Slashdot Mirror


The Future of Battle Tech

PolygamousRanchKid tips a story about research into futuristic military technology currently being funded by DARPA. The Disc-Rotor Compound Helicopter 'is propelled by rotor blades that extend from a central disc, letting it take off and land like a helicopter. But those blades can also retract into the disc, minimizing drag and letting the Disc-Rotor fly like a plane, powered by engines beneath each wing.' The Vulture program aims to keep a plane in the sky for five years or more, and 'LANdroids' are pocket-sized robots which soldiers can scatter around urban areas to seed a communications network. FastRunner is a 'two-legged robot that can cover a moderately rough terrain as fast as the best human sprinters.' The article mentions the flying humvees we've discussed in the past, as well as projects for 'smart' binoculars and a method for recycling space junk.

33 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading heading is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want to hear about recent ferro-fib developments leading to overall Steiner Scouting Party weight reduction as a means to increase troop transit efficiency against Davion forces.

    1. Re:Misleading heading is misleading by uncledrax · · Score: 5, Informative

      Stop with your 3050 era stuff already.. I want low-tech Battle Tech (3025).. ..oh and LAMs.. definable need LAMs..

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    2. Re:Misleading heading is misleading by mistapotta · · Score: 4, Funny
      r/DARPA/ComStar

      And bring on the Fourth Succession War!

    3. Re:Misleading heading is misleading by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Sigh... you just have no understanding of 30th century materials science, do you? ;)

    4. Re:Misleading heading is misleading by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Absolutely.
      I still want my Shadowhawk

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Misleading heading is misleading by AoF.Squall · · Score: 5, Funny

      I used to be a mechwarrior like you, then I took an LRM to the knee.

  2. pointy sticks by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Going to be very big in future wars.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:pointy sticks by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're suggesting the only way we could have these things is if DARPA comes up with them. There's some history behind you, but, seriously, peaceful civilian tech doesn't have to originate with the military.

      Cars, aircraft, and wireless communications all originated outside the military. Wars are the worst possible reason for government funding of tech improvements.

    2. Re:pointy sticks by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Informative

      DARPA's total budget is miniscule, less than 0.4% of the US defense spending. Their lack of overhead is unheard of in government organizations, 140 highly educated and knowledgeable industry experts whose sole purpose is to identify technology that is several generations ahead of what anyone else is looking at and make sure it gets funded. Besides that, much of what they fund has serious civilian applications in addition to their military uses.

      Some things that are being funded today with obvious civilian uses:
      Reusable Launch Vehicle
      Artificial Intelligence
      Powered Exoskeleton
      Thought Controlled Prosthetic
      Brain Computer Interface
      Distributed Satellites

    3. Re:pointy sticks by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cars, aircraft, and wireless communications all originated outside the military. Wars are the worst possible reason for government funding of tech improvements.

      Correct. But all those things were improved, and highly, by the military (jet engines, for instance). Wars are bad: but military research is not. DARPA doesn't fund wars, they only fund research. The war is a waste of money, time, and lives. The research is most certainly not, and one does not require the other. So, we can have our cake and eat it too.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:pointy sticks by royallthefourth · · Score: 2

      How about we research things we need directly instead of researching military technology and getting useful things as a side effect

    5. Re:pointy sticks by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "DARPA needs to be defunded, we don't need to waste anymore $$$ in military tech."

      "Return the internet you are using" and renounce all ARPA/DARPA tech in every form. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:pointy sticks by mekkab · · Score: 2

      And "Der Intertron" (read: the internet) was the direct result of ARPA/DARPA. And the civilian 'fallout' of the SAGE program (modems, etc.) and space program (my smooth cooktop is literally space-age technology) lead me to believe that gov't funded "races" (space race, arms race) have in actuality yielded results for the rest of us to the point where I can't see a private company with a 'publically minded' CEO providing anything similar for the greater good.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    7. Re:pointy sticks by BlackRabbitWhite · · Score: 2

      Question is how will all the useful things get their funding. There are also cases where you might not think of something as a "useful thing" until after it is in the discovery phase. Microwave ovens for instance, were based off of military research.

  3. BattleTech by TreyGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else read the title and get excited that it was about the future of "BattleTech" the FASA war/board game?

    1. Re:BattleTech by d0hboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyone else read the title and get excited that it was about the future of "BattleTech" the FASA war/board game?

      I also did a double-take. On a site featuring News for Nerds, the editors had to have guessed that the title as-it-stood would have caused a bit of confusion. The closest thing I found to the future of BattleTech(tm) in a quick spot-check of the news was the development of the Mechwarrior Online Free to Play MMO'ish game.

    2. Re:BattleTech by Tekfactory · · Score: 2

      Well Fan Pro has been reprinting a lot of the old books, but I was kind of interested in something new from them.

      The fact that Battle Tech was 2 words was your only tip off.

    3. Re:BattleTech by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 4, Informative

      FASA... now there's a glorious name from the past.

      Yep, I had the Battletech boardgame, played it more than a few times and loved it.

      But the highlight of the FASA catalogue was definitely the Star Trek Tactical Combat Simulator, where you could pit all manner of Federation starships against all manner of Romulan and Klingon starships - *AND* have big sheets for each ship where you could boost your shield power, repair damage weapons and do emergency turns to bring certain weapon arcs to bear on the enemy. You could spend an entire evening playing what turned out to be about 2 minutes of real-time ship combat...

      And FASA also did the Doctor Who RPG, I seem to recall.

      Great days...

      --
      Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
    4. Re:BattleTech by kungfugleek · · Score: 2

      Catalyst Game Labs are the people who hold the license for the board game right now, and are releasing the 25th anniversary box set something or other...

    5. Re:BattleTech by Chas · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. FanPro has NOT been reprinting a lot of the old books. FanPro stopped being a going concern in BattleTech (or pretty much anything else) after they used FanPro USA as a piggy bank, then when the time came to renew the license, simply removed all the money from FanPro USA and closed up shop, leaving behind developers and other writers/authors who were owed sizable sums of cash.

      Catalyst Game Labs are currently the people who have the license from Topps for BattleTech.

      http://www.battletech.com/
      http://www.catalystgamelabs.com/

      There's been a LOT of new material out of CGL in the last several years.

      They've only recently completed integrating the Jihad and Dark Age era stuff (that was imposed by Whiz Kids) into the timeline as a congruent whole (as opposed to a couple text blurbs and some very loosely connected novels).

      They're just filling in some "cracks" here and there, and then we'll be looking at some completely new development.

      Essentially, since the closure of FASA, there have been two main developers on the BattleTech line.

      FASA/FanPro/Catalyst: Randall Bills
      Catalyst (Current): Herbert Beas (Former assistant line developer)

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  4. Look on (the Iranian Drone Hacking) bright side by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    Even if their story is true, that they jammed the communications to the drone and then spoofed the GPS so it made a landing where they wanted it, at least it didn't shoot at us. (Not so good would be the intact capture of stealth technology. Oh well).

    Hopefully that incident will have made our military technologists MUCH more careful about security/jamming and ways our systems can be compromised. As we deploy systems much closer in reality to the T-1000 Terminator (sans human "skin") having them turn on us would probably be the worst of all possible outcomes.

  5. MISSING ARE THE FOLLOWING: by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Informative

    LSHAC

    The Light Submersible Helo Aircraft Carrier

    A submarine design to deploy up to four helicopters or two VTOL fighter jets. For use with strategically sensitive strikes.

    The submarine can approach any coast an allow a pair of Marine strike fighter jets to attack a target, or allow up to four helicopters to deploy a special forces unit.

    Why we need one of these. There is a ton of question as to whether our huge honking navy needs tons of surface ships and carriers. Will a battle really be waged at sea like it was of old. Or will these great carrier and cruiser fleets be wiped out within the first two days of surface combat?

    A submersible light carrier can be used in the many less conventional wars we are fighting (ie: war on terrorism). The ability to strike any coastal region with almost zero warning is a very beneficial ability in today's conflicts.

    RAIL GUN

    Why not just fling a metal slug at unbelievable speeds with so much kinectic force that Microsoft would be jealous.

    LASER ASSASINATOR

    As seen in the movie real genius. Why send a strike force in for man like Osama bin Laden when you can simply cook him to a crisp from a satellite miles above in the sky.

    1. Re:MISSING ARE THE FOLLOWING: by jackbird · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Japanese had submarine aircraft carriers in WWII, responsible among other things for the only aerial bombardment of the US mainland in history.

    2. Re:MISSING ARE THE FOLLOWING: by gknoy · · Score: 2

      I believe that Orbital Lasers (and other orbital weapons) are banned by international treaties.

    3. Re:MISSING ARE THE FOLLOWING: by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      The Navy is working on the Rail gun. DARPA generally works on things that are way, way out technologically (to get closer to them). Rail guns are already working, just not quite at combat-usefulness yet.. LSHAC is possible, but submarines don't work very well for things that a) really, really don't like being underwater, and b) are really big. Also, helos are really rather easy to shoot down, and have incredibly limited speed and therefore also range, making them more useful for land deployment. Or for ASW on the sea, which is probably their largest use from carriers. SEAL teams can deploy from subs, and those are almost better than helos against terrorists in any case.

      And lasers aren't terribly practical when fired from space, due to atmospheric distortion. That was researched 20-30 years ago, so again not something DARPA would be involved in. Also, powering them is an issue, since no one likes nuclear reactors in LEO.

      Now, dropping tungsten rods from space: that, they would research.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  6. LANdroid? by cultiv8 · · Score: 2

    So many trademark infringements, so little time...

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  7. Disc-Rotor vs. Slowed Rotor? by fgouget · · Score: 2

    I wonder what advantages a disc-rotor helicopter has over a slowed-rotor helicopter.

  8. Killbot fauna by KBehemoth · · Score: 2

    BigDog, RoboCheetah, now this ostrich thing. Imagine herds of these just roaming the earth after the nuclear armageddon / pigbirdhorse flu armageddon, scavenging for fuel and occasionally blasting each other to smithereens. What will the alien archaeologists think?

  9. Re:I mentally deleted the space in Battle Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Giant robots are the future.

    Teach them well and let them lead the way.

  10. the future of war by decora · · Score: 3, Insightful

    dead civilians

    shattered families

    PTSD

    horrific injuries

    rape and torture

    oh wait, EVERY war is about that. EVERY war is the same. EVERY war profiteer and war-welfare-queen is also the same.

  11. PWEW PWEW PWEW! by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    Don't forget nuclear isomer powered GRASER rifles. They're powered by Americanium .
    Oh wait, that was swept under the rug as "junk science", right?

    Anyhow, the military seems to be the our only institution left that's doing any forward thinking and planning past the next quarter. I'm hoping for some neato civilian spin-offs.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  12. Most of these machines are ironic... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
    "Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?"

    I know I sound like a broken record on this... But we really need a new intrinsic/mutual definition of security arising from "A Newer Way Of Thinking" like Albert Einstein called for if we are to survive all the technological power we are creating in the 21st century:
    http://anwot.org/

    To go with the newer way of thinking, then we need different sorts of machines... Thinks like 3D printers of everyone, or solar panels for all, or advanced "AutoDoc" medical systems, or organic gardening robots, or plenty of other similar things where we use our technological knowledge to make abundance for all -- instead of using advanced technologies of abundance like robotics to fight over scarcity, or worse, create artificial scarcity. Still, DARPA has made contributions to some of these, so that's a good thing.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  13. The future of battle tech by nimbius · · Score: 2

    is what is has always been: death. thirty years ago we cloaked the cold war in 'tech' in the hopes it would be the solution to a horrific conflict caused by humankind, and all it served to do was amplify the tone of that conflict, to push us ever closer to the precipice. in the nineties we did the same thing with guided ballistics and slaughtered countless innocents in our zeal to decree global weapons superiority in the balkans. In iraq we developed the latest, the greatest, the drones, and with a moral superiority not seen since the 1600's we proudly declared our mission accomplished as millions of iraqis died in the streets and not a single predator stood by to prevent the atrocities at abu grahib..

    so let me reiterate, the future of battle tech is a bleached-white skull rotting in the latest theatre of the most righteous conflict at the hands of the most just nation it is the carbonized ashes of a house of innocents, and the eviscerated corpses of scores as they flee from an enemy that cannot be reasoned with not because it is incapable as a machine, but because its masters stopped caring long ago.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.