and every single culture that invaded them preserved their amazing cultural heritage. Then your country's daddy and mentor in the imperialism game (The UK) first fucked up Iraq, invaded, overthrown the government, and left a puppet as dictator. That was that until the US helped Saddam Hussein murder everyone else and take power. And he was a happy puppet of the US, until he revealed against you, so you had to put him down. And there you are. In Iraq. In 6000 years, after hundreds of invasions, yours caused more damage than all the others put together. You carpet-bombed the place destroying invaluable pieces of history and art.

So, are you trying to tell me that somehow "Iraq fucked with your country?". Also, you talked about Terrorists, but the terrorists that attacked your country weren't from Iraq. They were form Saudi Arabia. But of course, you can't attack that country because they own a big chunk of the USA's economy, and the Bushes and other bastards are close friends with them, because of their ongoing and fruitful oil business. Therefore you attacked Afghanistan. A piece of Arid land that has already been attacked throughout the 20th century by every country with an army plus the boy scouts, and were there's little left standing. You were there to find an ex-CIA that you trained to murder and destroy, all surprised that he did exactly that.

Now, can you explain to me again how it is that your innocent country is just trying to defend itself?

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086976)

by the way im Enlisted in the Navy

You obviously didn't join for the marvellous educational opportunities like learning how to spell and use capital letters correctly.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075172)

Just ignore for a second the fact that if an enemy is unable to kill your soldiers, they will give up. Ignore the fact that killing all enemy combatants quicker and more effectively (fewer deaths) that the conflict will end sooner. (Any context in which these realities do not hold acknowledges an existential ideological conflict.)

As a child poster to you said: they'll be generally more effective at humanitarian aide as well.

Believe it or not, humanitarian efforts - providing food, support, etc. - have long been the bulk of US military operations. We've seemingly stopped doing that recently, but that may have been due to the greedy, hateful "give us more, and fuck off" mentality of the recipients.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (-1, Flamebait)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075390)

Fuck you, do you actually believe that shit?

First, the US hasn't fought a single legitimate war in the last 65 years. Give me one good reason to fight the vietnam war. There were none. The reasons to fight that war were simple: We have too much ammunition and a huge stack of weapons, and we need to keep buying more from our friends at several companies so we can get even richer, you know, it's our way of stealing money from this country, so we are going over there to murder your children, but if anyone asks, the official reason is that your economic system is evil.

Same shit for every other war the US has fought. The same is actually true for WWII, you were dying to get into that war, and tried hard until you found a good excuse. Same thing in WWI, you actually sent the Lusitania knowing that it would get destroyed in order to get into the fucking war.

Humanitarian efforts? Fuck of, you fucking hypocrite.

Eenie meenie miney moe (2, Interesting)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075602)

Troll Interesting Flamebait ... none

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079946)

First, the US hasn't fought a single legitimate war in the last 65 years. Give me one good reason to fight the vietnam war.

Because the communist regimes throughout the world were growing and oppressing millions of people, and stopping said encroachment was the morally superior thing to do?

The fact that it was a poorly fought war, with shitloads of bureaucratic nonsense and incompetent commanders doesn't change this fact. The war was winnable had we fought differently - diligently, and not as a military experiment.

Same shit for every other war the US has fought. The same is actually true for WWII, you were dying to get into that war, and tried hard until you found a good excuse. Same thing in WWI, you actually sent the Lusitania knowing that it would get destroyed in order to get into the fucking war.

So maybe we should have let the Germans walk all over Europe, cleansing all the Jews in the process. "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!" and all that. And I'm sure France (and the majority of Europe) wouldn't have fought to the last man during WWI, or anything, had the US not stepped in with substantial aide.

I suppose you think the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor never happened, and it was actually US ships attacking?

What you don't seem to realize is that the US was mostly opposed to joining the World Wars. Western Europe would have been destroyed utterly had we not interceded.

Humanitarian efforts? Fuck of, you fucking hypocrite.

Please see: pretty much any hurricane or tsunami worldwide, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany after WWII, and the food surpluses given to famine-stricken places for the past 40+ years. The US has done more than any force (except for the British Empire) in the past several centuries to keep the world regionally stable and people world-over fed and un-oppressed.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34080316)

Because the communist regimes throughout the world were growing and oppressing millions of people, and stopping said encroachment was the morally superior thing to do?

Bullshit. Communism isn't evil or oppressive, at least no more than capitalism. The only country in the world that says "Communism is evil" as a motto is the US. Sure, there are particular cases like Stalin, but that has nothing to do with Communism itself. Besides communism isn't so different from what you guys have: In communism, the state controls money, wealth and production. In corporate USA, corporations take the role of the state and control money, wealth and production.

So maybe we should have let the Germans walk all over Europe, cleansing all the Jews in the process. "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!" and all that. And I'm sure France (and the majority of Europe) wouldn't have fought to the last man during WWI, or anything, had the US not stepped in with substantial aide.

Guess what? It wasn't the US that stopped the Nazis. It was the Russians. Read some history, and you'll understand that simple fact.

Regarding Perl Harbor, the USA was providing financial aid and weaponry to Japan's enemies (China and the UK). Roosevelt insulted Japan everytime he got some camera time (AKA all the fucking time). There are many sources that say that the US knew about the attack, and allowed it to happen to be able to enter the war.

Maybe you will believe someone in the forces? Here you go:

One perspective is given by Vice Admiral Frank E. Beatty, who at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack was an aide to the Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox and was very close to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's inner circle, with perspicuous remarks as:
"Prior to December 7, it was evident even to me... that we were pushing Japan into a corner. I believed that it was the desire of President Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Churchill that we get into the war, as they felt the Allies could not win without us and all our efforts to cause the Germans to declare war on us failed; the conditions we imposed upon Japan — to get out of China, for example — were so severe that we knew that nation could not accept them. We were forcing her so severely that we could have known that she would react toward the United States. All her preparations in a military way — and we knew their over-all import — pointed that way."

Now, about this:

The US has done more than any force (except for the British Empire) in the past several centuries to keep the world regionally stable and people world-over fed and un-oppressed.

You are delusional. Let me guess, you also believe that god is real, your government is honest, and santa loves you and brings you toys?

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 3 years ago | (#34085840)

I'm not sure why I am responding to this - I guess you remind me a bit too much of what I used to think and I feel the need to explain why my views have changed. In any case you may find some of the reasons to be of interest.

Communism isn't evil or oppressive, at least no more than capitalism.

There are two main problems with communism - one is that the centralisation of decision making (and hence creativity) is unsuitable for managing a large country (note both china and Russia abandoned much of these ideas and introduced, albeit limited, free market reforms). Second is that it creates large concentrations of power that inevitably revert to authoritarian control - its basically part of human nature (you will see this in decision making literature). Given the above its not surprising that the system has failed to demonstrate a working compatibility with democracy - and while capitalism is not without flaws - these have been largely mitigated in the western world.

Regarding Perl Harbor, the USA was providing financial aid and weaponry to Japan's enemies (China and the UK). Roosevelt insulted Japan everytime he got some camera time (AKA all the fucking time). There are many sources that say that the US knew about the attack, and allowed it to happen to be able to enter the war.

These are all true (expect perhaps about knowing about the attack - while they knew an attack was likely they did not know the time and place) but are irrelevant. The US did provide some token support to the Chinese (the UK was not at war with Japan at the time and declared war at the same time at the US) - however the main thing that the US did was embargo a critical ingredient to their war of ruthless expansion - oil - something perfectly legitimate to do given how Japan was behaving at the time (the rape of nanjing for instance). If you think this makes an attack legitimate then I would disagree - if they wanted to they could have given up all their gains in their wars in return for resumed oil imports. The they chose to attack says it all.

The US has done more than any force (except for the British Empire) in the past several centuries to keep the world regionally stable and people world-over fed and un-oppressed

If you disagree - name the country that has done more? While the US has done some bad things it has also done very good things - it stood up to the USSR, kosovo, somalia etc - the world would be a much poorer place if it has not existed.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087046)

while capitalism is not without flaws - these have been largely mitigated in the western world.

Yes, by adopting a large number of what would once have been called socialist/communist measures. For example, legislating against child labour, providing pensions and health care, allowing workers to strike, state enforcement of health and safety laws and anti-racist/sexist employment practices, provision of universal access to education independent of wealth and the concept of welfare in times of unemployment.

The problem is, that a lot of these benefits now want to be watered down or abolished by pro-free market fanatics. The closer you get to a return to unfettered capitalism, the more likely you are to produce the conditions that caused Marx to write Das Kapital and thus make revolutionary discontent more likely.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34086994)

Because the communist regimes throughout the world were growing and oppressing millions of people, and stopping said encroachment was the morally superior thing to do?

Or, alternatively, countries such as Vietnam were shrugging off their imperialist colonised status and achieving self-determination, which fucked with the West's desire to control them.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075826)

A HUD with targeting/fire control wouldn't prove entirely useful until Friend/Foe systems are worked out to the point of being infallible.

That's not entirely true. "No kill zones", to friendly troop movements, topology overlays, so no and so on, all greatly enhance survivability. You forget we do a lot by radar guidance and remote target acquisition. Targeting by UAV is becoming more prevalent. All of which can be of value to someone on the ground. Especially if they are close to the target area.

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088036)

>Why are those things necessary
These are 2fold....first off this is always the way, military gets it first then tests it, then 5 years later, it is available to the public. Once available to the public many seniors or even MS patients will be better off.

Secondly, they need this to put it through its learning curve, this is always like a beta version, many years into it, we will see spin offs, better armor, better air conditioning, etc...

Sort of like Iron man, the first one was not the best, but the series of ones after it, became pretty cool, each for a specific job, no?

Re:Where is the shoulder mount? (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074250)

They don't get that until at least MK IV haven't you read Halo: Fall of Reach.

Why? (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073506)

Yeah, I've seen the sci-fi movies. But this just seems stupid to me. It doesn't appear to be flexible. And flexible is what you need in combat.

Do Want! (2, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073544)

I still want one. At 57 with a back that limits where I can go - a likely stripped down version that could assist hike 10 - 20 miles before recharging would be something I'd pay 4 figures for.

Screw the flying car, this thing could take off!

Consumer != military. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073606)

There are lots of models out there being developed for consumers with physical issues.

I'd rather see the government putting some money into those than trying to build something they saw on some crap Sci-Fi movie.

Re:Consumer != military. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073728)

There are lots of models out there being developed for consumers with physical issues.

I'd rather see the government putting some money into those than trying to build something they saw on some crap Sci-Fi movie.

There are lots of models out there being developed for consumers with physical issues.

I'd rather see the government putting some money into those than trying to build something they saw on some crap Sci-Fi movie.

I dunno. The ones I've seen out there (the Japanese ones) are still pretty lame. If Lockheed is really getting the specs they claim for this suite, then color me impressed. Perhaps not impressed enough to pay the 6 figures that Lockheed will charge the government for it* but impressed nonetheless.

It really is an interesting field and there is certainly room enough for Lockheed and everybody else. I, for one, only plan on welcoming those exoskelatal overlords that can get my butt up a big, long hill and back again.

* Yes, it will include spares, support and likely 400 batteries but my wife wouldn't let me buy it at that price.

Re:Do Want! (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074782)

Yeah, but since we are still deep into SciFi territory, I want little nanobots that can gradually take over the functions of my living brain (over time so I won't even notice) so that when i kick the bucket I can just be put into a brand new steel and titanium body!

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073586)

Ask anyone in the military, there is A LOT of time spent carrying stuff from point A to point B. loading and unloading equipment takes a great deal of effort. Think the aliens scene where they use the lifters to load the dropship.

That was the point. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073650)

Think the aliens scene where they use the lifters to load the dropship.

This is about funding something they saw in a sci-fi movie.

Yes, in the military you do spend a lot of time moving stuff from point A to point B.
Which is why the military has so many machines that do that. Machines that do not have fragile humans as an integral part of them.
Yes, it takes a bit more time to put the equipment on a pallet. But when something goes wrong, you don't have to send the forklift to the doctor to have its bones set. You can have the forklift back in operation in less than a day.

Problem with forklifts is... (3, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073780)

There's never one around when you need to pull a wounded man out of the battlefield and then carry him to a field hospital.

Also, they can be a bitch to get up a a stairway.

WWI (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073824)

There's never one around when you need to pull a wounded man out of the battlefield and then carry him to a field hospital.

Soldiers were doing that in WWI without the need for robot-suits.

Not to mention that the future of killing is drones.
Giving troops their own robot-suits makes each soldier that much more expensive when the drone takes them out.

If your mission plan requires the troops to carry 200lbs of equipment themselves then whomever wrote that plan needs to be shot.
That's what we have vehicles for.

Re:WWI (2, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074498)

Back then, soldiers with PTSD used to be shot or left to die in no-man's-land for cowardice.
You will recognize that the world has changed a bit in last 100 years? On AND off the battlefield.

Giving troops their own robot-suits makes each soldier that much more expensive when the drone takes them out.

Good!

Maybe then less soldiers will be sent out there to die for no reason.

If your mission plan requires the troops to carry 200lbs of equipment themselves then whomever wrote that plan needs to be shot.

They are already regularly hauling around 100 pounds of gear.
1/3rd of it being just clothes, basic armor (helmet), weapon and ammo they are wearing.

With exoskeleton, they can move under full gear as they would with only the basic gear while not wearing the exoskeleton.
And again... You can't get vehicles to every place where you need soldiers who in turn need increased mobility.

Re:That was the point. (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073796)

Repairing bones is often cheaper, especially in the case of the military.

A veterinarian can set and cast a broken dog leg for a few hundred bucks.. getting it done for a human by a doctor and the same procedure cost over ten thousand dollars.

The difference is that there arent a million lawyers fucking it up for everyone.

Re:That was the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34074212)

This is about funding something they saw in a sci-fi movie.

Actually, it's about funding for something they paid to have included in a movie.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34073848)

But this just seems stupid to me. It doesn't appear to be flexible. And flexible is what you need in combat.

Because prototypes always have all the features of the final production version?

Re:Why? (1)

Stupid McStupidson (1660141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073990)

I don't know how much this thing is projected to cost (didn't RTFA of course) but it definitely needs to carry much more than 200 pounds. I'm in the military, in the Infantry no less, and I'm having a hard time seeing why this is better than a pallet and a forklift. This thing, http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2005-01/2005011205a.jpg [defense.gov] , can lift a pretty considerable load, maybe some AF guy can clue in, but I'm guessing you could probably buy 10 of those things vs. one set of this exoskeleton thing, easy. As far as combat applications, I can't see what this thing can offer, given the cost, potential maintenance issues, and a person to operate. 200 pounds is a .50 cal with spare barrel, and 3 cans of ammo (300 rounds). Or, a Mk 19 and 2 of the big cans of ammo (96 rounds). An up-armored humvee will carry this, plus a whole lot more ammo, plus my (and everyone's) stuff, plus give me a ride. It might be able to go places the humvee can't go, but what it brings isn't worth it vs. the cost. It would give the gundham crowd boners though.

the gadgets aren't cost effective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34075704)

It is currently costing the taxpayers half a mil a pop for a dead taliban/al queda/goat herder with an ak. Gadgets like this just drive the cost up even more.

It would be way more cost effective to just hire the entire nation at like quintuple their normal pay they might make, put them on a payroll, and tell them to kill their own taliban after they get their first month pay packet. Just say "like that? Money is nice, right?, kill the bad guys, we keep you on the tab".

Re:the gadgets aren't cost effective (1)

cavePrisoner (1184997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34076618)

I don't think most people working on projects like this are thinking about the cost per kill, so much as cost to keep a soldier alive for a year in Afghanistan. If you'll notice, weapons systems haven't changed in any major way during this war, but body armor has been in continuous transition since it began. I know guys who owe their lives to simple things like the gunner restraint (when an IED goes off, it keeps them from flying like a ragdoll out the top of the vehicle). The enemy that got away doesn't matter 1% as much as the soldier who died because nobody was willing to spend a few bucks to keep his equipment up date.

Sorry to disapoint you lads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34073540)

But I can already carry 200lbs and run at 10mph.

Someone wake me up when there is an extra zero on the end of either of those numbers

Re:Sorry to disapoint you lads (1)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073714)

can you do both at the same time?

Re:Sorry to disapoint you lads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34073918)

Over a long distance?

Re:Sorry to disapoint you lads (2, Insightful)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074042)

We Europeans actually get out of our recliners and out into the wild now and then!

Re:Sorry to disapoint you lads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34075086)

Now you can carry 400lbs at 10mph, congrats.

Good call .. (1)

sosaited (1925622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073640)

New control software huh? So those frequent UAC warnings every time you moved the leg a bit further than allowed changed your mind after all.

Yes but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34073724)

Can HULC SMASH!?

Re:Yes but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34077736)

more importantly... Does it run Linux?

Miles per hours are easy (1)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073960)

But I need Google to know what a pound is: 200 pounds = 90.718474 kilograms

Re:Miles per hours are easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34075584)

Get your units right! A pound is $1.60 !!

*runs*

Re:Miles per hours are easy (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088268)

Why are miles per hour to kilometres per hour (presumably) easier to convert than pounds to kilograms? They're both fixed conversion factors and doing the calculation in your head isn't much different. A kilometre is 5/8 of a mile and there are 2.2 pounds in a kilogram.

Re:Miles per hours are easy (1)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34148826)

The conversion factor is much easier for us non-mile users, as miles are just 60% more than kilometers. No idea of what a pound of weight is. Honestly, I thought there were like 3 pounds and a bit in a kilo.

Re:Miles per hours are easy (1)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34148886)

The conversion factor from mph to parsecs per second is also fixed, so I suppose you cand do it with a quick mental calculation. PS: Brrr, how is that Slashdot still doesn't allow us to edit comments?

Mass produced exoskeleton (1)

Penguin Follower (576525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074054)

These are being mass produced in Japan for health care and other markets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy7ipDAyXtI [youtube.com]
http://www.cyberdyne.jp/english/robotsuithal/index.html [cyberdyne.jp]

Re:Mass produced exoskeleton (4, Funny)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074464)

The company's name is actually Cyberdyne? Why would you even tempt fate like that?

Re:Mass produced exoskeleton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34077770)

The company's name is actually Cyberdyne? Why would you even tempt fate like that?

I worked for a company called Skyenet.

Re:Mass produced exoskeleton (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088320)

If you get your UK broadband internet access from Sky Digital you would presumably have Sky-net. Rupert Murdoch really is evil.

Warhammer (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074842)

Make Terminator Power Armor, NAOW!

Re:Warhammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34075466)

No can do. None of the precursor technology is there.

Now, once we have massive plasma reactors that need repairing, we can develop the suits to do that. THEN we can modify Tactical Dreadnought Armor from those suits...

We are approaching a breakthrough (1)

hat_eater (1376623) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074978)

Another maturing technology in desperate need of new, denser energy storage device. The pressure is building - I wonder how many years before we finally see the really new new battery. Three? Five? Ten? Something that makes the concept of changing batteries in consumer devices obsolete, as they age faster than the battery is depleted...

Re:We are approaching a breakthrough (0)

uninformedLuddite (1334899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34077762)

Can't see it myself

Welcome (1)

captain_dope_pants (842414) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074988)

I, for one, welcome this robotic oversuit.

Helmet cover... (1)

Chumbley (1931940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075260)

Anyone notice how in the pics in TFA the guy is wearing his helmet cover backwards? Who did they hire to model this thing?

Re:Helmet cover... (1)

Arendious (993841) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075486)

Who did they hire to model this thing?

Air Force people. Of the 50% of folks in the AF who even bother to put a cover on their helmets, about 60% of those habitually put the thing on backwards.

Not impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34077316)

For all the price and trouble it would be to manufacture and use these things, the payload isn't very impressive. I mean sure it'll help for hauling things long distance, but I'd wager a lot of marines can lift 200lb. without the suit.

Ohh my poor knees are killing me. (1)

lsatenstein (949458) | more than 3 years ago | (#34079108)

Who would carry 200 lbs (about 80 kilos) and jog at 10mph, (16km/hr). The knees and lungs would surely not endure any more that 30 seconds of that before fatigue or knee damage occurs.

Re:Ohh my poor knees are killing me. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34091156)

Who would carry 200 lbs (about 80 kilos) and jog at 10mph, (16km/hr).

Royal Marines, Paras, the SAS...

Stan Lee should sue LockMart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34083692)

They're not only building an Iron Man suit, but they're calling it The HULC

Congratulations Lockheed! (1)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088830)

You've created a hydraulic version of an obese person. Our tax dollars at work people! ~:-)B
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?