   How much to actually build a mech?
  Well according to this: Mech cost chart, about $729.7 million. Now for the amount of money we spent on the Afghan and Iraq wars and the bailout of banks, we could have an overwhelmingly unstoppable army! To be honest, I thought it would be in the billions. Relatively speaking, it's pretty cheap.   
  One machine is one thing, but the whole development and infrastructure would be a bit more costly...And since no one has built a similar stuff yet, these costs can be er... big.Not to mention usefulness. That thing is a pretty easy target...   ;Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDesNow for the amount of money we spent on the Afghan and Iraq wars and the bailout of banks, we could have an overwhelmingly unstoppable army!Actually, the chart didn't include weapons, so you'd have to add at least a couple million for that. And can you imagine how expensive the ammo/power would be?   ;Quote:Original post by theOcelotQuote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDesNow for the amount of money we spent on the Afghan and Iraq wars and the bailout of banks, we could have an overwhelmingly unstoppable army!Actually, the chart didn't include weapons, so you'd have to add at least a couple million for that. And can you imagine how expensive the ammo/power would be?Not to mention the fact that a good tank will beat the crap out of it ;)   ;  This thing is the size of a fighter jet. Why should individual units cost 700 million?One F22 costs 140 million, F15 is 15 million. While not the same, the turbine is listed as 366 million, and manufacturing as 241 million. Both are comparable to that of a jet fighter. Same for alimunium.Also, from here.Quote:the report assumes that the robot would use an IBM Blue Gene supercomputeNonsense, just put a bunch of i7s in there, really lots of them, and we just saved 1.4 million.Quote:seven General Electric gas turbine engines (the same engines used in the US$52-million Apache attack helicopters)This is wrong. The whole Apache costs 15 million with two turbines. Let's say one engine costs 7 million (probably it's 700k), that means 50 mil for the engines, and we just saved 310 million.Quote:Processing and manufacturing costsSure, if one builds a factory for each one. This cost is same as for airplanes, and airplanes come in the ~15-50 million range, parts and labor combined. So this can be cut down to 5 million per unit.Quote:Aluminum alloy (honeycomb structure)It's about the same size as an airplane, and considering it needs to move it's lighter than a ship of same size, so let's cut this down to 8 million.So the realistic price is in the same price range as that of a jet fighter, so 50-150mil.But kids:Quote: The Japanese government funds about 90% of JST's budgetThis is how government money, and your taxes, are really spent.   ;  Also remember that this chart is from 2008 too [grin]   ;  And the realistic usefulness of one on a battlefield?Zero!Really, they have no purpose on a modern battlefield that large wheeled units don't already do. You can't carry massive armour on one. Bipedal locomotion sucks for speed, range, and comfort. And worst of all it is a huge target without a lot of benefit.You want a REAL useful thing on a battlefield? 18 Twin .50 cal remote controlled turrets mounted around something like an LAV, and fill the back of it with control consoles. Each turret provides an overlapping field of fire of 40 to 60 degrees, and redundant stereoscopic computer aided fire control systems would allow 4 or 5 'gunners' to call targets, and let the computer do the actual shooting. Couple it with "Threat Recognition" systems that can allow the turrets to auto aim and request fire clearance, and you have something that can drive down a city street at 60km/h and engage targets on the run.   ;  I would agree that a mech would be more or less pointless, that is, if it is slower than a M1A1 Abrams tank. If it's faster, however, then it may have some use. Of course, a mech would make a nice target for missiles and all.............unless you somehow manage to make a mech that is fast, armored, and powerful (and maybe stealthy?), then I agree, it is useless.......and the sort that they are showing in the chart don't look or seem useful in any given way to me.....................................But an exoskeleton (think Iron Man, but in a more practical manner) that only enhances a human's ability to carry heavier weapons and all without making him a huge target, then their is more use. I hear that Lockheed Martin or Boeing is doing research into an exoskeleton suit for soldiers.   ;Quote:And the realistic usefulness of one on a battlefield?Zero!Ah, but you would fight in style. Plus, it's easy to find pilots for those things, just grab a bunch of whiny angsty emo kids with strangely dyed hair.Quote:Original post by kryotechI hear that Lockheed Martin or Boeing is doing research into an exoskeleton suit for soldiers.It's working already.And good news everyone, Cyberdyne is also involved.   ;  I think we won't see them until we can come up with flawless algorithms for biped balance, good pattern recognition to actually augment the pilot senses and the more important of all: Materials that can hold the work of walking/running/jumping/falling.Something like the one in 9nth District/Avatar... 100 years... They could be usefull on the moon...   