U.S. Army News:

Regular wrote:And about article.

The weight is UNBELIEVABLE. It's a monstrosity with no mobility, it couldn't even properly use most of the bridges in Europe.
Must be something wrong with article. Or else...

I wont be surprised if this 84 ton figure is in short tons- it would be 75 metric tons approx.. I also think this would be the upper limits of what the vehicles' suspension and running gear can handle(kinda like how Challeneger 2 can barely hold with its heavy uparmour kits) rather than the vehicles basic weight.

Regular wrote:
Mark my word, they will choose something totally different than they are presented.

Prolly because they are waiting to see what Armata HAPC looks like.

Regular wrote:Problem with F-22? It's not F-35

A stealth chopper that was also meant to go one on one with the Soviet elite, but also became nothing more than a very late overpriced,badly built American wet dream!!

Well Russians still can't build proper radar for their Mi-28. Should we call it wet Russian dream too? Comanche was more of test bed. AH-64 and it's versions are very capable, why US would wanted to replace them is out of my mind. But I bet they learned one thing or another about stealth in helicopters. Just enough to stealthily crash-land in Bin Ladens cabbage patch.

badly built hangar queen.

Wouldn't be so vocal knowing Russian aircraft building quality and conditions they are kept. Things are getting better tough.

- F-35

Don't even get me started on that. Money laundering international. It's not even US that involved and that is scary. Every time US works with Europeans suddenly things go dirty. Europe should have their own NATO and produce weapons themselves imho. There would be no stupid wars in middle east, no US weapon systems being pushed through.

Was canceled, but somehow the GVC and Stryker (aka:Kevlar coffin) managed to avoid getting axed.

What's wrong with Stryker? It does it's job, it's not too heavy, it has proper protection from mines, ied. It is reasonable design.



Sometimes it seems that You guys get erotically aroused by taking crap on America. Not a fan of that country, but sheeshh.. You sound no better than those American cowboys who tell that everything Soviet/Russian is crap. There is no middle ground or what?

All nations have had their share of ambitious weapons design projects that wound up being colossal failures and complete wastes of money.

Some of the American designs/ideas in the Cold War era were absolute crap, or they were just plain silly. I am sure there are many silly Soviet designs/ideas as well but we tend not to hear much about the mistakes made on the other side of the Iron Curtain because a lot of those mistakes were concealed and buried in archives.

Well Russians still can't build proper radar for their Mi-28. Should we call it wet Russian dream too?

Except that they have... tested last year and likely to enter service this year.

Comanche was more of test bed. AH-64 and it's versions are very capable, why US would wanted to replace them is out of my mind.

No it definitely wasn't. It was an attempt to replace two helos in the US Army inventory... the Little Bird and the Apache... the former as a scout helo using stealth instead of small size, and the latter with reduced stealth and externally mounted wings to increase the weapon payload.

The huge irony in my opinion is that for helicopters the greatest threat is not radar directed weapons, but small arms fire and IR and optically guided weapons.

Wouldn't be so vocal knowing Russian aircraft building quality and conditions they are kept. Things are getting better tough.

Russian and Soviet aircraft were designed for war, they could go for periods of abuse with very minimal demands regarding maintainence and attention. Western aircraft are designed for peace time and need to be cosseted and looked after... in times of conflict they are more likely to fail.

The AH-64 is a very capable aircraft but it is also maintainence intensive... to achieve high sortie rates in Desert Storm the maintainence and spare parts replacement schedule was tripled... three times the cost and three times the man hours to keep them flying.

You sound no better than those American cowboys who tell that everything Soviet/Russian is crap. There is no middle ground or what?

Many of us live in environments where Russia = bad or =rubbish equipment and US = perfect = miracle equipment. Perhaps we don't bother with some Russian/Soviet stuff is not that good, and some US stuff is good because we are immersed in that opinion every day.

Some of the American designs/ideas in the Cold War era were absolute crap, or they were just plain silly. I am sure there are many silly Soviet designs/ideas as well but we tend not to hear much about the mistakes made on the other side of the Iron Curtain because a lot of those mistakes were concealed and buried in archives.

During the cold war there was plenty of uses of the secrecy acts to conceal failures of all types of weapon systems... the public only working out something was cancelled eventually... the failures not made public...

[quote="GarryB"][quote]

Except that they have... tested last year and likely to enter service this year.

Good news indeed.

No it definitely wasn't. It was an attempt to replace two helos in the US Army inventory... the Little Bird and the Apache... the former as a scout helo using stealth instead of small size, and the latter with reduced stealth and externally mounted wings to increase the weapon payload.

Wouldn't it be more wise to upgrade Ah-64 into more stealthy helicopters? But new upgrades doesn't seem to address such issue as stealth.

The huge irony in my opinion is that for helicopters the greatest threat is not radar directed weapons, but small arms fire and IR and optically guided weapons.

Well attack helicopters use low altitudes and landscape to minimize probability to be exposed. Stealth by not being targeted. Enemy have to have his all AD systems suppressed and You have to take out his air force. And then it really doesn't matter if You bring stealthy helicopters or not. Same threats will arise. Good ECM suite would do better than stealthy fuselage and rotors.

Russian and Soviet aircraft were designed for war, they could go for periods of abuse with very minimal demands regarding maintainence and attention. Western aircraft are designed for peace time and need to be cosseted and looked after... in times of conflict they are more likely to fail.

Well MiG-25 for example required same care as western aircraft
And not all Western aircraft were advanced as US jets.
I bet PAKFA will be stored in hangar only and so with the rest of newer Russian jets. I've seen pictures of inflatable/mobile hangars with heating and etc. Looks really good and practical.

The AH-64 is a very capable aircraft but it is also maintainence intensive... to achieve high sortie rates in Desert Storm the maintainence and spare parts replacement schedule was tripled... three times the cost and three times the man hours to keep them flying.

What about Cobra? It must have been simpler design. Would it be cheaper to operate Mi-28 than Ah-64 as like with AH-1Z they are have compatibility with already proven transport helicopters

Many of us live in environments where Russia = bad or =rubbish equipment and US = perfect = miracle equipment. Perhaps we don't bother with some Russian/Soviet stuff is not that good, and some US stuff is good because we are immersed in that opinion every day.

US equipment sometimes is inferior to European equipment. But US has good lobbying so they could sell US dead horse if they wanted. Even US can't make everything best and sometimes have to borrow European solutions. Russia can't really depend on countries that specialize in one thing or another, but it can't be Jack of all trades. I personally wouldn't mind if NATO would start buying Russian weapons and I see no problem in Russians getting weapons from NATO(even if some of my countrymen can't understand it.

During the cold war there was plenty of uses of the secrecy acts to conceal failures of all types of weapon systems... the public only working out something was cancelled eventually... the failures not made public...

Well now we know most of Soviet prototypes thanks to leaked sources.

Wouldn't it be more wise to upgrade Ah-64 into more stealthy helicopters? But new upgrades doesn't seem to address such issue as stealth.

But that is the problem... Apaches are already stealthy in terms of radar stealth by flying low... if you could upgrade an airframe to be stealthy then the US and Russia would not waste all that money on the F-35, F-22, PAK FA... they would just upgrade the F-15 and F-16 and Su-35 to be stealthy... if they could they likely would.

The new model Apaches are not stealthy... and don't really need to be... the only radars painting Apaches in the last 30 years were AWACS radars...

Good ECM suite would do better than stealthy fuselage and rotors.

Exactly armoured components and DIRCM systems is all it really needs to do its job.

What about Cobra? It must have been simpler design.

Much simpler and much cheaper... but also less capable.

Would it be cheaper to operate Mi-28 than Ah-64 as like with AH-1Z they are have compatibility with already proven transport helicopters

That could be a factor, though the late model Cobras have improved performance by adding systems fitted to the Apache, so mechanically it might be simpler and easier to maintain, but electronically it might actually be worse than early models.

Even US can't make everything best and sometimes have to borrow European solutions.

It is all part of the Brain washing... ask most American kids and the Model 92 Baretta is an American pistol... an Abrams is an American tank despite having British armour, a German gun, a Belgian coaxial MG (FN MAG... M240), probably some of the electronics were made in South Korea or Japan... the AT4 they use is Swedish...

I personally wouldn't mind if NATO would start buying Russian weapons and I see no problem in Russians getting weapons from NATO(even if some of my countrymen can't understand it.

France already buys 155mm laser guided Krasnopol-M artillery shells from Russia and to be honest if I were in charge of a NATO country I would be seriously looking at the AK12 and VS-121 in NATO calibres because the Russians have always made good small arms and now that they have put more focus on long range accuracy I suspect their ammo manufacturers will also have to up their game too.

Certainly in terms of air defence vehicles you can't ignore the TOR and Pantsir in their latest iterations...

Well now we know most of Soviet prototypes thanks to leaked sources.

not to mention we also know the truth about things we thought were failures and clearly were not. For instance it was assumed that the T-64 was rubbish in the west because it was not exported.

It was thought that the Stechkin machine pistol was useless and unpopular.

GarryB wrote:

It is all part of the Brain washing... ask most American kids and the Model 92 Baretta is an American pistol... an Abrams is an American tank despite having British armour, a German gun, a Belgian coaxial MG (FN MAG... M240), probably some of the electronics were made in South Korea or Japan... the AT4 they use is Swedish...

I carry an M9 Beretta [actually stamped M9] on a daily basis. I even carry it when having Sunday dinner at my grandmothers. One thing she likes about it is that it's made in Italy [half of my family come from the Italian Alps, the rest from Germany and a few from Britain].

GarryB wrote:



not to mention we also know the truth about things we thought were failures and clearly were not. For instance it was assumed that the T-64 was rubbish in the west because it was not exported.

It was thought that the Stechkin machine pistol was useless and unpopular.

Given what had happened in Poland and DDR in the early 1950s and especially Hungary in 1956, I think there should have been some realization that the Soviets didn't want to export their best stuff to Warsaw Pact states because those states might wind up using the stuff against Soviet forces.


Still, I don't believe any non-Soviet Warsaw Pact nation ever deployed tanks above the T-54/T-55, except for DDR which received the T-72. The various Groups of Soviet Forces, especially the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, would have been deadly, but in the late 1970s I don't know how threatening a bunch of Hungarians in 30 year old tanks would be to the West Germans in advanced model Leopards and Americans in M60A3 Pattons.


I think the Soviets could have done more to export at least T-62s to their Warsaw Pact allies. I understand the reasoning for not sending T-64s to anybody and not sending T-72s to any WP ally except for the DDR, but leaving all other WP armored forces with nothing above the T-55 severely limited their combat potential by the 1970s. A Hungarian or Polish tank division with T-62s instead of T-55s would have been much more imposing.

There were two types of monkey models... general export and WP export... the WP got monkey model T-72s in enormous numbers... that actually was its purpose... good armour good gun excellent mobility.

note that is good armour and good gun and excellent mobility and low cost... not excellent armour and excellent gun as they didn't get the latest stuff.

GarryB wrote:There were two types of monkey models... general export and WP export... the WP got monkey model T-72s in enormous numbers... that actually was its purpose... good armour good gun excellent mobility.

note that is good armour and good gun and excellent mobility and low cost... not excellent armour and excellent gun as they didn't get the latest stuff.

IMO the SU should have kept the T-72s and T-80s for themselves, cascade older T series to the WP. Having 22,000 tanks with majority T-72s would be better than having the same numbers composed mainly of T-54/55S, T-62S etc.

The Soviet Army was a conscript army of three tiers of readiness... the first was ready to go on day one and had full weapons levels with the latest equipment. The second level had all their equipment in storage and were not fully manned and would take 2-3 weeks to get ready to fight, most of their equipment was new. then there were the third tier who had previous generation equipment... which was OK because most of the soldiers were trained a while ago on this very equipment... it would take a month or two to mobilise these units and it wouldn't really matter that they were not equipped with state of the art stuff because by then they would be fighting with sticks and stones anyway.

It might not be a good idea to have America to be wasteful. Bad idea to have tanks but good idea to have Navy boats. Lots of ideas for making junk for the president but they have a good amount of money in their accounts to be able to buy lots of tanks. Tank that if it means well then they should be allowed to even have it settled with them.

The US Army recently put out a call for proposals to build a futuristic climate-controlled suit of armor that would make soldiers smarter, stronger, and tougher. As ever, it’s tempting to draw Hollywood comparisons—Iron Man, in this case—because they fire up the imagination and serve as a simple metaphor.

Of course, despite a few shared objectives, what’s being proposed here isn’t remotely on par with the Iron Man suit. It won’t fly; it won’t have a friendly AI chatting away in a soldier’s ear; it won’t have a miniature Arc Reactor delivering heat-free power equivalent to a nuclear sub. And it’s yet just a concept.

To accelerate the project, the army recently requested white papers from industry, academia, individuals, and public labs to speculate on how such a suit (Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit or TALOS) might be built.

Although it isn’t Iron Man, might a simpler suit be realistic? Sure. Many of the required technologies are already here. And in fact, a number of their inventors gathered at a July demonstration for TALOS (below). The army says it expects ”1st gen capability” inside a year. Though realistically, it might be longer than that

http://singularityhub.com/2013/10/21/us-army-to-build-an-armored-talos-suit-that-merges-man-and-machine/

The first generation might be ready pretty soon... it might also be pretty rubbish, but it is a first step.

A lot of the features of such suits in fiction might become reality if enough energy and funding is put into it.

Gordon Freemans suit in Half Life springs to mind, as does the nano suit in Crysis.

Interesting but still a long way to go...

Of course hollywood has helped but also hindered... the armour suits the Storm troopers of Star Wars fame wore didn't even stop rocks and branches propelled by the universes guinea pigs... Ewoks.

A suite that would make an american soldier "smarter".

Around the world people use books for that goal, even a geographical book from any other country would already increase their IQ.

I guess they mean sensors and battlefield awareness, real-time intelligence, miniaturized communication systems and the like.

And they're not exactly going to give such suits to any old knucklehead either; the soldiers would already be selected for intelligence and other abilities.

They will sink tens of billions of dollars into this project, it will fail to deliver the results they want, and then Congress will decide that they've spent too much money on something that is not providing results. The DOD will then be told to pick between acquiring X more tanks, adding another infantry brigade, or continuing this armored suit project. The armored suit project will go the way of the XM8 and the OICW.

BTRfan wrote:They will sink tens of billions of dollars into this project, it will fail to deliver the results they want, and then Congress will decide that they've spent too much money on something that is not providing results. The DOD will then be told to pick between acquiring X more tanks, adding another infantry brigade, or continuing this armored suit project. The armored suit project will go the way of the XM8 and the OICW.

Funnily enough that's probably exactly what would happen

Cynical, but based on history (OICW and XM- probably accurate.

That is almost insanity, to waste so many billions in projects where they already know that the results will end in best case into a multi million loss rather to a multi bln loss.

Trying to make jumps before they can properly walk that's just facepalming stupid.

Well it depends on expectations... spending lots of money to make some sort of uber suit that allows your soldiers to become totally bullet proof and fly etc etc is stupid, working on technology that could lead to new features in a pressure suit that could be used in space or diving and could eventually lead to a new type of protection for soldiers is basically a test and a long term investment.
A test to see what needs to be improved and what is possible now and an investment for the future for when certain technologies are more mature.

For instance a new super aramide fibre that can absorb small arms fire based on carbon nanotubes could be a significant step towards a structural element for a new type of armour... but we wont know until we put out the money and try.

mw3 juggernaut suit+ rbot legs=profit

Exosceleton combat suits will be used in the future. That is guaranteed because it is needed. Armies will be much smaller and more efficient. Much more electronic warfare and far less huge scale battles. There also won't be really much to fight for if we continue like this. What worries me are not the finances, that won't be a problem. What worries me is how humans neglect more important things, like environment and climate and all the other problems, including the ever growing population on this planet ....

Armies of countries like USA, Russia, India, China, Pakistan will all get those. Maybe not in the same scale like US though.

I agree with Werewolf on this matter. This nothing that will be introduced en masse for the next 1-2 decades if not half a century.....

TheGeorgian wrote:Exosceleton combat suits will be used in the future. That is guaranteed because it is needed. Armies will be much smaller and more efficient. Much more electronic warfare and far less huge scale battles. There also won't be really much to fight for if we continue like this. What worries me are not the finances, that won't be a problem. What worries me is how humans neglect more important things, like environment and climate and all the other problems, including the ever growing population on this planet ....

Armies of countries like USA, Russia, India, China, Pakistan will all get those. Maybe not in the same scale like US though.

I agree with Werewolf on this matter. This nothing that will be introduced en masse for the next 1-2 decades if not half a century.....

thought the latest post is about it being cancelled, but yeah i agree exosuits are the future for infantry.

What worries me is how humans neglect more important things, like environment and climate and all the other problems, including the ever growing population on this planet ....

Projects like these do have potential.. for instance to some people flying to the moon was a complete waste of money, but the drive to miniaturise electronics led to mini and micro computers being developed. Equally the technology needed to fly to Mars will require much better management of life support resources... air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat... the more we can recycle and the more efficiently we can extract water or produce food the less we will have to send... the more efficiently we can purify water and clean air and recycle raw materials... such technologies can be applied on Earth. Right now all these things are abundant but as the human population increases and the animal populations decrease we are going to have to become more efficient at managing what we have and increasing production of the necessities of life.

In 200 years time the great grand daddy of the Talos might be an environment suit that allows humans to live quite comfortably in very harsh environments... including 60 degree C deserts, -40 degree C frozen Tundra, and even in the 2/3rds of the planets surface covered in water...

I remember seeing an exoskeleton suit made in Russia that let what looked like a fairly average build soldier walk around quite easily with a 100kg weight on his back. the exoskeleton took the weight easily and let the young soldier walk around freely. I have also seen a lower body exoskeleton developed in NZ for people who have lost the use of their legs... both sound rather worthwhile programs.

[quote="GarryB"]

In 200 years time the great grand daddy of the Talos might be an environment suit that allows humans to live quite comfortably in very harsh environments... including 60 degree C deserts, -40 degree C frozen Tundra, and even in the 2/3rds of the planets surface covered in water...

True, it can also lead to other achievements as well. Well if we go by centuries there should also be exosceleton with liquid armor by then .... ^^

I remember seeing an exoskeleton suit made in Russia that let what looked like a fairly average build soldier walk around quite easily with a 100kg weight on his back. the exoskeleton took the weight easily and let the young soldier walk around freely. I have also seen a lower body exoskeleton developed in NZ for people who have lost the use of their legs... both sound rather worthwhile programs.

Interesting. I think the Japanese are making the furthest jumps in creating supportive exoskeletons though. Active Link and Cyberdyne to name.

About Russian version. I only saw that exhibition tape where the soldiers carries that huge shield in front of him. Are there any training footage ? would be very welcome.