Japanese defense considering building Gundam.

[Starik20X6]

As superawesomeradical as this is, I think we need to think smaller. I want an Iron Man suit before I want a Gundam.

 

[mysecondlife]

USA: Japan's not going to out-do us in overspending on gaudy military weapons!

http://kotaku.com/5921304/japanese-politicians-are-thinking-about-building-gundam-like-real-working-gundam

Well, there's Japan for you. Now America needs a Metal Gear REX and Britain needs a giant Queen Elizabeth robot, lol.

I'd be more impressed if America built Ironman.

 

[Paragon Fury]

...Why?

That doesn't make any sense.

Walking is a very difficult thing to design in comparison to tank treads or wheels. Even if you have a perfect walking/running mechanism, enemies just have to shoot at the legs to cripple it.

Also, wouldn't anything heavy, ie: tank cannon, cause recoil, and knock it off of its feet?

No matter how you cut it, a tank is better.

This sounds like a publicity stunt. A very stupid one.

To be fair, while the Gundam would be impractical, the idea of a bipedal/quadroped tank does have merits. Particularly in applications involving urban warfare, where basically all modern armor is nearly useless and incredibly vulnerable.

So while the Gundam might not be that great an idea, things like the Armored Cores, Boxguards from Deus Ex, and the Think Tanks from GITS and Witchblade are all useful models.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

So many reasons why this is a bad idea. First of all, it's prohibitively expensive to build even a prototype of modern military hardware, let alone a 70 foot bipedal mech. Second, that's gonna be an easy target in this era of drone strikes and offshore guided missiles. Third, this has no practical use whatsoever. Producing enough of these things to be a viable combat operations force would bankrupt any country, let alone one that's already in an economic tailspin. Add in the costs of maintenance, reloading and refueling, and it's enough to make your citizens why you ever took their giant action figures out of the box. Leaving them sitting on standby for personal defense against...jihadist kaiju, I dunno...that's gonna mean that your trillion dollar project becomes obsolete in a hurry with no return on your investment.

If the otaku vote is really that powerful (I doubt it), and you desperately need their approval, tell them that you'll petition for their right to marry fictional characters. You're just one life pillow away from discounted health insurance!

What if they were less of a Gundam and more of a Megadeus?


Certainly it wouldn't be great as a mass unit, but as a giant back unit? An ultra special weapon? Shit like that could do some damage.

 

[Ravinoff]

Guided missiles and offshore strikes? Hell, I'm fairly sure a modern tank could easily take down a bipedal mech. For it to be able to walk, it'd have to be lightly armored. 43 metric tons is about 15 tons off of what an M1A2 Abrams weighs with a combat load. Keep in mind that the Abrams is the closest to indestructible that we've managed to build, and is eminently capable of gutting any armored vehicle on the planet. One APFSDS round through the knee of a bipedal design essentially eliminates it. A much better idea would be to adapt something like a tank or self-propelled gun to a quadrupedal platform.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I love gundam but is a 18m even practical? wouldn't power armor or a 2m scopedog be more sensible?

There is nothing practical about a gumdam. A short list of damning flaws:

1) Difficulty of construction (including designing a power plant capable of moving it at speed across relatively long distances so that it can arrive in a combat worthy state)
2) Maintenance (at least six complex load bearing joints would be placed under enormous and highly variable stress by the simplest maneuvers)
3) Lack of combat role (When it comes to carrying big guns (i.e. weapons that can destroy modern MBT's at at least the same range) there are already plenty of superior platforms. Same goes with small guns)
4) Vulnerability (Modern MBT's have armor in excess of 700mm thick only in very specific locations. Other spots have as little as 100mm. Armor is heavy and thus the entire design is a compromise to provide as much protection as possible from very specific kinds of attacks. And 700mm can easily be pierced by a number of incredibly common anti-armor weapon systems. A gundum would be forced to armor far more vulnerable surface area all while having no effective way to reasonable ensure a particularly thick bit is facing enemy fire. The result would inevitably be armor that is consistently easy to pierce even with relatively light and man portable weapon systems).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

To be fair, while the Gundam would be impractical, the idea of a bipedal/quadroped tank does have merits. Particularly in applications involving urban warfare, where basically all modern armor is nearly useless and incredibly vulnerable.

What protection does a humanoid tank offer that a regular tank does not? Mobility would not be significantly improved. They would be forced to carry far lighter armor thus dramatically increasing the number of threats it would face on the battlefield. It is a bigger harder to conceal object.

Armor is vulnerable in complex terrain precisely because complex terrain offers infantry the advantage of mobility, cover and concealment all while ensuring relatively close engagement ranges. Infantry would still have this advantage and the gundum would still face the same challenges all while being harder to conceal and clad with far less armor.

 

[Paragon Fury]

To be fair, while the Gundam would be impractical, the idea of a bipedal/quadroped tank does have merits. Particularly in applications involving urban warfare, where basically all modern armor is nearly useless and incredibly vulnerable.

What protection does a humanoid tank offer that a regular tank does not? Mobility would not be significantly improved. They would be forced to carry far lighter armor thus dramatically increasing the number of threats it would face on the battlefield. It is a bigger harder to conceal object.

Armor is vulnerable in complex terrain precisely because complex terrain offers infantry the advantage of mobility, cover and concealment all while ensuring relatively close engagement ranges. Infantry would still have this advantage and the gundum would still face the same challenges all while being harder to conceal and clad with far less armor.

I wasn't talking about building a Gundam - I was referring to actual bipedal/quadroped tanks designed to take advantage of a different mobility system while still remaining for all purposes a tank. We're not talking building-sized vehicles here - these weapons would probably at best stand maybe a few feet taller than a modern MBT and maybe be slightly wider at their widest point.

1: Mobility across varied terrain
- While the standard tread-wheeled designs of modern armor will likely remain the most viable and powerful designs for field and open-terrain combat, they function terribly in urban and rough terrain, where the majority of modern conflicts are likely to take place. Bipedal and quadroped designs can better handle and navigate the kinds of terrain found modern conflicts, like dense cities and are less vulnerable in these areas because of it. Obviously no design will ever match the mobility of regular infantry in these areas, but the point is being able to make the armor able to compete, rather than just be rolling target practice.

2: Increased firepower in difficult terrain, and increased effectiveness of weapons
- One of the main drawbacks of modern armor is that their primary weapons are nearly useless in urban combat, and can't even be brought in rough terrain many times. Essentially defeating their purpose and making them big fat targets. Combining the greater mobility with the greater aiming ability of the bipedeal/quadroped platform (much, much better vertical aiming ability, tighter turning radius, both critical factors in urban combat) would let the bipedal/quadroped design be of great assistance to infantry in rough/urban combat. While true that you;'ll never be mounting 120mm cannon to a design like that, such extreme firepower is rarely needed or wise in such scenarios.

3: Psychological effects
- While an MBT or other armor is scary enough, the psychological effects from seeing something even vaguely human-shaped doing similar destruction is far more terrifying and demoralizing.

 

[Imthatguy]

I love gundam but is a 18m even practical? wouldn't power armor or a 2m scopedog be more sensible?

There is nothing practical about a gumdam. A short list of damning flaws:

1) Difficulty of construction (including designing a power plant capable of moving it at speed across relatively long distances so that it can arrive in a combat worthy state)
2) Maintenance (at least six complex load bearing joints would be placed under enormous and highly variable stress by the simplest maneuvers)
3) Lack of combat role (When it comes to carrying big guns (i.e. weapons that can destroy modern MBT's at at least the same range) there are already plenty of superior platforms. Same goes with small guns)
4) Vulnerability (Modern MBT's have armor in excess of 700mm thick only in very specific locations. Other spots have as little as 100mm. Armor is heavy and thus the entire design is a compromise to provide as much protection as possible from very specific kinds of attacks. And 700mm can easily be pierced by a number of incredibly common anti-armor weapon systems. A gundum would be forced to armor far more vulnerable surface area all while having no effective way to reasonable ensure a particularly thick bit is facing enemy fire. The result would inevitably be armor that is consistently easy to pierce even with relatively light and man portable weapon systems).

1) Apparently noone told you how difficult it is to design any modern weapons system. Once the design and prototypes are completed a mass production method will be devised much like any other invention or new product.
2) Conventional engines and tread systems are incredibly difficult to maintain and are only viable because we have so much experience with them.
3) You got me there an attack chopper does everything a walking tank would do and more
4) Uhhh... No... armor piercing systems are incredibly common amongst first world armies however first world nations just really don't fight each other anymore (More or less invalidating the walking tank design anyway)

I'm I saying this is a good idea? No just poking holes in your statements

 

[Mikeyfell]

They should build a Nightmare Frame, that would be cooler.
Badum Tish.

They should just build them not as a military thing, just for private transportation, some people drive cars, others stomp around in Mech suits. that would be sweet.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

1) Apparently noone told you how difficult it is to design any modern weapons system. Once the design and prototypes are completed a mass production method will be devised much like any other invention or new product.

The difficulty is compounded greatly thanks to a massive guaranteed loss in efficiency combined with the fact that the result needs to be incredibly light and compact to help overcome the obvious problems of balance. Combine that with difficulty in carrying the hundreds of pounds of fuel necessary to move an hundred ton fighting machine from one point to the next.

2) Conventional engines and tread systems are incredibly difficult to maintain and are only viable because we have so much experience with them.

You've got mechanical knee, hip and ankle joints that would withstand enormous stress perpendicular to their axis of motion by default all being borne by load bearing structures that would be relatively small. And that's just assuming you want to walk. When you the stresses that would be applied to said joints when the machine is at a "run" and then compare that to the incredibly common injuries that people suffer to the same location and you begin to see the problem.

3) You got me there an attack chopper does everything a walking tank would do and more

Or that a lightly armored IFV, or a mobile gun, or any number of APC's or even just a relatively simple wheeled vehicle.

4) Uhhh... No... armor piercing systems are incredibly common amongst first world armies however first world nations just really don't fight each other anymore (More or less invalidating the walking tank design anyway)

How much armor do you think the vehicle would have, on average? And just how uncommon do you think an armor defeating weapon is? Because the former is subjective but the answer is certainly much less than a main battle tank has on it's glacias plate (which, for the record, can be pierced by a large number of common weapon systems in various scenarios). To the latter, you have to realize every weapon system can defeat some amount of armor. The relatively simple .50 BMG round can defeat a full inch of steel at 200 meters. Disposable and cheap anti-armor weapons (various munitions for the various RPG's, the AT-4, other similar weapons used by other nations) can defeat anything from several inches to over a foot of armor. 120mm DE SABOT rounds defeat feet of armor at a distance of miles.

The bottom line is simply this: the vehicle would be lightly armored enough that the viable threats it would face on the battlefield would be far greater than what an MBT would face.

I'm I saying this is a good idea? No just poking holes in your statements[/quote]

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

1: Mobility across varied terrain
- While the standard tread-wheeled designs of modern armor will likely remain the most viable and powerful designs for field and open-terrain combat, they function terribly in urban and rough terrain, where the majority of modern conflicts are likely to take place. Bipedal and quadroped designs can better handle and navigate the kinds of terrain found modern conflicts, like dense cities and are less vulnerable in these areas because of it. Obviously no design will ever match the mobility of regular infantry in these areas, but the point is being able to make the armor able to compete, rather than just be rolling target practice.

A many ton several meter tall machine built upon a design that is inherently unbalanced in motion would only arguably have better mobility across rough terrain. The only thing any attempt to do precisely this has shown is that such a design faces the new and more common danger of tipping.

2: Increased firepower in difficult terrain, and increased effectiveness of weapons
- One of the main drawbacks of modern armor is that their primary weapons are nearly useless in urban combat, and can't even be brought in rough terrain many times. Essentially defeating their purpose and making them big fat targets. Combining the greater mobility with the greater aiming ability of the bipedeal/quadroped platform (much, much better vertical aiming ability, tighter turning radius, both critical factors in urban combat) would let the bipedal/quadroped design be of great assistance to infantry in rough/urban combat. While true that you;'ll never be mounting 120mm cannon to a design like that, such extreme firepower is rarely needed or wise in such scenarios.

There are already solutions to that problem of firepower. The biggest weapon system a single infantryman can transport to the battlefield is a medium machine gun or light anti-tank weapon. A team of men can move the considerably larger heavy machine guns (.50/12.7mm and/or 30 - 40mm automatic grenade launcher) and light mortars (60 - 80 mm). Firepower beyond that can be rapidly deployed to problem areas in the form of various light vehicles (IFV's, light wheeled vehicles, APC's), air power (fixed wing or rotary) and artillery (Commonly available artillery can result in `120+ mm firepower at ranges of 10 miles. Less commonly available can deliver similar or better power across twice the range) and long range missile systems.

3: Psychological effects
- While an MBT or other armor is scary enough, the psychological effects from seeing something even vaguely human-shaped doing similar destruction is far more terrifying and demoralizing.

A psychological effect that is not backed with commensurate power is easily overcome. A lightly armored, lightly gunned vehicle that could be critically damaged by man portable weapons only has shock value. It has all of the disadvantages of a tank all while having less firepower and less protection in favor of the dubious claim of mobility.

 

[Flizzick]

The impracticality of this only fuels my need to see it done. Throw all sense of logic and improbability out the window people, this is SCIENCE.