Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

US Marines Demonstrate Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector Prototype

samzenpus posted about a week ago | from the getting-there-no-matter-what dept.

The Military 90

Zothecula writes In a recent demonstration carried out during RIMPAC 2014, the US Marines displayed and tested a fully-functional, half-scale prototype of its new amphibious transport vehicle. The proposed full-size version of the Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connecter (UHAC) is designed to power across the water with a payload of nearly 200 tons at up to 20 knots and be capable of driving up on to the shore and over the top of obstructions up to 10ft high.

cancel ×

90 comments

Total Annihilation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47472989)

First thing that came to mind was the amphibious tanks.

Re:Total Annihilation (2)

maroberts (15852) | about a week ago | (#47473763)

the land-sea capability of the UHAC is provided buy a set of tracks – similar to a tank – fitted with captured-air foam cells that provide buoyancy, act as paddles when in the water, and behave as track-driven pads when on the land

The first thing that came to mind was bubble-wrap. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Total Annihilation (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about a week ago | (#47473819)

I still hum that little tune they did with the musical cheat or whatever it was... You are talking about the rts right?

But does it have more KILLING POWER? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47472991)

That is what is important. Whatchgonnado?

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473017)

That is what is important. Whatchgonnado?

The thing it carries from the ship, through the surf zone, over the sand and onto the hard ground has the killing power -- an M1 Abrams main battle tank.

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a week ago | (#47473111)

At 200 Tons capacity, it could carry three.

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a week ago | (#47473581)

At 200 Tons capacity, it could carry three.

due to comment scores I could see your comment but not the parent and my response was "What, Americans?"

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (1, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | about a week ago | (#47473771)

At 200 Tons capacity, it could carry three.

This just goes to show how obesity has become a real problem for the American military.

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (2)

confused one (671304) | about a week ago | (#47473467)

No, the thing it caries from the ship, through the surf zone, over sand and onto hard ground that has the killing power are the U.S. Marines.

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about a week ago | (#47474495)

200 tons of marines.

Each marine carries between 97 and 135 lbs of equipmen so let's just say an average of 116 pounds. Let's say the average marine weighs 181 (I took 6'2" as the height marker and average weight between max and minimum weight for that height by their own charts). So one marine puts a load of 297 pounds. This monster is capable of carrying 1346 combat geared marines (space not-withstanding). That about an entire marine brigade.

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about a week ago | (#47474519)

Though after reviewing the dimensions..... 1346 marines would be a bit beyond its capability unless you're stacking them like a lincoln logs.

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (2)

blue9steel (2758287) | about a week ago | (#47475045)

A transport configured LCAC can carry 180 fully equipped troops. The full size UHAC will have similar dimensions so I don't imagine it will carry much more than a company at a time. With the much larger carrying capacity though it'll be able to move a lot more heavy equipment per load which means consolidating the beachhead and moving inland should go much faster.

Re:But does it have more KILLING POWER? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a week ago | (#47476049)

It's a coffin. It's slow, easily seen, loud.

Re: But does it have more KILLING POWER? (1)

Vastad (1299101) | about a week ago | (#47484193)

I agree with you but only partially. A D-Day style beach invasion with today's tech would truly be suicidal. These days though, no amphibious assault would be considered without air- and naval-superiority being firmly established with a control zone measured in the hundreds of miles around the beachhead first.

Only an adversary of similar tech-level would be a threat since there is no real defence against super long range missile artillery like cruise missiles. The UHAC's advantage here is that it will be a small (relatively speaking) moving target, not some bunker with a fixed ventilation port.

Poontang (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473005)

What a pile of poontang varmint poontang .

Talk about jokemobile or what ..

Kids will play with their toys , This is the sort of crap that you are spending your tax dollars on and you aint hootin like hell nuff said .

Botters gonna bot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473027)

WTF is "poontang varmint poontang" You're a bot aren't you?

Re:Botters gonna bot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473043)

WTF is "poontang varmint poontang" You're a bot aren't you?

More likely a kiddie who heard the older boys use the word "poontang" and thought it sounded cool and couldn't wait to use it himself. Let him have his fun, its about as close to poontang as a troll is likely to get.

Re:Botters gonna bot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473049)

WTF is "poontang varmint poontang" You're a bot aren't you?

Yosemite Sam's having flashbacks to Vietnam. It'll pass.

Anyone recognize that thing from HALO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473007)

Art imitating life or life imitating art?

rfewfe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473037)

www.cheapfreeruns5.com

Haven't we seen something like this before (2)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about a week ago | (#47473069)

Don't know why but I kind of feel like I have seen something like this before.... The ww2 landing vehicle tracked (LVT) looked very similar to this, just on a much smaller scale.

Some of the variants even used paddled tracks like this. oblig wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Haven't we seen something like this before (3, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a week ago | (#47473097)

The tracks on this one look rather different: it seems that it's massive air-filled chunks in the tracks that provide bouyancy, not the hull. This seems to be designed to cross muddy bogs as well, something I doubt that much older vehicle could do.

Certainly anphibious assult vehicles are not a new concept, but this one does look really cool.

Re:Haven't we seen something like this before (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473529)

Awesome! Now all we have to do is:
1. Start another unnecessary war, but this time in a non-desert middle-eastern country!
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:Haven't we seen something like this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47475447)

"This seems to be designed to cross muddy bogs as well, something I doubt that much older vehicle could do."

um, in the link provided, first paragraph of the description it says:
The LVT had its origins in a civilian rescue vehicle called the Alligator. Developed by Donald Roebling in 1935, the Alligator was intended to operate in swampy areas,

so these started as bog boats.

Re:Haven't we seen something like this before (2)

stephanruby (542433) | about a week ago | (#47473443)

Here is a picture of their very first prototype [nauticexpo.com] (the one that was too alpha to show the press).

Sandwalker in Star Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47474951)

They should dress the driver like a Jawa

Re:Sandwalker in Star Wars (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47476835)

These tracks are side by side. Marines always move single file to hide their numbers.

20 knots isn't that fast (0)

rossdee (243626) | about a week ago | (#47473085)

20 knots isn't that fast, when the marines already have the LCAC that does 40+ knots and can carry an Abrams ashore and across the beach

Who are we planning to invade anyway?

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a week ago | (#47473129)

This would have over three times the capacity of the LCAC. I'm not sure what they're planning to haul on it (3 tanks, maybe?). There certainly is construction equipment that weights 200 tons, or industrial equipment.

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (5, Funny)

itzly (3699663) | about a week ago | (#47473227)

It's mainly designed to carry huge budgets.

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473309)

Don't discount its large capacity for pork barrels.

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473537)

And all the empty seats for our fearless warmongering leaders and their children that won't be coming to the next meaningless war for profit...

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (1)

freezin fat guy (713417) | about a week ago | (#47474157)

It does seem odd that a defense budget would need to pony up so much for craft that are only useful for invading.

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a week ago | (#47474287)

Sometimes you are invading to defend a friendly nation. See D-Day, and Incheon.
Other times you are bringing large amounts of help to a nation see Haiti after the earthquake.
Also it probably is not that expensive.

Ha, Marines don't get $$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47474923)

Dollar for dollar, the best fighting force this country will ever have.

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (5, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a week ago | (#47473141)

This has three times the capacity of the LCAC but takes up the same amount of space in an Amphibious Assault Carrier. So even though it is half the speed, it will be able to transfer equipment to shore at a 50% greater rate than LCAC.

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about a week ago | (#47477821)

The ability to run over objects ten feet in height means this critter is getting close to being able to run over homes. At its weight it could be a crushingly good weapon eliminating entire suburbs like Godzilla smashing homes with its feet. Remember the guy who stole a tank and crushed cars all over town?

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473149)

doesn't matter, gotta keep the money flowing from tax payers to military factories

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47474073)

No one. Read about the LCACs; they are maintenance beasts and the Marines are reducing their number by half. This thing looks a bit maintenance heavy too, but with 3X the carrying capacity it's still a cost savings in terms of cost/ton carried.

These are used not just to invade, but on humanitarian missions as well. They're one of the few craft that can land on a ravaged or destroyed or undeveloped coastline, and with a 200 ton carrying capacity they can carry some seriously heavy construction equipment. That allows the marines to drop in engineers that can build up a temporary dock in a ravaged place like during the 2004 Tsunami or the Haiti earthquake, allowing for cargo ships to land with relief supplies and medical personnel.

The military's primary mission is to project the nation's will through force when called to do so, but that is not their only mission. They are a well equipped, well disciplined, highly trained force, which makes them the best first responders in all sorts of crises.

Re:20 knots isn't that fast (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a week ago | (#47475529)

Just as a reference, a typicle semi truck running down the highway will have almost 50,000 lbs carying capacity or roughly 25 tons. And these are not built to operate off road or with debris in the road. So if one of these shows up with supplies for disaster relief or whatever, its about the same as trucking in 12 fully loaded semis -or more if you figure the reduced hauling capacity from suring them up to operate in those conditions.

Needs weapons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473155)

It will requires weapons to function as a law enforcement vehicle. I recommend the Thermal laser system.

While microwaves, such as those used in the Active Denial System, will go through any clothing and can only be stopped by wrapping oneself in tinfoil, the infrared [laser] of the Thermal Laser System can be blocked by clothing; fine if you're trying to subdue a group of nudists, but problematic otherwise.
- www.gizmag.com

This baby-sized replacement for cargo-carrying hovercraft will barely fit on a semi-trailer. Where will they park the full size paddle-boat?

wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473171)

Nice Infomation!
Viem lo chan long [slashdot.org]

This was on Gizmag yesterday... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473207)

... as usual.

Re:This was on Gizmag yesterday... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about a week ago | (#47473325)

It's usual for Gizmag to have this article posted yesterday? Outside of Alice in Wonderland, what would that even mean?

brits did it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473235)

i seem to recall that in ww2 the british tried to do the same thing and it ended pretty well with loads of those things sinking after getting shot while approaching the beach during the failed italy landing.

Flip-flops (2)

sdack (601542) | about a week ago | (#47473247)

It looks pretty much like a tank on flip-flops.

What would be weird is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473251)

the US sending support to the Palestinians in Gaza to defeat their foe. Send the Marines, with this 1/2-scale transport mofo, onto the shores of Israel, and pound the infidels into submission so to surrender Palestine once and for all back to its rightful peoples. That would be weird.

Re:What would be weird is (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about a week ago | (#47473331)

That would be weird... the Romans named the area Palestine when the Jews were living there. Why would anyone want to give the land to Arabs?

Re:What would be weird is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473551)

What's next, giving Amerikkka back to the Native Americans and the Mexicans?

Re:What would be weird is (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a week ago | (#47473579)

Give Amerikka back to the large mammal species that the Native Americans drove into extinction (there were horses on North America, and giant sloths the size of bears, and many other large mammals) shortly after they arrived here over the Bering Straight.

The Indians didn't have horses again to ride until the Europeans broght them over and showed the noble wise red men how to ride, not eat, them.

Re:What would be weird is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47475395)

Are you trying to claim superiority of the European settlers (that decimated the American Bison) or are you belittling the Native Americans by comparing them to animals?

Re:What would be weird is (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | 4 days ago | (#47494255)

I'm saying the Native Americans were a stone age culture, one that drove horses to extinction without ever figuring out how to tame and ride them.

Granted, the humans who ate almost all of the large mammals to extinction were many generations back from the more evolved Native Americans that the first European settlers encountered.

The European settlers didn't decimate the American Bison out of stupidity, incidentally. It was impossible to build a transcontinental railroad system with the huge bison herds intact. When a million bison rumble over some railroad tracks, there's nothing left there but an unpleasant surprise for the next train to encounter.

It also helped the European settlers subjugate the Indians to take away their resource supply, but that was secondary to the impossibility of a railroad while the buffalo herds roamed the land.

Re:What would be weird is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473635)

Funny, the Torah itself describes the new-born nation-tribe of Israel displacing Philistines in the Levant, who already lived there. Palestine is a corruption of Philistine (or should I say, a word resembling that in the now-lost Philistine language), so that name is inarguably the older one.

And if you want to move to claims based on genetics rather than allegiance to a particular holy book, the "Arabs" currently living in Palestine are much more closely related to the Jews of antiquity than are modern-day Jewish populations, who have had substantially more foreign admixture via the effects of the diaspora.

Re:What would be weird is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47478889)

so to surrender Palestine once and for all back to its rightful peoples

You're referring to the Natufians [wikipedia.org] ?

'MURICA (1)

conscarcdr (1429747) | about a week ago | (#47473521)

Sorry, someone has to say it.

Re:'MURICA (1)

gtall (79522) | about a week ago | (#47473779)

So this self-loathing you are afflicted with, is it something you are attempting to spread around?

Re:'MURICA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47474061)

Ragheaded smelly ass fucker. Someone has to say it!

Phew! (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a week ago | (#47473583)

I'm glad I'm living in a landlocked country.

Re:Phew! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47474035)

You shouldn't be. The marines haven't carried out an actual amphibious assault since Inchon in 1951; just some small operations and one giant feint with 40 amphibs during the Gulf War that never happened. The marines have carried out significant humanitarian assistance however in the past few decades, including during the Haiti earthquake and the 2004 tsunami. The primary advantage of landing craft like this is that they can land on completely undeveloped shoreline of which some 70% of the world's coasts fall into that category, whereas normal landing craft can only land on about 15% of the world's shoreline.

So the next time your landlocked country has a major ecological disaster, I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune, wishing you had some shoreline so the US Marines could bring in a heavy 100 ton truck with caterpillar treads so it can operate without roads and drop 100 tons of food, shelter, and medical supplies to the displaced people.

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47474395)

Oh, you're just wrong. Ronnie saved some American med students in Granada. That was (technically) an amphibious landing. Against no particular defense, mind you, but it was amphib.

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47478747)

It was an amphibious landing, not an amphibious assault. Hard to call it an assault when the landing is unopposed.

Re:Phew! (1)

blue9steel (2758287) | about a week ago | (#47475077)

Don't worry global citizen, the glorious forces of the United States Military still have paratroopers and air power to reach you in your time of need!

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47475311)

Truth! UAVs will bomb the insurgent ecological disaster out of existence!

Lake Ontario (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473643)

Even if they send that thing North across Lake Ontario they'll never make it over Kathleen Wynne's budget!

removed SI units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47473669)

Dude! I know /. is crap, but seriously? Cooyimg the first paragraph of TFA then editing out the SI units? What valie is that supposed to add?

Re:removed SI units (1)

necro81 (917438) | about a week ago | (#47473807)

Cooyimg the first paragraph of TFA then editing out the SI units? What valie is that supposed to add?

About as much "valie" as making sure one's post is free of typos like "Cooyimg".

Oh thank God! (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a week ago | (#47474379)

Now we can continue to kill people of no threat to us, in greater and greater numbers!

Re:Oh thank God! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47475859)

False! Once we've killed a bunch of innocent people to get the few bad guys, the rest will want to kill us. Therefore, they will be a threat to us in the future, so logically we must begin murdering them as soon as possible.

Look out, Boston! (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a week ago | (#47474453)

For some reason, roughly half the apparent street traffic in Beantown is amphibious tour vehicles. What's it going to be like when these things replace the current WW II design?

Another boondoggle (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a week ago | (#47474587)

And the last time Marines stormed a beach was? The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?

Re:Another boondoggle (1)

blue9steel (2758287) | about a week ago | (#47475165)

The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?

WWI probably. Why would you want to? It's pretty much the cornerstone of our entire war fighting doctrine to gain air superiority and then pound the heck out of our adversaries prior to full engagement. I can guarantee you the air strikes on D-Day were coming fast and furious. We spent nearly five months before that destroying the Luftwaffe in order to ensure air superiority prior to the invasion.

Re:Another boondoggle (2)

david_thornley (598059) | about a week ago | (#47483967)

The invasion of Guadalcanal, and the following months of bitter fighting, were without air dominance, although the Marines usually had some degree of air superiority. The Marine invasions in 1943 and later tended to follow the pattern: destroy all nearby Japanese airfields, aircraft, and boats of significant size, shell the #$#@^)&* out of the Japanese positions, and attack. It didn't make it easy (think Tarawa or Iwo Jima), but it made it possible. No US or British amphibious assault of the war ever failed.

So, I'd say the year you're looking for is 1943.

Re:Another boondoggle (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a week ago | (#47475317)

And the last time Marines stormed a beach was?

Kuwait [wikipedia.org]

The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?

Grenada, Panama, Kuwait City. Aerial bombardment has limited effects and can not completely wipe out opposition. It will weaken them but ground forces still need to go in and hold the land.

Re:Another boondoggle (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a week ago | (#47476517)

Kuwait: bombing went on for a month prior to that. Grenada: Operations were already well underway before a small Marine amphibious landing

Few landings of Marines happen in contested zones and one of the only reaons they continue to try to build things like this is the ego of the Marine's who feel without the amphibious capability they are just Army. Rather than think of better ways of delivering equipment they just try to make a new spin on an old story.

Re:Another boondoggle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47476801)

And the last time Marines stormed a beach was?

Korea, Vietnaim, Gulf of Sidra, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Iraq 2, Libya

so true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47474797)

I bet it couldn't lift your momma!

So.... (1)

meglon (1001833) | about a week ago | (#47475207)

On the trail of the F-35, a plane that is underpowered, can't fly in the rain, or at night, or most anytime else it seems, that breaks when it does get flown, and is basically a complete waste of 1.4 trillion dollars (and climbing).... we have congress pressing forward with a super-sized landing craft because they're used just so often by our forces... assuming we're still in the 1940's.

Wonder where the government wastes money? Look no further.

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47475399)

The amphibious capabilities of the Marines allow them to land on 80% of the world's coastline. That provides many many options that could save lives and it provides quite a deterrent when necessary.

Re:So.... (1)

meglon (1001833) | about a week ago | (#47486593)

.... and it hasn't been necessary since WWII. It provides no options other than a new toy they don't need that will cost more of the taxpayers money.

Re:So.... (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a week ago | (#47476879)

You know why the U. S. Marine Corps hasn't had to conduct a contested amphibious landing in over 50 years?

Because the world fully understands that it most certainly could, and woe betide anyone that earns that distinction.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. [wikipedia.org]

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47477435)

Well, no actually. Since the Normany landings it's been pretty well accepted that opposed landings - i.e. ones where you have a reasonable expectation of being up against an organised, disciplined and well-equipped force are...out.

For a recent example, see the last Iraq invasion where Marines (not just US) sat in their ships since the approaches to their landing sites were heavily mined.

Re:So.... (1)

meglon (1001833) | about a week ago | (#47486623)

You know why the U. S. Marine Corps hasn't had to conduct a contested amphibious landing in over 50 years?

... because the rest of the world understands there's this thing called helicopters now days. I know it's a new fangled idea, and it might take a few years to sink into the heads of the truly incredibly stupid.... but i think they're here to stay.

By the way, we haven't had to conduct a full scale cavalry charge on horseback for a while either. I wonder if that's just because the world knows we're just so damn good at them? Or maybe they're just not as fucked in the head.

could use a turret (1)

citizenr (871508) | about a week ago | (#47475603)

Turret would allow it to play secondary role of a scout.
Now that I think about it, turret like that is perfect for a gun!
Lets not forget to put some armor on it now that it has this scary gun, and tow missiles.

Re:could use a turret (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47475963)

And we should make it capable of hovering as well. Also, wouldn't it be great if it were submersible? Then we could really get our money's worth! Yeah, the Submersible Hovering Amphibious Tank...

Re:could use a turret (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a week ago | (#47476959)

The article's about a half-scale prototype. The real deal is supposed to be lightly armored and have a few self-defense machine guns. The real deal will also be too big to be an actual tactical vehicle, comparable in size a current LCAC.

That said, there were interesting experiments in putting self-contained 30mm antitank gun pods onto the cargo deck of LCACs, making them into ghetto gunships, and I bet that would work here too. Something to make beach defenders keep their heads down long enough for the landing craft to land and disembark.

Re:could use a turret (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about a week ago | (#47483985)

You are not going to put significant armor on an amphibious vehicle. Heavy armor is for things that either don't have to float in fairly shallow water, or very specially designed ships that aren't much good for anything else (see British monitors of WWI and WWII).

Re:could use a turret (1)

citizenr (871508) | about a week ago | (#47487793)

I call bs, Bradley is amphibious and look at that glorious scout with big turret and sexy gun/tow missiles.

/facepalm. My post was just a joke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:could use a turret (1)

david_thornley (598059) | 5 days ago | (#47489679)

It's well armed, and by APC standards well armored. That doesn't count as heavily armored. It's a gimme to any reasonable AT weapon.

And, yes, I think my irony detector was on the fritz yesterday.

WHY? (1)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a week ago | (#47480331)

In the current terrorist, not nation state world, what does this service.
Except to waste my tax dollars!

Hmm! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47484659)

Looks like a sci-fi space rover. Or, a hover craft used to shuttle across SF Bay. Or, a futuristic tractor.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...