Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Military Exoskeleton Reaches Prototype

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the now-time-to-mount-a-cannon-on-it dept.

JonathanGCohen writes "The U.S. Military has created the first ever prototype for an exoskeleton to be worn by soldiers capable of making its 100 pound weight and a 70 pound supply package feel like five pounds." From the article: "Bleex 1 consists of a pair of hydraulically powered leg braces, more than 40 electronic sensors, a control computer, and an internal-combustion engine providing power from an attached backpack. The plastic and carbon-fiber braces are affixed rigidly to the soldier through a customized pair of standard Army boots, with more compliant and giving connections at the chest and waist. These looser connections prevent blisters and abrasions."

17 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. 15 minutes? by Renraku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which would you rather do: Carry 70 pounds throughout your journey, or carry 5 pounds for the first 15 minutes and then well over a hundred for the rest?

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:15 minutes? by Silicon+Avatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First "airplane" only lifted off the ground for 15 minutes (I think?)

      Which would you rather do? Ride a stagecoach for months to cross the country? or Fly for 15 minutes ...

      I think you see where I'm going with this.

    2. Re:15 minutes? by no_pets · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad I don't have mod points for you. I don't know how much weight the military currently expects a soldier to carry but if they can make 70lbs feel like five (not to mention the 100lbs of the exoskeleton) then the military will probably only be limited by bulk instead of mass while piling more supplies onto their soldiers.

      It would definitely suck once the equipment fails (totally or partially) in the field. A soldier could be ditching up to 80% of their supplies after a failure.

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    3. Re:15 minutes? by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We who cannot think out of the box salute you!

      Or point out, that the ability to move 200lbs up rugged terrain and trenches which are inaccessible by vehicle would allow a vehicle level weapon to be brought by a light mechanized infantry unit.

      For example: such a system could allow a heavier caliber gatling machine gun to be mounted on a mountain side. A ordinance not normally able to be carried by infantry; to a position unreachable by vehicle. Where as currently, an infantry unit may have one heavy infantry weapon (machine gun, anti-tank weapon, bazooka, stinger, etc.) Such a system if it could be powered for prolonged use would allow every member of a squad to have heavy armament. When a platoon of mechanized infantry have the means to quickly move and engage with heavy ordinance an armored unit (tank) it makes the tanks much less viable.

      Furthermore, this doesn't even address if they were to replace the ICE with a nuclear powerplant. Often the case for such a design as this specifies to design a unit that operates and functions on a powerplant of "X" amount. Then the powerplant is developed seperately and eventually substituted.

      For instance, with fighter jets, most prototypes do not use final engines. Often they are told to design the jet with the expectations that the final engines will provide x thousand lbs of thrust/lbs of engine. But are first tested with engines that often do not provide such power levels. Later in the final prototypes the engines are replaced with the new final units.

      I imagine the plan of feasibility is that these things will eventually run off a non ICE power plant.

    4. Re:15 minutes? by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The US army is ridiculously powerful, no nation stands a chance in direct confrontation.

      At this time, that is true. But historically, nations rise and fall based on either economics or military. Overall, We are quickly losing the economics to china. And quietly, GWB is losing ground on the military to china. The longer that we stay in a protracted war introducing all of our elements, the easier it is for an somebody to figure out how to counter it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:15 minutes? by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think this would be useful is moving large weapons or communication systems (whatever fancy enemy triangulation spotting equipment you can think of) over uneven terrain. Wheels can't go everywhere.

      If you can get a bigger gun in a more advantageous location, then I would want these in my army. They're certainly not being implemented as replacements for forklifts.

      You're right though. This would not help in Iraq. Neither would gauss rifles mind you. It would be nice to see some more technological advances for the urban war.

    6. Re:15 minutes? by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LOL. There are 'nuclear powerplants' that don't produce harmful radiation. They're electric, and are still in development. But that's an aside. I trust that you just mean that the next generation powersupply will be better than what they have now. I'm wondering though how well these exoskeletons work if you're not standing. Suppose it can't offer support to your arms (the picture doesn't show arm braces) Then if you duck for cover, you go from feeling 5 pounds to feeling 170 pounds. If that's the case, I'm guessing they're not intending these suits to be used in combat just yet. Just for moving supplies to hard to reach areas.

  2. Responsiveness? by Poromenos1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suspect the biggest obstacle to comfortably using exoskeletons is responsiveness. If you want to move your hand, you just think about it and it takes a few milliseconds to move. With an exoskeleton, you have to hit the sensors (perhaps past their critical point), and the hydraulics/whatever has to kick in and move it. How long does that take?

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    1. Re:Responsiveness? by Miaowara_Tomokato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would posit that the biggest obstacle to comfortably using a military exoskeleton would be the the bad guy with an RPG/antitank rocket that sees a large, obvious target walking along with the rest of a column.

  3. Tin soliders... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would really suck to be wearing one of these things when an EMP bomb goes off over the battlefield. I'm sure 170 pounds is not going to feel like 5 pounds after the electronics shuts down.

  4. Walking is not fighting. by bchernicoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is far cry from something useful. Soldiers do a lot more than walking. What about running, diving, low crawling to some cover, then firing from a crouched postion?

  5. Re:If they only up-armored it by vertinox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This exoskeleton sucks for defending and going after people in cities, close alleys.

    It would be good if they figured out how to enclose a soldier in plated armor strong enough to withstand a IED (although that maight be a lot of armor).

    The main benefits of that would be that even though you are slow you can take a punishment and still be able to get into alleys, buildings, and other places a M1Abrahms can't get into.

    Then again... It would be more logical to send in a remote controlled robot with a machine gun on it.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  6. Just a Prototype by Hookoa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many of you are asking questions of "how will it perform in combat, can operators crouch/dive/roll/prepare a five course dinner/shoot/etc, and what happens when it runs out of gas?"

    This is why we have the prototype stage when we build something.

    When Goddard launched his first rockets, people didn't say "Yeah, but how're you going to get to the moon on that?"

    You build, find the shortcomings of your design, improve, and test again.

    The suit probably doesn't have any practical application now, but future versions in five - ten years might allow military mechanics to fix heavy vehicles quickly, and in 20 - 50 years, our soldiers might be able to carry better body armor into combat with less restrictions than the current body armor (which is heavy in its own right).

    I like the idea that our soldiers who are being shot at will eventually be able to move faster, shoot more effectively, wear more protection, and be better equiped than their enemies.

  7. Re:Boom! by kraut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Surely as a member of the military you will do whatever you're bloody well told to do; isn't that the whole point?

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  8. Backyard science project by brain+defrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An internal combustion engine? One thousand PSI of hot hydraulic fluid coursing through steel veins running throughout my lower torso and legs? And gasoline? On my back? While I'm being shot at? I'm game!

  9. Re:If they only up-armored it by bar-agent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not convinced that an exoskeleton will enable a footsoldier to take on a tank of the same tech level.

    A foot soldier can already take on a tank. http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm

    Imagine a soldier carrying a ton of armour, yet able to move almost as quickly as a man, yet impervious to most weapons...

    Well, based on other posts, it looks like armor ain't what it used to be. But imagine a soldier carrying a hornet's nest of anime-style swarming missiles. He'd be a like a mobile squad-level point defense station.

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  10. Re:If they only up-armored it by tftp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed, that's an excellent reason why armored vehicles (like tanks) are no longer used in modern armies: a single hit into a vulnerable part can disable them. You don't use anything that is not completely, 100% perfect. Never mind that a single land-bound tank, while it lasts, can break through defenses that otherwise would be impenetrable. There simply would be no military value in a tank that can run, climb, jump - even if it has some limited flight capability. Just think of it, what if it gets destroyed while doing its job?