Powered Exoskeletons In The Near Future?

PhReaKyDMoNKeY writes "Discover Magazine's latest issue has a story about powered exoskeletons and how they aren't terribly far off. Sounds pretty damn cool, except maybe for the centaur flatbed model. Screw a Segway, gimme one of these babies."

Comments

good for commuters?

[PD]

I'm too old for the army, but I think it would be extremely fun to put on my "running pants" and motorcycle helmet and run 50 miles to work like the bionic man. I hope that the no pedestrians rule would be waived so I could use the commuter carpool lane.

personnel-sized armored fighting units would

[StandardDeviant]

absolutely revolutionize the tactical structure of the armies posessing them. For example, if every footsoldier has the survivability of a light APC and the punch of one as well due to the increased load bearing capacity, this obviously lends a serious edge to that army. The consequences go deeper than that, as well. Becuase of increased complexity, more staff will be needed for support, and increased soldier skill will be needed. This dovetails exactly with the shift from large standing armies composed of recruits (think WW2 america or the chinese army of today) to small, highly trained special operations units (which in combination with advanced air support, are devastation incarnate, as proved in Afghanistan today).

Obligatory Onion link

[legLess]

One of my favorite The Onion articles:

Stephen Hawking Builds Robotic Exoskeleton . It's got a great photo.

What comes next?

[Glowing Fish]

I will believe that exoskeletons are possible when I see such other anime cliches as germ warfare, human cloning, apocalyptic events and cynical plots to form a one world government come true.

Oh wait...

Would this really be useful?

[Christopher Thomas]

For example, if every footsoldier has the survivability of a light APC and the punch of one as well due to the increased load bearing capacity, this obviously lends a serious edge to that army.

Would it?

You could, for example, outfit each soldier to be able to move at superhuman speed, and carry a couple of tons of equipment... but wouldn't it make more sense just to give that soldier a jeep? Same capabilities, and lower complexity and cost.

Want to be able to move over any kind of terrain? Send a helicopter instead of a jeep.

An exoskeleton is basically a vehicle optimized to mimic human mobility ranges. Which is silly - optimize a vehicle to work as a vehicle, and it'll be simpler and more efficient.

Exoskeletons are really, really cool, and I want one too, but I don't think they'd be terribly useful in war, for the same reason that jet packs aren't (conventional vehicles do the job better).

Exoskeleton picture

[Nathdot]

For those of you having trouble getting through to the article you can see a picture of the proposed exoskeleton here

:)

Try fighting from a jeep...

[sterno]

Vehicles are designed to transport, designing a vehicle to fight is less than effective. If you look at a tank, it is basically a truck to carry a big gun around, and enough armor to protect that gun so that it can blow lots of things up. In the end it's terribly inefficient, and imprecise. It's excellent for open warfare on a cleanly drawn battlefield, but for fighting house to house, etc, it is a poor choice.

If you look at the recent history of warfare where tanks were available, look at what happens. You have the tanks run these rapid attacks that overwhelm large open territory but then you get into a village or city and suddenly tanks are useless (unless you plan to blow the city to smithereens). suddenly you are back to a style of warfare little beyond fighting with muskets and swords.

On the other hand, if you can make relatively heavy weapons and armor available in an infantryman size package, you can get into much smaller areas and still have overwhelming force. You'll still need infantry, but this provides a signifcant augmentation to the availabilt of heavy firepower in close.

Also, think about situations where you simply need to police a city. Policing a city with a tank is impossible because you end up killing a lot of bystanders and destroying lots of property needlessly. Having a few armored troops allows you to focus your attack much more precisely. Try chasing that rebel with AK-47 down an alley with an M1A1 and see how well it works.

Military Uses

[sl3xd]

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt there would be any real military uses for quite a while, with the exception of heavy-lifting.

It's one thing to have a device that can handle (relatively) slow, deliberate movements, and augments strength. It's a completely different matter to have a armored, fast-responding 'cyborg'.

The biggest advantage, and use of this technology for the near term is in warehouse/repair duty. Forklifts are usually clumsy at best, where an exoskeleton could supplant (but not replace) these lumbering beasts.

They'd be great for, say, Home Depot. This way an employee can pick up a couple of 100 lb bags of cement, and stack it in the store as easily as it would be do stack a bean-bag.

But a military application? Not anytime soon. Let's not forget these devices require a power source. For the few minutes of operation, they'd be great. But don't forget that adding weapons and armor will do two things: SEVERELY tax the power supply, and when the power is gone, the frame makes the soldier a sitting duck for a fair amount of time while the suit is either re-charging/fueling, or the soldier is scrambling out of the suit.

Any more armor than enough to stop standard rifle/handgun fire would weigh FAR too much to be practical for the time being.

Even with gas-powered fuel cells... there wouldn't be enough power for an armored unit. The response time would be too great.

A neural interface at the base of the skull (to transmit the motion signals from the soldier's brain to the suit) would speed up the response time greatly. But let's not forget that things are still bound by Mr. Newton's laws. The mass of even a lightly armored limb doesn't start and stop on a dime easily (not with enough armor to stop hand-held arms fire, anyway). It would take tremendously powerful superconducting motors to achieve that feat. But then, you're adding a cryo pack to the suit for the magnets. Even more weight and parts to break.

Not that the military wouldn't toy with the idea; it's just that they realize the practical limitations as well. Strength-enhancing suits I can see; armored body-suits... not for a while.

It's a great idea, until you deploy them without a heavy support team nearby. The logistics alone on an armored suit would be prohibitive. It's not like they can operate for weeks on end with only MRE's and sanitizer-tablets.

Yes, it would Re:Would this really be useful?

[bourne]

but wouldn't it make more sense just to give that soldier a jeep?

No, for several reasons. Want examples? Read Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden (warning, movie is reputed to have avoided anything involving insight or thought, but I highly recommend the book. It manages to balance readable action with reasonably objective insight).

• Bipeds (and quadrapeds) are capable of far greater mobility over rough terrain than wheeled vehicles. In the 1993 Mogadishu battle, a wheeled/armored column sent out to rescue the crew of a downed helicopter was unable to reach the helicopter because the section of the city the 'copter crashed in was unreachable by vehicle. Another column was unable to correctly move 3 blocks where troops on foot covered the distance on foot correctly, if not easily.
• Also in that battle, every wheeled/armored column (there were 3, minimum) found itself hemmed in and redirected by obstacles thrown up by ragged irregulars with no heavy machinery.
• As for trading up into helicopters, two of them were shot down in that battle by anti-tank RPGs which are theoretically incapable or impractical for ground-to-air shots. There's no cover in the air.
• The trend is towards carrying more gear, and exoskeletons let you carry it without throwing away the mobility (as discussed above). Another lesson from Mogadishu: most of the elite Delta and Ranger forces left their night-vision goggles at base because 1) it was a day raid, 2) it was one more thing to carry and 3) they wanted to avoid breaking them unnecessarily. They ended up spending the night pinned down by a vastly numerically superior force, wishing they had that equipment. The ability to carry more gear more safely is vital for highly trained, well equipped "super soldiers."

An exoskeleton is basically a vehicle optimized to mimic human mobility ranges.

Exactly, and human mobility ranges are IDEAL for rough terrain and urban terrain. Pick a war:

• Vietnam - dense jungle. Give me bipedal mobility. Helicopters were only useful for insertion/exit, and don't even mention jeeps. (Alternately, consider Hue, which was pure and dirty street fighting, also not good for tanks, jeeps, or helicopters.)
• Afghanistan (Soviets, 1979-1989) - The Mujahadeen just LOVED it when the Soviets would run a convoy up a narrow canyon. Ready-made ambush.
• Iraq (Desert Storm) - Exos wouldn't do it. Neither would jeeps. That was a ready-made tank war - but only because Sadaam wanted to rule the third-world roost with Cold War-era TOE and tactics. (hint for petty dictators: the US spent 40 years preparing for a major tank war with the Soviet Union. Soviet tanks may be great for oppressing your own villagers and scaring rich but non-martial oil nations, but don't even think about going up against the US with them.)

Basically, there are two kinds of wars: those which offer a maneuverable battlefield, and those that don't. In the former, air superiority and ground armor (read: tanks, not jeeps) are the decisive factor. In the latter, the amount of firepower, coordination, tactical information, and maneuverability of the foot soldier is the key, and exoskeletons will allow the foot soldier to have a serious advantage in those areas, and probably to gain some armor too eventually. Note also that opponents of the US will be trying to arrange non-maneuverable battlefields, because it's becoming clear that challenging the US on that field is suicidal, just as the Arab countries have stopped starting tank wars with Israel and instead moved to terrorism and popular uprising.

Another lesson from Black Hawk Down - the amount of tactical information available is now exceeding the ability of command elements to grasp it all. The old "fog of war" meant you couldn't see. The new "fog of war" means you can't see the forest because you've got more trees than you can take in. As information and communication equipment is pushed out to the foot soldier (remember, an exo lets you carry more) this problem will only get worse, which means that the challenge for today's (high-tech) military is to improve their information processing systems so they can keep up and use the right info to make good decisions.

(Almost made it through without an Appleseed reference!)