Robot_Nixon

Re: Hypothetically and unofficially, what would you like to see in a Mecha Hero book?

BattleTech is still popular.

Enough so, that there is a new F2P computer game based on it. Although, so far it has much less than the beta players expected.

Re: Bibliography

No' date=' seriously. Who in the hell is going to print this?[/quote']

 

Seriously, it's 15 bucks for a full size 300 page PDF. I've done it with a number of PDF only games I have.

 

So yea, seriously. Get over yourself.

Re: Bibliography

in what alternate reality?

The one where you finally join us in the 21st century.

Re: Bibliography

looks like this might make it to print...

Re: History of Space Opera, aka Finally an io9 article that doesn't suck.

Reynolds' series really has recaptured the feel of space opera for me. So much so, I've gotten out of the series and started reading some of his books that aren't a part of that universe.

Yeah.

 

They.

 

Don't believe me? Try it. Go to any RPG forum on the web and make an oblique referrence to MT or TNE in a SF RPG discussion: it'll trigger an instant off-topic hate-fest/thread derail, guaranteed.

No thanks, you provided quite enough of an example for my tastes.

Re: History of Space Opera, aka Finally an io9 article that doesn't suck.

They won't stop until the discussion is completely de-railed

They?

Re: Ultra-Tech Punishments?

If you subscribe to the concept of the technological singularity, man-machine interface, and personality recording and transcribing. And you don't get hung up on the star trek transporter sophism that it doesn't actually transport you, it only kills you by disintegration and recreates an exact copy of you at the destination, then;

You could record and store the personality of the offender in a virtual prison cell where time passes in real time, he must attend virtual rehabilitation courses, and if underprivileged, is allowed to attend some form of training to allow a productive reintegration into society.

Meanwhile, to pay for the data storage, power, and rehabilitation and vocational courses, your body would be provided as a rental to others who have died, had theirs stolen, or just want to vacation as someone else. Of course the renter has to pay for repairs or buy insurance that will do the same, but the implications create a strong deterrence to crime.

Not only do you have to put up with the general aging of your body while incarcerated, but you may have new injuries that will be impairing to some greater or lesser degree depending on the medical technology available. More importantly, you'll have to deal with the social impact of the rentals, insofar as any social contracts made by your renters, like romantic involvements, business relationships, and all the other drama that comes with being alive and interacting with people. Since these contracts were made through some form of duplicity either explicit or implicit because of the false nature of the body rental, none of them will likely be very rewarding for the person that eventually has to reclaim the recognizable body and its new allotment of social baggage.

Still within the realms of sadism, but not terribly so. Of course, you would have to come up with a surrogate if the convicts rental body is permanently destroyed that isn't rewarding, such as a basic robot lacking features, and even human levels of agility and strength, or a generic clone made without appealing features and only rudimentary physical abilities. It sounds terrible but if the released personality works hard enough they can upgrade to a more custom clone or robot/android, or with stored genetic code, even regrow their old body.

Re: Where does it show the price list for Hero system equipment guide.

He's been on the board nearly 3 years and has posted all of 5 times' date=' 2 of which were to complain. I highly doubt our conversation has anythingto do with him not joining in..Did anyone else read the thread title and think it was a legit question (ie he thought there was a price list or wanted to know where one could be found)? Felt like a bait-and-switch bordering on trolling to me. Maybe I'm reading into it because the OP was worded rather offensively, and I am not saying that was his intention, but all things considered I hardly feel the rresponses were overly harsh..EDIT: Out of the 5 or 6 forums I have frequented on and off over the years Hero is easily the most welcoming and (considering I've added my fair share of rudeness, arguingm and stupidity) als the most forgiving.[/quote']

 

Which is why I assumed he was a kid. His post was rather indelicate, but worth treating as a genuine request for assistance in any event. If he's serious we help him and present ourselves as a helpful non-elitist group worthy of new gamers. If he is disingenuous, we kill the post with kindness and do not come off as reactionary. in the end, regardless of his intent, we reply as a helpful group accepting of new players and looking like a good place for new gamers to join and contribute, and that is never bad.

 

However' date=' I don't think it's necessary to give a blanket pass to poorly-worded rants or to text-speak, or to assume that either is due to youth. Given the international nature of the Web, I'm surprised that the first thing you came to for the language usage was age rather than being a non-native speaker. That's sad.[/quote']

 

I think if the post count is under 10, then yes, they get a blanket pass to find a welcoming community looking for new blood. We can work on their posting skills later (because that's our job to police the forums*) As far as child or non-native speaker, it's not sad, it's irrelevant.

 

Sorry, but assuming one is being rude and replying in kind only makes us look bad and a difficult group to get to know and with which to participate. We really don't get all that many new users, that we can afford to turn them away with the simple assumption that they meant to be rude.

 

Look, I am not trying to say this group is low on the list of friendly forums, but we are a snarky bunch, and sometimes a new member just wants his question answered. Who cares if we look at the post and think, "Why did he ask that?!" He's here, he asked it, and it's our chance to get him onboard with the best role-playing system ever made. (or make jokes and laugh amongst ourselves and send him packing, not returning for 18 months. I know which I would prefer if I were new here.)

 

(but I am done here, nobody likes to be browbeaten, nor do I like to browbeat. All my OP was meant to do was to get you to stop and think, not rap your knuckles with a ruler. Once again, this is posted in all due respect to this community.)

 

*Some statements may contain more than 50% sarcasm.

Re: Where does it show the price list for Hero system equipment guide.

I'm not sure he's youthful' date=' [b']I haven't seen anyone make fun of his gaming choices[/b], but one person did make fun of his spelling. I know I tried to answer his question.

 

I'm just hoping all the barter banter didn't turn him (or her?) off.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

When Palindromedary Enterprises offered to sell two palindromedaries at 50% off, that meant 50% off the palindromedaries, not off the price. You get two halves of two palindromedaries. Do you want tops or bottoms?

His other post where he gets more of the same

Granted he was somewhat unwarranted in that post but it's worth asking what he means before we react negatively.

A lot of the new people we see looking to get into Hero System aren't going to be perfect, they might not be well spoken, or gaming veterans, or elderly and curmudgeonly like the rest of us, but I'm willing to bet they or their guardians have cash and they want to use it on Hero books. We might want to watch our snarky replies when the post count is below 10.

Sorry if I have overstepped my bounds here or caused any bad blood, but recently I have seen posts about what can we do to make Hero more accessible, and I think it's foundational that we start right here on the forums by being a bit more welcoming.

Re: Where does it show the price list for Hero system equipment guide.

Is it just me, or does Sevrick represent the 'new blood' Hero System needs and we probably shouldn't be making fun of his youthfully improper grammar and spelling or his previous gaming choices until we're, say... back to profitability?

Re: So how did you guys learn the system?

Well, I learned with the first edition, and the core combat rules have remained very simple. But for a truly uninitiated player all the possibilities of full blown Champions game can be a bit daunting. So, I teach them using campaigns with minimal aspects of hero system included, such as; wild west, military, or spy genres. None of these include powers, magic, or cybernetics, or for that matter not much beyond the basic parts of character creation, skills, and combat. So they can learn the core systems without all the exceptions and options. Once the players get a good feel for that I will run a space or cybernetic campaign that allows me to introduce a very limited subset of the powers, with very strict creation rules mainly through the use of technological equipment and cybernetics which are typically fixed in what powers they use and how much power they have. This gives them familiarity with the powers system but doesn't ask them to make or modify any themselves or worry about frameworks or other 'advanced' power topics. Next up might be a low magic fantasy or horror/cthulhu campaign where the players get more familiar with powers as spells that they can start to modify using the power rules to make higher powered/altered versions of their starting spells. Finally we break out the high magic fantasy or Champions campaign and they can make everything from scratch.

I've done this a few times, and the players always seem to have a better grasp of the rules than the ones that get thrown into a full Champions of Fantasy Hero game. They also seem to retain the information longer. Obviously YMMV, and if you are working with a group that is catching on quickly (and not just saying so) you can skip a campaign or step (though why would you? they are all great fun) and if the group is struggling to catch on, have the campaign focus on the area they are having trouble with. More combat, have them roll up a sidekick/contact with your supervision, or start making a few spells you can review and add to your fantasy campaign.

Just remember for all the pages in the books and all the flexibility of the rules the core combat is deceptively simple.

Re: Making Hero 6E More Dangerous (Skyrealms of Jorune Conversion) ?

I posted a way to have less chance of a character in a dying state as opposed to completely dead. My suggestion of 0% is still well below your suggested method.

Re: Making Hero 6E More Dangerous (Skyrealms of Jorune Conversion) ?

Why do that when you can just as easily cap body at a lower level.

Re-read the first line of my post if you really want an answer.

Re: Making Hero 6E More Dangerous (Skyrealms of Jorune Conversion) ?

Do you want them dead-dead or dying a lot? If you want them to go from EEG/ECG active to flatline in a single shot, house rule the dying rules. Instead of body under 0 before death, make it death at zero or half or quarter body below zero.

As far as the above suggestions, all are good but the easiest is the high active power total vs. the low defense option. (i.e. 50-60 KA AP vs. >8 rPD/rED)

be warned though, you're going to need a full pad of backup characters.

Re: Why We Should Go Into Space

Yes, it was just a joke. And I couldn't agree more so far as "red vs. blue" goes - if you ask me, the entire liberal vs. conservative thing is a game of cups, meant to keep the masses fighting each other while the fat cats make off with the loot.

 

My apologies for having ruffled any feathers - but if Jon Stewart can say it, I feel safe enough repeating it (he didn't ever say the exact joke I did, but did make plenty of other "chinese stuff made of lead" jokes.)

No problem, no feathers were ruffled at you, it was directed at the general idea that we westerners think the chinese are inferior. I know what you did was just try to lighten the thread, and in response I went from addressing you directly in the first paragraph and then addressing the national feeling of arrogance in the next two. I should have delineated those two points a little more distinctly.

Re: Why We Should Go Into Space

I wish I could argue with this but you're probably right' date=' interplanetary manned space flight is probably a nonstarter in the current political environment.[/quote']

 

It doesn't have to be. We need to get America's richest families on board and pay off this deficit. The poor can't pay it, and the middle class (what of it remains) would take decades. Without getting into blue v. red, or a class warfare discussion, they are the only ones that can. We're also going to have to cut government spending. One party agrees with one of these ideas, and the other agrees with the other, but it is going to take both and it has to be done soon. THEN...

 

We can get the next generation into exploring space. I don't care if it is out of fear, or a purer sense on exploration and learning. Convince them to get their leaders of their time to shift just 1/3 of the defense budget to NASA and give it serious goals that are allowed to last beyond any one Administration's whims. (I say next generation, not ours because the deficit will take all we have.)

 

If you ever heard of the technological singularity, you know it is based on an exponential curve of discovery and theoretical breakthroughs of sciences we have already discovered and allowed to mature and then synergize. Space technology will feel that same exponential improvement if we're willing to set our sights on 'big grabs' like an asteroid exploitation, HE3 or water cracking moon station, or the ancillary discoveries involved with a multi-month mission like a manned mars mission (water cracking preferred as it can act as a space harbor for the other missions).

 

The Chinese Launch Vehicle failed because' date=' as all things made in China, it is mostly made of lead [/quote']

 

I'm pretty sure you're making a culturally biased joke here, but just so there is no misunderstanding, Chang'e-2 worked flawlessly and achieved all mission goals. Here are some images from November.

 

Unfortunately, it is this kind of arrogant cultural bigotry that dominates US thinking. "Oh we don't really have to worry about Chinese technology, it's 50 years behind." This just makes us complacent. Technologically speaking, the Chinese government has two standards. The standards for its people and export, and then another far more strict standard for national projects. This is why you get Milk poisoning and lead paint on toys but also the Three Gorges Dam which much like their space program, is based on western technology.

 

This same level of national arrogance led to the deficit in the first place. You know, it's funny, but you see plenty of ridicule for national patriotism, while in the same circles national arrogance is accepted. We really need to swap those around. (you might think from these last two sentences I might be a conservative, but re-read the post and see that I draw good ideas from both parties. I don't care about red v. blue, just that we fix the problems and get moving toward a greater goal.)

Re: Why We Should Go Into Space

No. Unless you mean the US. Personally, I've been wondering about a China/US space race. Except we don't have anything to lift off with right now.

 

 

 

Yes, because there's so much military potential in Mars, Mercury, and the outer solar system that we just had to send probes out there.

 

 

 

Considering we've been sending long-range probes such as Pioneer and Voyager, planetary probes such as Viking and the Mars rovers, dropped a probe on Titan, sent out Galileo to orbit Jupiter, and just had a probe arrive at Mercury, we seems to be doing a lot of space exploration just for the knowledge. I'll also point out that Bush did talk about sending men to Mars (but that did go nowhere) and Obama has requested an overhaul of the current planned manned missions and the launch vehicle. So there's a lot of talk about going back to the Moon and then beyond, but the current budget is such a wreck that yes, you'll not see something on the scale of Apollo. Actually, I fear that the talk of returning to the Moon is just talk, because NASA always seems (to Congress) to be a waste of money. So unless China really starts to push their space plans (which includes a Moon landing, IIRC—and India has mentioned a Moon mission as well) things will go really, really slowly.

We won't be competing with the Chinese on a new space race with this deficit, unless you mean for a seat on one of their rockets.

None of the probes have been on the financial scale of the space race, and if you had read more closely I specifically wrote, 'on that scale'. Yes, I know we will go forward with spending on space exploration in dribs and drabs to be discussed and cancelled from Administration to Administration. That isn't what I was posting about, however. I was posting about the commitment and spending required to set up a water cracking plant on the moon or just a manned mission to mars. That is just wishful thinking right now.

As far as another country going to the moon, I am sure it will happen. China has the money and the captive populace to be able to fund it and ignore popular opinion. We won't even have a design for a new heavy lifter until 2015 (if all discussions go perfectly and the design isn't questioned at all) and the Chang'e-3 should be lifting off in 2013 or 14. That's a decade worth of difference from plans to blast off.

Re: Why We Should Go Into Space

The United States initiated a space surge twice and both for the same reason; fear of the soviets.

The Soviet Union went into space for one reason; Fear of the United States.

The real space program in the 21st century is going into space for one reason; Fear of the west (can you guess who I mean?)

Man has explored space for one reason and one reason only; Military gain.

The US thinks it is secure against all other major powers. It will not go into space for exploration, knowledge or that big fat cash ball asteroid. It will only do it again on the previous scale out of fear.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

Kid, you're new here, so we'll cut you some slack. Posters who resort to insults as soon as they have nothing useful to add don't last long. If you disagree with my conclusions, you have several choices.

 

You can say "Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I just don't agree."

You can look for some facts to back up your opinion.

You can simply refrain from posting.

You can say "I have no facts to support the opinion I just formed, but I've played Gears of War and know all about future military - here's some gratuitous insults". Hint: That last one's not a winning strategy.

 

cheers, Mark

I provided my facts, and was having a friendly 'good faith' discussion with you. I made my replies and read your posts.

Unfortunately, your links didn't match what you were saying and were only put there to help you continue your argument. But, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and continued the discussion hoping that was just a mistake.

Then you followed up with a bigger post with more links and while you seemed to take the time to get them to match your words this time they were old and from poor sources.

That's when I realized you were just trolling my friendly 'good faith' discussion. So I dropped it, and that's when you proved you were a troll. "You stop because you have no further point" Troll translation: 'You quit, I win'.

If you were having a friendly 'good faith' discussion you would have been more interested in why the tone changed, but since you were trolling you already knew why it changed, and were just happy with the 'troll-win'.

if I "resort to insults as soon as they have nothing useful to add", what does that say about someone trying to insult long after the discussion is dropped?

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

My experience is that when somebody responds with a sad, emotional post like that it's because they have nothing useful to actually reply with. Hey ho. No biggie.

 

cheers, Mark

Yea, just got tired of you putting in false links and trying to bury them under tons of blah blah blah. Sorry but sad is being a liar, and emotional... well I'll let you bold type your next tearful reply.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

Actually the links shows that they are retrofitting the Strykers - albeit only 83 of them - in a way that will make them more suitable for a patrol role (it's exploratory' date=' not a general upgrade). They are specifically [b']not[/b] going to upgrade any of the variants that were designed to give the Strykers sufficient firepower to operate independantly: meaning that the concept of Stryker brigades operating seperately from tracked support is now officially dead. It's why the Canadians cancelled their order: if they have to use Leopards to support the Strykers, why would they buy Strykers in the first place? They already have cheaper lighter LAVs.

 

The original justification for the IBCT/Stryker Brigade was the capability to put brigade combat teams anywhere in the world within 96 hours and pose a "credible threat". Apparently Army no longer thinks they pose a credible threat. Which means in current army strategy, they no longer have a clear role.

 

Sigh. If you want the infodump, here's the info dump.

There is no budget for the purchase of any more strykers post 2010. We can talk about their "possible role" until the cows come home, but unless they are delivered by the magical Stryker fairy, that's all she wrote. There is an upgrade and modification budget plan for the Stryker out to 2015 .... almost all of which has been cut from the current budget request.

 

In short, all talk aside, the only money the Army is setting aside is for upgrades and maintenance - and even that is less than planned. That, to me, speaks volumes. After all, the Army is spending 215 million USD on upgrading Bradleys, in the 2011 budget. Does this mean they plan on "expanding the use of the Bradley"?

 

I wasn't suggesting that they are going to scrap the Strykers next week. It's just like the Humvee: 2011 marks the last planned purchase of that vehicle, too. Funds planned for subsequent budgets are for refits and upgrades, out to at least 2015 (and realistically, both kinds of vehicles will be around much longer, in some roles). It doesn't mean that the vehicles will suddenly disappear.

 

But if there is a replacement for the Stryker under development at Army, or even a development project for any wheeled IFVs feel free to point me at its budget. Right now there is a budget for one and only one IFV - and that's the GCV.

 

 

 

Actually the "overreaching" comments specifically to the FCS, which has been cancelled. And it was an accurate description: the FCS was supposed to be fast, light nimble - and also heavily armed and armoured - and capable of taking a whole squad plus a crew of three. They might as well have asked for the squad to be able to dismount with unicorns. But it looks like given the choice between those options, Army has chosen heavily armed and armoured over light and nimble.

 

And you are right: there is nothing specifically stating that the GCV will replace the Stryker: army spokemen are not stupid enough to say to Congress "Oh, that 18 billion Stryker program? Turns out we didn't actually want that". There are however in several of those links, comments that the GCGV will have to provide Stryker level range and reliability (something the Bradley most definitely does not). And, as noted there is no budget for either continued Stryker production or replacement. How do you translate those facts?

 

If you want to know where the army is going don't listen the PR guys: look at the budget. Actually, that applies to any large organization: follow the money.

 

 

 

It's a damn good question, actually: one that DoD should ask more often. The answer with the GCV seems to be "even more of the same". You seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of a giant IFV. I'm not - at least in principle: let's see what it looks like. I'm merely pointing out where the funding is going. Again, as noted, if you can find indicators that the Army intends to buy replacement Strykers beyond their current upgrade plans or that they have a development plan for a wheeled successor, feel free to point it out.

 

 

 

They don't appear to be unsure of it - the RFPs have already been sent out, and over 1.5 billion is already budgetted in the short term. What they are unsure of is what the final vehicle will look like - since the contractors have yet to respond. It's entirely possible that the final product will be lighter than the monster envisaged (not very likely, given the spec.s though: there's only so much you can do with those requirements). It does look like it'll be tracked, given the spec.s.

 

The marines naturally enough want a light fast vehicle because that suits their role - so I'm not surprised they don't want the GCV. However, their own development pathway is pretty limited right now. As noted, they already use stryker-like LAVs - and have been doing so for quite a while now: as noted, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with Strykers the army doesn't want.

 

 

 

Right, like the light and nimble Bradleys and Abrams that became the weapon of choice in urban combat in Iraq.

 

You are the only person in this discussion who is fixated on large scale armour battles. Meanwhile people in the Army are talking up a larger more heavily armoured IFV for deployment in asymmetric battles in urban environments. This article quotes the Army's own assessment: "The Stryker is a superb transport, “but lacks the protection and versatility for high-intensity combat,” while its “limited growth potential was acceptable for an interim vehicle,” it “poses significant risk for future operations.”

 

The Pentagon's operational test and evaluation office rated the Stryker vehicles sent to Iraq "effective and survivable only with limitations for use in small-scale contingencies."

 

Certainly from a doctrinal point of view, the idea of light forces zipping in and out trouble, protected by "information" instead of armour, promoted by Shinseki and Rumsfeld, was one of the casualties of Iraq. The army is now moving back to "boots on the ground" and "Clear and hold" in asymmetric warfare, which means high intensity combat. Not vast tank battles in Fulda Gap, but localised high intensity combat. Hence the requirement for a vehicle that can dismount troops close to target, carry a full squad, provide good IED protection, and sufficient backup power and firepower for the squad to operate independantly of tanks. Actually, that's the basic spec sheet for the GCV.

 

That was kind of the idea behind the Stryker: a swiftly deployable force that could face low level combat without a need for heavy armour. Iraq killed that idea. The beating the Strykers took in the first few month's in Iraq in urban settings meant that all future urban combat operations were spearheaded by Bradleys and Abrams: at Falluja, for example, the Strykers were assigned patrol duties outside the city. It's worth noting that the Army's response to questions about the Strykers' survivability in urban settings was to make data on Stryker losses classified: not exactly confidence-inspiring. However, more and more the job of patrolling is being done by MRAPs (the original plan was to buy 2500 MRAPs: the army's now ordered 17000 of them) which are cheaper and easier to maintain and have better survivability vs large IEDs.

 

It's not because it's a bad vehicle: the troops, by and large have been very enthusiastic, and hell, I'd far, far, rather be in Stryker than a Humvee! It's just that it looks like it can't fulfil the role of a general spectrum IFV - which was its major reason for existing. If you check out the Styker brigades pages, you'll find lots of endorsements of the vehicle - and complaints that it's gotten a lot of bad press, because it was deployed wrongly: it's not an AFV and doesn't do well in mid to high intensity combat ... like say, in urban areas. And that's one reason for the repeated assertion that it's not suitable for COIN in urban areas.

 

 

 

Sad but true .. still, you never know

 

cheers, Mark

Sorry Mark, but you are losing your credibility fast. Your previous post contained links that were in direct opposition to what you said they contained, and this post contains 3 to 4 year old links and the last link you provided is from some fly-by-night site that hasn't even filled out their 'about' page, and call some guy that runs a weekend-warrior surplus store a 'military consultant'.

I'll save you from spending your workday researching bad links and typing out multi-quote box replies that are as long as the one above, and even a possible health issue after your emotional last post and let this whole 'I got the last post' iArgument drop. Cheers

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

It was originally intended as a replacement for the Bradley. It is now looking like a replacement for both the Bradley and the Stryker. Originally' date=' the MGV was supposed to be the replacement for the Stryker, but since the MGV has been cancelled, and its role officially folded into the GCV, it now appears the GCV family is going to replace both. That's given currency by the lukewarm assessment of the Stryker M1128 MGS - there are apparently no plans to modify any 1128s for anti-IED protection - removing the firepower they were supposed to provide and the army has not gone ahead with large scale orders. Instead they are pouring money into the GCV and commenting that now the GCV is required "to meet the availability rates of the current Stryker"

 

The latest army opinion piece on strategy contains no mention of the Stryker beyond the phrase "The Stryker’s on-road speed and troop carrying capacity provide a

tremendous operational capability, but it possesses little developmental potential. Both the Bradley and Stryker families of vehicles can be reset in the near term until they begin replacement in the midterm."

 

Translation: we'll keep 'em and upgrade them until we have enough replacements. The only replacement under development now that the MGV is officially cancelled is the GCV.

 

Again, that opinion appears to be supported by the new specs for the GCV - which include full squad integrity - and a swipe at the Stryker stating that it was under-armoured and lacked manueverability, forcing troops to dismount further from objectives.

 

Last of all, the army's most recent 30 year budget projection for wheeled tac vehicles includes lots of trucks, lots of MRAPs, lots of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles — the replacement for some Humvees - and and lots of money for Humvees. Conspicuously absent is any money for Strykers, or a wheeled replacement.

 

 

 

Not at all: the lesson the army took away from Iraq was apparently that the Stryker was under-protected for urban conflict, and the lesson it appears to be learning in Afghanistan is that its off-road performance makes it too reliant on roads, and therefore too vulnerable to IEDs. In short, assymetric warfare assumptions are what is driving this current path.

 

Note, I'm not saying that they are right, merely reporting on what they appear to be doing.

 

 

 

In fact, the army and the marines have recently cancelled their joint development program - the army has apparently decided heavy is the way to go - the marines want a lighter faster, more rapidly deployable vehicle. So it looks indeed like we are moving towards a future where you have a Bradley-like vehicle and perhaps an Amtrak-like vehicle (the MPV) for the two services.

 

Of course, it's not clear the MPV will survive, now that the EFV - which was supposed to support it - is dead. The last AoA from the marines raised the possibility of using what it called "legacy" Strykers instead, suggesting that the Marines may inherit the Strykers the Army apparently no longer wants. Financially, that makes a lot of sense, even if it offends the Marines pride

 

 

 

Interesting concept!

 

Another possibility, of course, if you want to go more Sci-Fi is that improved body-armour/robotics allow you to dispense with the IFV altogether and use powered armour instead Then you use a lightly armoured, high-profile vehicle - think a lightly armoured monster truck with a V-hull - designed to haul a communications suite, a squad and a big generator. It's only purpose is as a meat-hauler: high speed, long range - not an AFV. Infantry dismount at distance and carry their own support weapons.

 

I'm not entirely being flip - it's unlikely, but possible. After all, in 1910, the warfare fought in 1940 would have been all but unimaginable.

 

cheers, Mark

Your sources don't support your suppositions. The first link is in direct opposition, even the title states, "US Army Moves Ahead with V-Hull Strykers" and the latest update (Dec/10) is that $92M has been allotted to upgrade the program. The very first paragraph states there are currently 7 medium armored brigades, and an 8th is on it's way. They are expanding their use of Strykers, not mothballing them as you contend.

The second link states they are going forward with the GCV and talks about it merits but does not state it is replacing the Stryker. In fact, the second link is dated (Feb/10) while your third link titled, "U.S. Army's GCV Delay: Lesson Unlearned?" which is dated (Aug/10) states the GCV has been put on hold due to 'overreaching', and the pentagon has asked for too much from the FCS program and want to re-evaluate the GCV to see if the same is happening to this 50-70 ton super APC. Only the contractors are "surprised" at the delay, and that's only because building this monster would be a gold mine for them. As far as the 'swipe' in the third link, that the Stryker offers a lower level of protection simply states the obvious what is expected from an airliftable APC. That's not a condemnation, just a division of roles. However it does say this about the GCV, "What will I get with the GCV that an upgraded Bradley [armored fighting vehicle] won't give me?"

And as far as the fourth link goes, it just looks like the Marine Corp wants to distance themselves from the Army's 70-ton APC boondoggle that, as per your third link, even the Army is now unsure of.

But all of this goes back to the question of are you considering the types of battles we'll be fighting in the future. Set piece armored conflict, or asymmetric skirmishes? If you really think we'll mostly have wide open Kursk tank battles from now on the Abrams and 70ton APC chugging along the open field towards the enemy makes sense. (well, except for the 70ton APC part) If, on the other hand, you think we'll be fighting more of the same asymmetric battles that have dominated the second half of the 20th century, then the Marines have it right with light airliftable wheeled vehicles zipping through the cities getting out of trouble as quick as they get into it.

As far as powered armor in the next thirty years, well as huge an Iron Man fan as I am, I'd love to see it, but just don't think so.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

That's not because tracked suspension is inherently tougher (it is, but only kinda: the tyres are the weak point on wheeled vehicles) but for two reasons - one, conventional tubeless tires can't take the weight of an MBT and two, tracks spread your weight over a much wider area, allowing tracked vehicles to drive right over ground that hopelessly bogs down even multiwheel vehicles. This is one of the things that has the US army looking a replacement for the Stryker: it's been widely criticised for its poor performance offroad, something the continual stream of upgrades has worsened: both the Israelis and Canadians have cancelled planned purchases, largely for this reason.

 

It's not clear whether the Stryker's replacement (the planned Ground Combat Vehicle or GCV) will be wheeled or tracked, at this point: the first prototypes aren't due until 2013. However, FWIW, both of the "artists' impressions" floated so far are tracked and look more like the Bradley than the Stryker. If that's the case, the Stryker probably won't vanish, but it'll likely be shifted to the fast reconnaissance role.

That's an apples to oranges comparison. The Army is creating the GCV as a replacement for the Bradley, not the Stryker. It is basically the Bradley upgraded to include the squad multiplier features they found so valuable when they fielded the Stryker, such as the intra-squad information links, extra-unit digital communications suite, and reduced fuel consumption. They plan to maintain the the Stryker units for urban environments, which they recognize as being a more likely situation in future engagements.

You seem to be discussing engineering questions in a vacuum and avoiding the bigger picture of political truth. The aspect of symmetric warfare is the remote possiblity, not the likely one. Asymmetric warfare is the expected norm. In assymmetric warfare the smaller side (ostensibly the side without the super-APC of the future) would use areas that provide cover such as; cities where wheels dominate, mountains where helicopters dominate, or underground where boots dominate. The possibilty of open field tank battles is becoming more and more remote.

A better example of a new vehicle replacement would be the Marines MPC. Before the Stryker even appeared they were using a wheeled APC the LAV-25, and now that the Army has seen the wisdom of the Corp and built their own version with the Stryker, the Marines decided they would like the digital features the Stryker introduced as well. Both branches see the benefit of wheeled vehicles for urban environments, or they would only build Bradleys and AAV-7A1 Amtracks.

However, we are talking about 30 years in the future, and with that statement we can let our imaginations slip into the area of science-fiction...

If for some reason the world intelligence agencies are wrong and the political climate changes to the point where China feels it can withstand the global financial crisis of calling the US debt due, or the EU decides China or America isn't drinking enough wine or eating enough cheese and will kill to enforce that lifestyle, then here is a good wheel/track comprimise...

Imagine in this Sci-fi future that we'll be having our wars with an all-binding accord not to include cities in the warfare. Then we could build a track system made up of three or four of those 'track-pods' per side. The front and back units or pairs could turn to improve manueverability, the pods would be independent and damage to one would not affect the others so if one pod loses a track the others will get the cargo into/out of combat, and then the repairs can be made in a safe area instead of under fire. While the load would be distributed over a wide track-like footprint providing exceptional cross-country traction.

Of course, the individual pods would have to support more weight than what we can presently build in small track pods, the coordination/synchronization systems and replicated powertrains would make it more vulnerable than a single track, but that's what the 30 years of science-fiction track development would provide.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

I was actually thinking about the vehicle itself' date=' not the tracks or wheels.It seems like the weight they can put on the suspension systems is higher with tracks. More armor.More weapons. I could be thinking about this wrong, but there are no wheeled MBTs.[/quote']

 

Right, but that is current technology. As technology progresses we could have wheeled suspension that are that much more sturdy with wheel materials and fillers that both support the pressure and solidify upon being breached.

 

And while tracked suspension may keep pace, the need for superheavy MBTs just isn't in the near future. The trend is active defenses and point defense weapons.

 

While there may be no wheeled MBTs now, the question is actually what will we see in the next 30 years. In that light, the wheeled MBT with light but effective armor, reactive armor, stand-off slats, and point defense weapons zipping around the increasingly urbanized battlefield makes a lot of sense.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

I suspect that the tracked would just be that much tougher

That's another misconception, an eight wheeled vehicle takes an RPG hit in the wheels and it knocks out one or two and you've got a damn good chance of scooting along on the 6 or 7 remaining. You take a hit in the tracks with an RPG and you're a bunker. The only moving you're going to be doing is by two boot drive.

I was actually referring to the individual wheels vs tracks not the entire vehicle motive system, they are already at parity depending on terrain.