Soldiers in all the armies in all the wars from 1914 through the early 1950s routinely carried heavy loads on their backs, plus small arms, plus ammunition, plus water canteens and various other impedimenta. Some even jumped out of aircraft into combat, with all that and parachutes too. Others walked 40-50 mile route marches. Some of these folks got shot to death. But few died from broken spines. So what's the big deal?
One less thing to complain about. I was in Army Cadets as a kid and I still vividly remember those heavy packs. (I was like, 11 years old, mind you). When the AOL Time Machine™ comes out, I'll go back in time and give myself one.
What's the big deal? You can effectively carry more protection, heavier weapons, and more ammo. You can travel farther and faster with the same load. The reason personal armor left the battlefield wasn't because it couldn't be made... it was because effective armor weighed too much. Combine a working exoskeleton with modern materials and you vastly improve the survivability of the poor bloody infantry.
Don't overlook the flip side of this:
1) These exoskeletons require fuel. Fuel means logistics tail. Logistics tail means more chance of fast-moving troops literally out-running their supplies, and becoming stuck in place, like the Wermacht after the Battle of the Bulge.
2) What happens when an exoskeleton runs out of fuel? The soldier then feels the full weight of all that gear. If he's in the middle of moving (jumping, running, etc.) there's a good chance he'll keel over and injure himself.
3) It's unclear in the article how the fuel is actually converted to usable power. I would hazard that there's a tiny internal combustion engine (probably a scaled-up RC aircraft engine) driving a shaft that powers a generator and a hydraulic pump. (See http://me.berkeley.edu/hel/CV/BLEEX-Summary.pdf for a description of the power source.) This type of power-plant is very loud, which tends not to improve the low-observability of the soldier. Furthermore, an enemy hit into the fuel tank could turn the soldier would tend to splash fuel over the soldier's back and cause burns over a wide area of his body.
4) Since this is a prototype, no attempt at "soldier-proofing" has probably been done. What if the gear gets wet and shorts out? What if mud gets into the hydraulics? What if a hinge seizes? What sort of maintenance kit does a soldier need to haul with him to fix this thing? Can he use any old fluid for the hydraulics? Or does it have to be some special unobtanium fluid? What happens if an actuator gets bent?
On balance, I think this is technology worth pursuing, but it's nowhere near field-ready. And it'll probably be cheaper and easier just to have the troops pump iron.
It would very cool, especially on those rainy days when my joints ache and I have to lug my books across campus and see all those youngsters sailing by on their skateboards.
Everybody's talking about the battlefield possibilities, but did no one notice the bit about disability assistance? Just imagine all those cystic fibrosis folks who walk around with leg braces and crutches, walking around instead with an exoskeleton and small pack...
Soldiers in all the armies in all the wars from 1914 through the early 1950s routinely carried heavy loads on their backs, plus small arms, plus ammunition, plus water canteens and various other impedimenta. Some even jumped out of aircraft into combat, with all that and parachutes too. Others walked 40-50 mile route marches. Some of these folks got shot to death. But few died from broken spines. So what's the big deal?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
One less thing to complain about. I was in Army Cadets as a kid and I still vividly remember those heavy packs. (I was like, 11 years old, mind you). When the AOL Time Machine™ comes out, I'll go back in time and give myself one.
What's the big deal? You can effectively carry more protection, heavier weapons, and more ammo. You can travel farther and faster with the same load. The reason personal armor left the battlefield wasn't because it couldn't be made... it was because effective armor weighed too much. Combine a working exoskeleton with modern materials and you vastly improve the survivability of the poor bloody infantry.
The weight allowance makes armor possible, but also integrated communications and information systems.
I'm going to have to reread Starship Troopers.
Hey, as long as it adds to effectiveness and survivability, I'm all for it. Just so long as the military aren't the only folks who get this neat toy.
I think one of these would be more fun.
Don't overlook the flip side of this:
1) These exoskeletons require fuel. Fuel means logistics tail. Logistics tail means more chance of fast-moving troops literally out-running their supplies, and becoming stuck in place, like the Wermacht after the Battle of the Bulge.
2) What happens when an exoskeleton runs out of fuel? The soldier then feels the full weight of all that gear. If he's in the middle of moving (jumping, running, etc.) there's a good chance he'll keel over and injure himself.
3) It's unclear in the article how the fuel is actually converted to usable power. I would hazard that there's a tiny internal combustion engine (probably a scaled-up RC aircraft engine) driving a shaft that powers a generator and a hydraulic pump. (See http://me.berkeley.edu/hel/CV/BLEEX-Summary.pdf for a description of the power source.) This type of power-plant is very loud, which tends not to improve the low-observability of the soldier. Furthermore, an enemy hit into the fuel tank could turn the soldier would tend to splash fuel over the soldier's back and cause burns over a wide area of his body.
4) Since this is a prototype, no attempt at "soldier-proofing" has probably been done. What if the gear gets wet and shorts out? What if mud gets into the hydraulics? What if a hinge seizes? What sort of maintenance kit does a soldier need to haul with him to fix this thing? Can he use any old fluid for the hydraulics? Or does it have to be some special unobtanium fluid? What happens if an actuator gets bent?
On balance, I think this is technology worth pursuing, but it's nowhere near field-ready. And it'll probably be cheaper and easier just to have the troops pump iron.
Would you need to be oiled like the tin man?
It would very cool, especially on those rainy days when my joints ache and I have to lug my books across campus and see all those youngsters sailing by on their skateboards.
I love technology.
Jack Kirby as in Machine Man or am I missing some other reference...?
Gary,
think Doctor Octopus from the early Spider Man comics.
Come to think of it, Kirby's Iron Man would probably be closer in concept.
Everybody's talking about the battlefield possibilities, but did no one notice the bit about disability assistance? Just imagine all those cystic fibrosis folks who walk around with leg braces and crutches, walking around instead with an exoskeleton and small pack...