Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Power Armor
Message-ID: <1991May29.011327.7405@amd.com>
Date: 24 May 91 22:29:09 GMT
References: <1991May24.030024.8386@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 42
Approved: military@amd.com


From: fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)


camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) writes:
>When queried, he ran off a whole list of stuff:  5 lbs 
>personal airconditioners (7 lbs if you want filtration), 
>layered Kevlar armors, reactive armors, heads up displays,
>integrated circuits, modular systems, power augmentation
>for hadicapped that run on neural inputs that funcion much
>like orginal limbs, hand/shoulder held/fired antitank weapons, etc. 

I think you friend's numbers are somewhat low. I know the all the
required systems except "power augmentation" can be built today. In
fact, there is a guy at NASA/Ames building one right now (he calls it a
"Hard Space Suit" and has not considered any military applications...)
From the numbers I have seen, a closed-loop air supply (e.g. full CBW
gear) and cooling systems, together with the armor itself, would weigh
about 75 to 150 kg. Most of it could, as I suggested above, be taken
from space suit design, including the armor. The Hard Space Suit I
mentioned above has been tested to withstand damage from micrometeors.
They fired 0.1mm projectiles at the suit at up to 10,000 m/s. What sort
of armor this is equivilent to, I'm not exactly sure.

>Royal even postulized that it might be possible to field
>20 or more PA equiped troops for the cost of normal armored
>vehicles.

I rather doubt these cost figures.

>What real use would PA have in combat?  Would they be a cost
>effective alternative to convential weapons?  

There are two big advantages I could see. First, with some sort of
"power agumentation" an infantryman could carry more and better weapons.
Second, he would be much more survivable in combat. HE and anti-personel 
weapons would be as deadly. Infantry Fighting Vehicles (such as the M-2
Bradley) are intended to do this, but as long as the infantry is safe,
they are also much less effective (e.g. they can't fight well from a
IFV). This would not be a problem for infantry in "power armor"

Frank Crary