Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!appserv!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Power Armor
Message-ID: <1991Jun6.063339.5887@amd.com>
Date: 30 May 91 17:34:54 GMT
References: <1991May24.030024.8386@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Lines: 57
Approved: military@amd.com


From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)


camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Seymour) writes:
>If we really wanted to, could we actually produce effective
>[Power Armor]?  If not, what advances still have to be made and what is
>the estimated time frame for developement of the respecive
>technologies to arrive?

The two major blocking technologies keeping PA from deployment are
power packs and neural/force actuator technology.

Current laboratory experiments with neural control still result in
shakey control after elaborate training/tuning and must be custom fit
to the individual and retuned if the individual's emotional state changes.

Force sensor/amplifier/actuator technology is closer to reality, but
still requires elaborate custom fitting and training to be effective.

Application of DSP and AI techniques may make both control methods
feasible in the fairly near term (<20 years). Considerable
training/conditioning will likely still be required. This training
would be akin to athletic training for complex neuro-motor sports.

There are no current power pack designs that can supply the necessary
power for reasonable amounts of time and still be carried, even by an
augmented man. New battery and fuel cell designs are in the lab that
might work for fairly short missions, but cracking the 24 hr unrefueled
barrier is going to be tough.

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

If the refueling problem can be licked, they'd make ideal long range
patrol forces. With current sensor technology, they'd be good jungle
warfare troops. Their uses on urban battlefields should be obvious.
Use in an open enviornment where tank killers have field days wouldn't
be so good. They'd still be slower, less well armed, and less well
armored than real tanks. The primary advantages of PA are the enchanced
sensors (nearly real today), body armor against light weapons (again
nearly real), heavier weapons (nearly real), and the ability to quickly
move that load anywhere a man can walk or crawl on the battlefield
(this isn't real yet).

>Hey, is someone already working on PA?  What is the progress so far?

I'm only aware of some Army experiments nearly 20 years ago with
powered exoskeletons. The control technologies weren't up to the task
then. They may be soon. The design goal was a man who could run, climb,
and crawl at least as well as an unagumented man while carrying the
heavy armor, armaments, and sensors envisioned. Ideally, a top burst
speed of 35 mph was desired. What was achieved was a slow walking pace
of 3 mph and poor agility. Control technology has advanced dramatically
since then, I have no information on current attempts to build PA.

Gary