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.

Comments

Misleading heading is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Misleading heading is misleading

[uncledrax]

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

Re:Misleading heading is misleading

[mistapotta]

r/DARPA/ComStar

And bring on the Fourth Succession War!

Re:Misleading heading is misleading

[AoF.Squall]

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

pointy sticks

[Colin Smith]

Going to be very big in future wars.
 

Re:pointy sticks

[flaming error]

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.

Re:pointy sticks

[MozeeToby]

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

Re:pointy sticks

[Baloroth]

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.

BattleTech

[TreyGeek]

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

Re:BattleTech

[d0hboy]

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.

Re:BattleTech

[JohnnyMindcrime]

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...

Re:BattleTech

[Chas]

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)

MISSING ARE THE FOLLOWING:

[PortHaven]

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.

Re:MISSING ARE THE FOLLOWING:

[jackbird]

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

the future of war

[decora]

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.