Slashdot Mirror
US Military To Develop Star Wars-Style Hoverbikes With British company
New submitter amalcolm writes: The U.S. military may soon be zooming around on Star Wars-style hoverbikes. U.K. based Malloy Aeronautics has joined forces with Survice Engineering to develop the vehicles for the Department of Defense. "The Department of Defense is interested in Hoverbike technology because it can support multiple roles," said Mark Butkiewicz, who works for Survice. "It can transport troops over difficult terrain and when it's not used in that purpose it can also be used to transport logistics, supplies, and it can operate in both a manned and unmanned asset."
"The Department of Defense is interested in Hoverbike technology because it looks wicked cool,"
Gotta figure out how to spend a trillion dollars without being able to make things out of solid gold or add diamonds - just pick a cool thing from scifi and write up a spec.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I think this could revolutionize combat in the same way that the scooter mounted cannon did. http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-...
What is this small tlevel thinking? Think big, just build the death star already. At least death star works on known tech, to build hover bike you have to learn to hover first. Death star - just think of all the beautiful tasty porkbarrel spending! Mmm
You can't handle the truth.
They should be OK as long as they don't try flying around Big Sur
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'd be happy with some type of rifle for our troops that is on par with what the insurgents are using. Yes, ARs are accurate and look "tacti-cool" with four fleshlights, three scopes, a spoon, fork, knife, and such hanging from it... but AKs win wars, and those were a weapon from the 1950s.
and it can operate in both a manned and unmanned asset.
...whut?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Get me my fucking hover-bike. Now.
Enemies of NATO will just genetically engineer Ewoks.
Which wars have been won using AKs since Vietnam???
$20 says they're looking at propeller based hover bikes, not magic anti-grav scifi hover bikes.
They'll be a great addition to the division of hover-tanks and hover-car-hummers.
I think he means to refer to the caliber of round, not the rifle itself. The standard 5.56 NATO round is terrible at stopping targets long range, and they lack the power to break thin cover and in some cases can't even puncture vehicle windows. The AK fires a much heavier loaded 7.62 (i think) almost equivalent to a .308 sniper round.
But list the company so I can make a profit.
-yours
American Ferengi.
Derpa and lexus both announce hover tech on the same day. Coincidence?
Surely just one fleshlight is enough...
Who could forget the famous scene in Star Wars where they raced through the forest of Endor on large quad-copters?
There were hovering bikes in ET. Those were very similar to the Omicronians' hovering bikes in Futurama - powered by love. Don't think that would work for the US Military.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
They must have been thinking of the MF-813 Flying Mule from Firefly.
They can't tell the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek let alone, well, whatever.
No brain, no pain.
I like how Malloy Aeronautics is like 1 guy and some helpers
Gotta figure out how to spend a trillion dollars without being able to make things out of solid gold or add diamonds - just pick a cool thing from scifi and write up a spec.
How is a quad-copter sci fi? It just a big enough version that a person can ride.
Someone cannot count.
Star Wars had swoops, using repulsor fields. Hoverbikes use fans pushing air. They're completely different styles, just like jet skis, motorcycles, bicycles, and horses are totally different styles.
Headline should be "ROTJ-Style Hoverbikes" not "Star Wars-Style Hoverbikes". This is not supposed to be CNN, with its aberrant Apple backs down from Swift headline this week.
No, the old AK-47/AKM 7.62x39 only has a bit more energy than 5.56x45.
7.62x51 packs quite a bit more punch, especially when you go for harder/specialty loads.
"it can operate IN both a manned and unmanned asset.""
WTF? You mean "it can operate AS both a manned and unmanned asset", and who the fuck would use the word "asset" in this context anyway? Oh yeah... an AMERICAN.
My hoverbike is full of eels.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Thanks for clearing that up. Been a while since I dabbled in firearms.
Not for the man with 2 penises. He dresses to the left AND right.
All I can think of is when Homer gets brainwashed by "The Leader" and to un-brainwash the kids, Marge gives them "hover bikes".
I think he means to refer to the caliber of round, not the rifle itself. The standard 5.56 NATO round is terrible at stopping targets long range, and they lack the power to break thin cover and in some cases can't even puncture vehicle windows. The AK fires a much heavier loaded 7.62 (i think) almost equivalent to a .308 sniper round.
No. The Russians abandoned the 7.62 in the 1970s and went for a smaller higher speed round just like the M-16. They then began selling / giving away all their unwanted 7.62 AK's and ammo, it was all considered tier 2 equipment. OK for revolutionaries in Africa and South America but Soviet soldiers would get better.
.308 is not necessarily a sniper round. It is a standard round as well, in particular 7.62 NATO. See US M-14.
The
In college we read a book that traced the development of two weapons, the M-16 rifle and the F-16 fighter, to gain insight into Pentagon procurement and development. Here is what I recall.
The Army's own research shows that long range shots are rare. WW2 soldiers with the venerable M-1 Garand rarely fired at anything beyond 100 yards despite the Garand having excellent long range accuracy and knock down power. The Army research found that soldiers with the Browning Automatic Rifle were more likely to fire at iffy targets. Hence the move to large capacity detachable magazines in a standard issue rifle. The M-14 being the first for the US however if was found to be effectively uncontrollable on full auto. US Special Forces troops that tested a civilian designed rifle, the Armalite AR-15, found it to be much more suitable. The smaller round in fact deadlier, it went unstable when it hit people and tumbled, doing more damage. M-14 users is SF thought the AR-15 superior. More effective at actual combat distances and one could carry multiple times the amount of ammo for the same weight.
The Army, against their will, "militarized" the Armalite AR-15 into the M-16. The M-14 was their baby, designed in house, they resented it being replaced by an outsider's rifle. Many, including Congressman who investigated the Army and the M-16 eventually, were of the opinion that the Army tried to sabotage the M-16 in this redesign/militarization process. Those of a more generous opinion merely claim that the Army was stupid. Various changes were made to improve accuracy but these reduced reliability and reduced lethality, less likely that a bullet would tumble when it hit a person. Worst of all they change the powder used in the ammunition from a clean burning powder to an older design that left behind more residue. Such residue is a minor issue for a M-1 or M-14 which use pistons near the muzzle and operating rods reaching back to the bolt to drive the mechanisms but in the AR-15/M-16 a tube carries high pressure gas behind the bullet from near the muzzle directly back to the bolt. The working mechanisms of the rifle get fouled by this residue and jamming becomes quite likely.
Unfortunately M-16s sent to Vietnam were of this design and their ammunition used such powder. Compound the preceding by failing to tell troops how important it was to clean the internal mechanism and not sending them much of the newer Cleaner/Lubricant/Preservative that Armalite had expected to be used. It was the poor reliability of these M-16s that made troops regret converting from the M-14, not the long range stopping power notion you suggest. Special Forces carrying the older Armalite AR-15s had no such problems and had a very different impression of the design and the new ammunition. Later redesigns of the M-16 and better powder formulations corrected these problems. However US troops died due to the Army's negligence and a Congressional investigation resulted. The unfairly stains the Armalite design and 5.56 ammunition.
Note that one of the preferred weapons of US Special Forces today is an M-16 "redesign" where the gas tube is replaced by a more traditional piston and operating rod, keeping the inner workings cleaner like an M-14. The ammunition is still 5.56mm. Yes, SF also used M-14s but they are a more specialized weapon for special circumstances.
I prefer the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqu4hBFWFA/ XM25, all around good for insurgents, and in peace time, quail and pheasant.
...with blackjack and hookers!
That is quite the wall of text. I read it all and learned something new, so thank you!
Instead of hoverbikes, I'd much rather see giant BattleMechs (either from the MechWarrior universe, or from the Macross universe)
I'll take a giant 100-ton fusion powered BattleMech over a tank ANY day, even though I completely understand that tanks are a much more efficient use of resources (cheaper to build, maintain, operate, etc).
I mean, if you're going to go big, go BIG.
Haven't they already done this? I think they are called 'Italians'.....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
My dad was a paratrooper in Vietnam and he told me they used to ditch their defective M-16s, drop in on Charlie and "borrow" their AKs to get the real work done
That deep in enemy territory it worked on two levels:
1. Sounds like a friendly
2. Didn't jam
(bonus) 3. If you used the butt of the rifle it didn't shatter
Jungle fighting is close quarters and while you don't get a lot of accuracy with a spot welded hand-me-down Soviet gun you don't really need it anyway
Exactly how many logistics can it transport?
Extra medication for all!
Interesting, what do you remember about the F-16?
If there's a propeller involved, it's not Star Wars style.
I wonder how this pants out in warfare today. The US has been handed defeats on a number of fronts, some of which like south Ossetia were litmus tests of US training and weaponry versus Russian training/arms... and Russia cleaned house wholesale.
This doesn't mean anything "bad" about US weaponry, but things change. The Russian/Chinese weapons historically tended to be on the winning side of wars because they were nowhere near as accurate... but were reliable. ISIS has won their "country" on the back of AK, pretty much.
This isn't to say the US is any way inferior in military might, but warfare always changes, and Russia/China actively have to deal with skirmishes and insurgencies on a constant basis while the US doesn't have that issue (we have "show-stoppers" mainly). Because of this, Russia and China tend to be more focused on "boots on the ground" warfare and honing basic soldier/infantry tactics as opposed to "shock and awe".
But back to the subject at hand... shouldn't the US be focused on a basic rifle that is as good as what Russia and China use, as opposed to items which are "cool"... but don't matter much if the enemy has better basic weaponry?
unless they meant the 7.62x54R, which is used in the PKM. (Russian squad machinegun, similar function to the American SAW, but a heavier round)
You've seen Bennet's posts, right?
Damn. I have no mod points and you're already at a well deserved +5. Great post.
I know for a fact primitive people with spears and ropes can knock these things down with no problem. Seems like a waste of money.
This is no place for homoerotic slashdot-fanboyism.
I remember a bit of this from The Pentagon Wars, but I never knew the details. Thanks.
That's the short version. In college I had to write a 10 page paper on the M-16's development and procurement, and other 10 page paper on the F-16's. That's for another day. :-)
shouldn't the US be focused on a basic rifle that is as good as what Russia and China use, as opposed to items which are "cool"... but don't matter much if the enemy has better basic weaponry?
It's hard to loot the country by selling us a rifle that's actually built to hold up under combat conditions and abuse. Winning wars is not the design objective.
My dad was a paratrooper in Vietnam and he told me they used to ditch their defective M-16s, drop in on Charlie and "borrow" their AKs to get the real work done
That deep in enemy territory it worked on two levels:
1. Sounds like a friendly
2. Didn't jam (bonus) 3. If you used the butt of the rifle it didn't shatter
Jungle fighting is close quarters and while you don't get a lot of accuracy with a spot welded hand-me-down Soviet gun you don't really need it anyway
A former manager was a Marine who had to swap his M-14 for an M-16 when deployed around DaNang. His lessons were:
1. Carry lots of grenades.
2. KABAR, zero moving parts.
Also to clarify for some readers, "Sounds like a friendly" is with respect to the enemy's perspective. To make them think they are firing on friendly non-US forces. One had to be a little more careful with an AK's use around US forces, it was a good idea to let them know this "trick" was going to be used.
as featured in Dick Tracy comics, i.e. what looks like "nuclear powered flying garbage cans?" just asking.
mfwright@batnet.com
Except, the Russian military doesn't use this round much any more, 'much' being relative, they probably still have large stocks of AKMs and ammo but their standard rifle is the AK-74 platform chambered for a 5.45x39 cartridge. For longer range as someone else has mentioned they use the 7.62x54mm cartridge (also used in their medium MGs such as the PKM) on the SVD platform.
There's a reason why most (all?) large military forces went with a round that is 'terrible at stopping targets long range' (most combat doesn't occur at long range, and many armies specifically include DMR rifles into their squads for when long range is needed), 'power to break thin cover' SS109 can penetrate a steel helmet at 600 meters so not sure how accurate that comment is.
Mostly the reasons are, weight and controllability on automatic fire, along with improved penetration of body armour, lighter round means more ammo can be carried and weapons are lighter and more controllable (i.e. quicker to bring on target, move around, aim, reduced recoil for automatic fire etc).
I'd argue from what I've read that most US issues with the round aren't with the round itself, but the carbine commonly used, M4 with a 14.5mm barrel, 5.56x45 was designed for a 20 inch barrel so the M4 has a lower muzzle velocity than the M16.
7.62x51 isn't anymore a 'sniper' round than 12.7mm (IE M2 heavy machine gun, or the M82 barrett) it's commonly still used in medium machine guns (FN MAG/M240 and the M60 for example) as well as DMR rifles, not just sniper rifles.
Interesting, what do you remember about the F-16?
"Multi-mission" was the bright idea of the day, aircraft that could be both fighters and close air support aircraft (tactical bombers). After all fighters are just missile launch platforms, not the "dogfighters" of days gone by. Note the early F-4 Phantom versions had no gun.
... things did not go as far as with the Army. The Air Force did not turn the F-16 into an unreliable mess. It was just heavier and more complicated, cost more, and required more maintenance (fewer sorties).
The F-16 started out as a design by "rogue" elements of the Pentagon, Air Force and industry. They were going to build a pure fighter, a dogfighter, something with a gun for extremely close range combat (what pilots referred to as "knife fights" (obviously an illusion to distance not weapon). Yes it would be able to drop bombs but no features would be included that assisted bomb dropping at the expense of dog fighting fighter performance. There was also a strong tendency to keep it simple. Not an aversion to technology per se, the F-16 would be the first fly-by-wire aircraft in the Air Force, but keeping in mind that technology must offer a strong benefit to performance and/or the mission and not overly complicate the design or overly drive up the cost. Cost was another important factor, as was maintainability (simplicity).
The underlying motivation was that the fighter and close air support missions were mutually exclusive. Aircraft characteristics that improved performance on one side generally reduced performance on the other. One of various characteristics was armor. Armor was good in the close air support role, it improved survivability. Armor added a lot of weight and degraded the performance of a fighter. Fighters needed minimal armor, unlike a close air support aircraft that needed robust armor. Air Force data from WW2 and Korea showed that high performance fighters were extremely vulnerable in close air support roles. Probably the greatest fighter of its day, the P-51 Mustang, suffered heavy casualties during WW2 ground attack mission and even more horrible casualties in Korea due to more advanced anti-aircraft guns. Note that old propeller driven aircraft like the P-51 were used because jets were just too fast, and greater speed meant they could only attack enemy troops far from friendly troops. Slower aircraft could attack the enemy at far closer distances. What is one of the main characteristics of a fighter, going fast. They generally don't perform so well at slow speeds. Note the F-14 and F-111 tried to address this with movable wings.
An important concept was that it was not how many aircraft one had in inventory that was important. Rather it was how many sorties (missions) per day those aircraft could fly. Cost gave you more aircraft. Simplicity/maintainability gave you more sorties per aircraft per day.
They tried to work under the radar so to speak. Eventually when the word got out and the prototypes flying the Air Force brass rejected the aircraft. They considered it a distraction from the F-15, the culmination of state of the art multi-mission air superiority fighter. But the performance and cost of the F-16 led Congress to virtually force the F-16 on the Air Force. In its day the cost of the F-15 was about as controversial as the cost of the F-22 Raptor today. If the Air Force brass had things their way they would have simply bought more F-15s and let the F-16 be sold to foreign allies.
As the Air Force grudgingly accepted the F-16 they made some design changes. Increased its all-weather capabilities, increased it bombing performance, adding a little more electronics. All reducing its performance as a fighter to a degree. While there is a little deja vu with respect to the M-16 and the Army, forced upon them, redesign reducing performance
The story also repeats itself to a degree with the A-10, another rejection of the multi-mission concept. This time focusing on
Damn! So where do I go then?
I wonder how this pants out in warfare today. The US has been handed defeats on a number of fronts, some of which like south Ossetia were litmus tests of US training and weaponry versus Russian training/arms... and Russia cleaned house wholesale. This doesn't mean anything "bad" about US weaponry, but things change. The Russian/Chinese weapons historically tended to be on the winning side of wars because they were nowhere near as accurate... but were reliable. ISIS has won their "country" on the back of AK, pretty much.
This is a very misguided analysis. Its not the weapon, its the warrior. These so called Russian and ISIS successes have little to do with the weapon in hand.
One can make similar comparisons to US and Russian aircraft as are made between the M-16 and AK-47. The F-15 is fragile, needs too much maintenance, costs too much, etc. Yet when US aircraft meet Russian aircraft in combat its the wrecks of Russian aircraft that litter the ground. And that remains true with foreign pilots flying US aircraft too.
Keep in mind that al-Qeada in Iraq was beaten by US forces whenever they met, that in concert with Sunni tribal forces they were utterly destroyed in the Anbar Awakening. They told al-Queda leadership not to send more volunteers to Iraq they were beaten so badly. They had to rebrand as ISIS after the US had left given the utter failure associated with the al-Qeada in Iraq brand.
And warriors who have a choice, those of US Special Operations, don't generally choose Russian weapons except when they have to blend in with the locals. Given complete freedom of choice they generally go with the German MP-5 for close quarters, US M-4 or its German HK416 redesign for general purpose, US M-14 for special purposes (ex longer range environments), etc
I remember a military concept vehicle from the 1980s: It was a rocket engine with a floor and hand-rail on top so it could carry one person aloft.
but I don't remember any hover bikes the star wars movies. I do remember there being lots of things that hovered, but nothing I would call a bike.
The AirGeep (1957)
Strangely enough, they never caught on. Maybe because for the number of troops you could deploy with the same sound footprint, you could actually use helicopters accompanied by gunships? And the troops are therefore not encumbered with their own transportation?
Giving everyone in the platoon their own hoverbike means that you have a bunch of hoverbikes that you have to keep and maintain. And the Ewoks can still kick your ass because they are unencumbered with such hardware.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
awesome, lets blow up some more sand niggers for fun!
SoylentNews...
No, I actually like the site. I have not been there in a bit though.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Maybe you haven't hear about the guy with five penises. His underwear fits him like a glove.
HE needs four fleshlights.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Perhaps a grenade that gets near the enemy...hovers for a second...displays a little waving "BOOM!" Flag and then detonates..