Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

[Ternaugh]

Here's an article with video about the Lockheed Human Universal Load Carrier (HULC), an exoskeleton that runs on lithium-ion batteries for about an hour at 3 MPH. It includes the ability to march at 7 MPH, and run at up to 10 MPH, though these will deplete the batteries faster. There's the option of fitting it with a small generator that runs on JP8 jet fuel, for 24 hours endurance. Total load carry capacity is around 200lbs, and the unit can be used to support other modules, including gun mounts and armor. The unit claims that it can be easily adjusted to fit wearers from 5'4" to 6'2".

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/27/lockheed_exoskeleton/

 

JoeG

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

yeah, I've seen that sucker on TV. Pretty nifty. Basically a smaller, more agile (though less powerful) version of the Power Loader from Aliens. Its a perfect candidate to armor up and load down with weapons once the batteries become more efficient.

 

Too bad Obama will likely cut funding for Powered Armor projects just like they're going to axe the F22...

 

I know they need to cut money where they can but the Raptor is just so beautiful....

[tkdguy]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

I can see that as a gadget for superheroes. Just add body armor and some bionic arms, and you're all set.

[Pariah]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

It's Turtle Armor!

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

Interesting choice of acronym.

[AlexShinjo]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

The only problem with that suit is as far as I could see it only augmented the leg power.

 

Give them time they will augment the rest of the body too.

[Markdoc]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

yeah, I've seen that sucker on TV. Pretty nifty. Basically a smaller, more agile (though less powerful) version of the Power Loader from Aliens. Its a perfect candidate to armor up and load down with weapons once the batteries become more efficient.

 

Too bad Obama will likely cut funding for Powered Armor projects just like they're going to axe the F22...

 

I know they need to cut money where they can but the Raptor is just so beautiful....

 

Yeah, but more of them are also surplus to requirements. The Air Force said "OK, we have enough of these" and Congress - looking out for the attached jobs - said "No, no, we insist, have some more". It's the same with the DDG-1000, which the navy has decided was a big, expensive mistake. They don't want it and will probably never deploy it (the Navy has already drastically downscaled its weapons program for the DDG-1000, so there's a distinct possibility that the taxpayer will cough up 9 billion dollars for three warships .... with no armament). But the ship's boosters have insisted the navy buy a third one anyway.

 

With programs as expensive as this, I think the Fed.s need to make decisions on better grounds than "It looks really good on the Military Channel"

 

I do dig the fact that the Lockheed system is pronounced "Hulk" though

 

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

Would people throw things at me if I say that the HULC looks incredible?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

Yes.

 

A directed energy grenade, network enabled for final guidance to target by autonomous standoff UAVs, EMP-hardened for CNBW environments, and built in a tastefully-manicured industrial park surrounded by 1000 acres of green space open for dog walkers, three blocks from Nancy Pelosi's place.

...But I do need another billion for prototyping....

[Kristopher]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

Yeah' date=' but more of them are also surplus to requirements[/url']. The Air Force said "OK, we have enough of these" and Congress - looking out for the attached jobs - said "No, no, we insist, have some more". It's the same with the DDG-1000, which the navy has decided was a big, expensive mistake. They don't want it and will probably never deploy it (the Navy has already drastically downscaled its weapons program for the DDG-1000, so there's a distinct possibility that the taxpayer will cough up 9 billion dollars for three warships .... with no armament). But the ship's boosters have insisted the navy buy a third one anyway.

 

At least in the case of the Raptor, have they reached the original contracted delivery yet, or did someone decide that buying the original number would result in a "surplus"?

 

A large part of what makes defense contracts so expensive is that the companies involved never know when a new administration or Congress is going to declare backsies on a previously signed contract. Even if it's just a cut in the original order, a weapon system that cost $5 billion to develop on top of the actual production expenses is going to cost a lot more per unit if some "smart" guy in Congress or the White House who knows nothing about military matters gets it in his head that we need 50 instead of 150.

[Markdoc]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

At least in the case of the Raptor' date=' have they reached the original contracted delivery yet, or did someone decide that buying the original number would result in a "surplus"?[/quote']

 

Depends on where you put the number. The original plan was for over 700 F-22's, but even at the time, the airforce didn't want that many. The number was revised to 648 in 1991, the original contract was for 442. After the first protoypes were built in the mid '90's design concerns pushed the service entry date back several years and added another 11 billion (eventually 20 billion) to the cost - and reduced the order book to 339. Further delays and cost-overruns pushed the entry date and price tag higher and it nearly hit the cost cap for the project. It came close to being cancelled, but after so much money had been sunk into it that was politically fraught, so the airforce said they would take 187.

 

In the meantime, the F-22 has been outflanked by the F-35: the airforce plans to buy nearly 1800 of them, as they are significantly cheaper.

 

A large part of what makes defense contracts so expensive is that the companies involved never know when a new administration or Congress is going to declare backsies on a previously signed contract. Even if it's just a cut in the original order' date=' a weapon system that cost $5 billion to develop on top of the actual production expenses is going to cost a lot more per unit if some "smart" guy in Congress or the White House who knows [i']nothing[/i] about military matters gets it in his head that we need 50 instead of 150.

 

Sure, I understand that. The F-22 has been hit all the usual ways. First the original estimates by Lockheed as to how long and how much the project would take have proven hoplessly optimistic, so the project was actually nearing the total procurement cost before the first plane was delivered. That's partly their fault and partly the fault of the geniuses, who changed the spec.s part way through from air superiority to multi-role fighter (though to be fair that change was in part in response to budget over-runs: there was concern the airforce could end up blowing most of its new plane budget on an air superiority fighter at a time when most of its work was actually ground support). That led in the end to the current order, which is about a quarter of the original plan and less than half the original contract.

 

So cutting the order without question raised the per-plane cost. At the same time, the original plan was for 750 planes entering service in 1994 at a total cost of 86 billion dollars. The original contract scaled that back to 442 for 61 billion dollars. In 1996 - before a single plane had been delivered - the program was already years behind schedule, tens of billions over budget, more money was required - and delivery date had been pushed back to 2000. It was apparent at that point, that the cost was going to be way, way beyond the original contract for 61 billion. In fact, the current buy of 187 was designed to reach the 61 billion originally appropriated. It's not that the budget has been cut, per se - it's just that 61 billion bought 187 planes, not 442. The unit cost would fall of course if more planes were built, but the total price would still more double if the originally contracted number were purchased.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Exosuit Prototype: Lockheed's HULC

 

And if you extend the timescale by a factor of 10, USAF procurement today looks like RAF procurement in the 30s. Long developments and low procurement buys aren't the end of the world. You get long spells of short production runs interrupted by the occasional enormous buy: F-35 instead of Fairey III/Hawker Hart/Hind/etc. The important points are that there's enough busses to drop bombs as per State Department requirements, and that the technical leading edge is driven forward for all the incidental benefits that accrue (NASA, better gaming consoles --you know, the bare necessities.)