US Military To Develop Star Wars-Style Hoverbikes With British company 108
New submitter amalcolm writes: The U.S. military may soon be zooming around on Star Wars-style hoverbikes. U.K. based Malloy Aeronautics has joined forces with Survice Engineering to develop the vehicles for the Department of Defense. "The Department of Defense is interested in Hoverbike technology because it can support multiple roles," said Mark Butkiewicz, who works for Survice. "It can transport troops over difficult terrain and when it's not used in that purpose it can also be used to transport logistics, supplies, and it can operate in both a manned and unmanned asset."
Yeah, right (Score:5, Interesting)
"The Department of Defense is interested in Hoverbike technology because it looks wicked cool,"
Gotta figure out how to spend a trillion dollars without being able to make things out of solid gold or add diamonds - just pick a cool thing from scifi and write up a spec.
Re: (Score:2)
Hover tanks are old stuff - watch this documentary: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:3)
We might need to figure out how to actually hover before thinking about hoverbikes. If it moves air to stay in the air, it's not Star Wars-style.
Re: Yeah, right (Score:1, Funny)
Throw self at ground and miss.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much how we achieve orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, basic physics question: if a planet spun fast enough, achieving geosynchronous orbit at 2 meters (say, at the equator) would be possible right? Or would such a planet not be capable of retaining its atmosphere, liquid water, or sustaining life in general?
Re: (Score:1)
As far as life goes, there is a significant biome below the Earth's crust. If you were underground, you wouldn't notice anything other than low gravity and a strong Coriolis effect.
Re: (Score:1)
As far as life goes, there is a significant biome below the Earth's crust. If you were underground, you wouldn't notice anything other than low gravity and a strong Coriolis effect.
I dunno, I think that all surface water would be gone pretty quickly, and without water I don't think that life would exist even deep in the earth for more than ~300 years (given what I remember about aquifers).
Re: (Score:2)
...If it moves air to stay in the air, it's not Star Wars-style.
It will also kick up a mighty dust cloud and place a detectable amount of thrust against the ground... you know, in case you wanted to trigger an Ewok attack against it or something...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhhh they are trying to make money here! Don't go pointing out reality and possibly making the funding go away! Just look what you fucking realists did to the perpetual motion inventors. Do you know how many diner plates could be filled by perpetual motion projects if not for your bungling?
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
It's basic research, done in the hopes that some new ideas or technology will come out of it. The military does that a lot, with no specific goals in mind (same as civilian scientists). Only the press fails to grasp this.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Interesting)
Odd how certain people & parties are against fundamental (basic) research UNLESS it's spent by the military. It's often so fundamental that any resulting applications often have just as many civilian/commercial uses such that it may not matter which gov't entity sponsors it.
Well, at least we got The Internet and integrated circuits out of such. (The military was a heavy customer of early IC, sparking faster improvement, even though they were not involved in the invention itself.)
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to fail to grasp this; media nailed it. The inventor is a Kiwi Sheep farmer. His initial application is for help tending sheep on rugged terrain. He partnered with Survice Engineering, which has both military and non-military branches. The most likely future application is for humanitarian missions, e.g. getting a doctor to a victim and then transporting medical supplies autonomously.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How about a working rifle for our troops perhap (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the old AK-47/AKM 7.62x39 only has a bit more energy than 5.56x45.
7.62x51 packs quite a bit more punch, especially when you go for harder/specialty loads.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How about a working rifle for our troops perhap (Score:5, Informative)
I think he means to refer to the caliber of round, not the rifle itself. The standard 5.56 NATO round is terrible at stopping targets long range, and they lack the power to break thin cover and in some cases can't even puncture vehicle windows. The AK fires a much heavier loaded 7.62 (i think) almost equivalent to a .308 sniper round.
No. The Russians abandoned the 7.62 in the 1970s and went for a smaller higher speed round just like the M-16. They then began selling / giving away all their unwanted 7.62 AK's and ammo, it was all considered tier 2 equipment. OK for revolutionaries in Africa and South America but Soviet soldiers would get better.
.308 is not necessarily a sniper round. It is a standard round as well, in particular 7.62 NATO. See US M-14.
The
In college we read a book that traced the development of two weapons, the M-16 rifle and the F-16 fighter, to gain insight into Pentagon procurement and development. Here is what I recall.
The Army's own research shows that long range shots are rare. WW2 soldiers with the venerable M-1 Garand rarely fired at anything beyond 100 yards despite the Garand having excellent long range accuracy and knock down power. The Army research found that soldiers with the Browning Automatic Rifle were more likely to fire at iffy targets. Hence the move to large capacity detachable magazines in a standard issue rifle. The M-14 being the first for the US however if was found to be effectively uncontrollable on full auto. US Special Forces troops that tested a civilian designed rifle, the Armalite AR-15, found it to be much more suitable. The smaller round in fact deadlier, it went unstable when it hit people and tumbled, doing more damage. M-14 users is SF thought the AR-15 superior. More effective at actual combat distances and one could carry multiple times the amount of ammo for the same weight.
The Army, against their will, "militarized" the Armalite AR-15 into the M-16. The M-14 was their baby, designed in house, they resented it being replaced by an outsider's rifle. Many, including Congressman who investigated the Army and the M-16 eventually, were of the opinion that the Army tried to sabotage the M-16 in this redesign/militarization process. Those of a more generous opinion merely claim that the Army was stupid. Various changes were made to improve accuracy but these reduced reliability and reduced lethality, less likely that a bullet would tumble when it hit a person. Worst of all they change the powder used in the ammunition from a clean burning powder to an older design that left behind more residue. Such residue is a minor issue for a M-1 or M-14 which use pistons near the muzzle and operating rods reaching back to the bolt to drive the mechanisms but in the AR-15/M-16 a tube carries high pressure gas behind the bullet from near the muzzle directly back to the bolt. The working mechanisms of the rifle get fouled by this residue and jamming becomes quite likely.
Unfortunately M-16s sent to Vietnam were of this design and their ammunition used such powder. Compound the preceding by failing to tell troops how important it was to clean the internal mechanism and not sending them much of the newer Cleaner/Lubricant/Preservative that Armalite had expected to be used. It was the poor reliability of these M-16s that made troops regret converting from the M-14, not the long range stopping power notion you suggest. Special Forces carrying the older Armalite AR-15s had no such problems and had a very different impression of the design and the new ammunition. Later redesigns of the M-16 and better powder formulations corrected these problems. However US troops died due to the Army's negligence and a Congressional investigation resulted. The unfairly stains the Armalite design and 5.56 ammunition.
Note that one of the preferred weapons of US Special Forces today is an M-16 "redesign" where the gas tube is replaced by a more traditional piston and operating rod, keeping the inner workings cleaner like an M-14. The ammunition is still 5.56mm. Yes, SF also used M-14s but they are a more specialized weapon for special circumstances.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
SoylentNews...
No, I actually like the site. I have not been there in a bit though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My dad was a paratrooper in Vietnam and he told me they used to ditch their defective M-16s, drop in on Charlie and "borrow" their AKs to get the real work done
That deep in enemy territory it worked on two levels:
1. Sounds like a friendly
2. Didn't jam
(bonus) 3. If you used the butt of the rifle it didn't shatter
Jungle fighting is close quarters and while you don't get a lot of accuracy with a spot welded hand-me-down Soviet gun you don't really need it anyway
Re: (Score:2)
My dad was a paratrooper in Vietnam and he told me they used to ditch their defective M-16s, drop in on Charlie and "borrow" their AKs to get the real work done
That deep in enemy territory it worked on two levels:
1. Sounds like a friendly
2. Didn't jam (bonus) 3. If you used the butt of the rifle it didn't shatter
Jungle fighting is close quarters and while you don't get a lot of accuracy with a spot welded hand-me-down Soviet gun you don't really need it anyway
A former manager was a Marine who had to swap his M-14 for an M-16 when deployed around DaNang. His lessons were:
1. Carry lots of grenades.
2. KABAR, zero moving parts.
Also to clarify for some readers, "Sounds like a friendly" is with respect to the enemy's perspective. To make them think they are firing on friendly non-US forces. One had to be a little more careful with an AK's use around US forces, it was a good idea to let them know this "trick" was going to be used.
OK, F-16 fighter too (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting, what do you remember about the F-16?
"Multi-mission" was the bright idea of the day, aircraft that could be both fighters and close air support aircraft (tactical bombers). After all fighters are just missile launch platforms, not the "dogfighters" of days gone by. Note the early F-4 Phantom versions had no gun.
... things did not go as far as with the Army. The Air Force did not turn the F-16 into an unreliable mess. It was just heavier and more complicated, cost more, and required more maintenance (fewer sorties).
The F-16 started out as a design by "rogue" elements of the Pentagon, Air Force and industry. They were going to build a pure fighter, a dogfighter, something with a gun for extremely close range combat (what pilots referred to as "knife fights" (obviously an illusion to distance not weapon). Yes it would be able to drop bombs but no features would be included that assisted bomb dropping at the expense of dog fighting fighter performance. There was also a strong tendency to keep it simple. Not an aversion to technology per se, the F-16 would be the first fly-by-wire aircraft in the Air Force, but keeping in mind that technology must offer a strong benefit to performance and/or the mission and not overly complicate the design or overly drive up the cost. Cost was another important factor, as was maintainability (simplicity).
The underlying motivation was that the fighter and close air support missions were mutually exclusive. Aircraft characteristics that improved performance on one side generally reduced performance on the other. One of various characteristics was armor. Armor was good in the close air support role, it improved survivability. Armor added a lot of weight and degraded the performance of a fighter. Fighters needed minimal armor, unlike a close air support aircraft that needed robust armor. Air Force data from WW2 and Korea showed that high performance fighters were extremely vulnerable in close air support roles. Probably the greatest fighter of its day, the P-51 Mustang, suffered heavy casualties during WW2 ground attack mission and even more horrible casualties in Korea due to more advanced anti-aircraft guns. Note that old propeller driven aircraft like the P-51 were used because jets were just too fast, and greater speed meant they could only attack enemy troops far from friendly troops. Slower aircraft could attack the enemy at far closer distances. What is one of the main characteristics of a fighter, going fast. They generally don't perform so well at slow speeds. Note the F-14 and F-111 tried to address this with movable wings.
An important concept was that it was not how many aircraft one had in inventory that was important. Rather it was how many sorties (missions) per day those aircraft could fly. Cost gave you more aircraft. Simplicity/maintainability gave you more sorties per aircraft per day.
They tried to work under the radar so to speak. Eventually when the word got out and the prototypes flying the Air Force brass rejected the aircraft. They considered it a distraction from the F-15, the culmination of state of the art multi-mission air superiority fighter. But the performance and cost of the F-16 led Congress to virtually force the F-16 on the Air Force. In its day the cost of the F-15 was about as controversial as the cost of the F-22 Raptor today. If the Air Force brass had things their way they would have simply bought more F-15s and let the F-16 be sold to foreign allies.
As the Air Force grudgingly accepted the F-16 they made some design changes. Increased its all-weather capabilities, increased it bombing performance, adding a little more electronics. All reducing its performance as a fighter to a degree. While there is a little deja vu with respect to the M-16 and the Army, forced upon them, redesign reducing performance
The story also repeats itself to a degree with the A-10, another rejection of the multi-mission concept. This time focusing on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember a bit of this from The Pentagon Wars, but I never knew the details. Thanks.
Re: How about a working rifle for our troops perha (Score:3, Funny)
Surely just one fleshlight is enough...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you haven't hear about the guy with five penises. His underwear fits him like a glove.
HE needs four fleshlights.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a quad-copter sci fi ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta figure out how to spend a trillion dollars without being able to make things out of solid gold or add diamonds - just pick a cool thing from scifi and write up a spec.
How is a quad-copter sci fi? It just a big enough version that a person can ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this looks less Star Wars and more The Incredibles.
Prediction (Score:2)
Think bigger (Score:1)
What is this small tlevel thinking? Think big, just build the death star already. At least death star works on known tech, to build hover bike you have to learn to hover first. Death star - just think of all the beautiful tasty porkbarrel spending! Mmm
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell [theguardian.com], it's using essentially the same tech as a quadcopter:
Whether or not it's going to be useful remains to be seen, but, really,
Flying Mule (Score:2)
They must have been thinking of the MF-813 Flying Mule from Firefly.
They can't tell the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek let alone, well, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that a lot of rigor is put into describing stuff as "Star Wars like" in terms of getting the metaphor exactly correct.
I assure you, that's not the case.
For the most part the nerd outrage is lost on deaf ears, like so much pointless noise. You know, like the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons.
The sooner you accept this fact, the happier you will be. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Kaylee [imdb.com] isn't going to be the mechanic?
Then I'm not interested.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not it's going to be useful remains to be seen
Useful or not, it will probably look pretty cool in a summer blockbuster in a couple of years.
Watch out for that... tree (Score:3)
They should be OK as long as they don't try flying around Big Sur
Is that English? (Score:2)
and it can operate in both a manned and unmanned asset.
...whut?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it can be fitted with a remote control or guiding device to function autonomously, as well as with someone atop of it.
Is it me, or is this a variant of the hovercraft? Normal hovercraft are useful in swampy terrain, but something this small requires a lot of engine usage to keep the cushion of air underneath, and unlike most hovercraft which use curtains to keep the air from escaping as fast, this doesn't have this, so it needs to push significantly more air to keep it afloat.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention dust and debris that it would likely throw like when on sand.
Re:Is that English? (Score:5, Funny)
*writes "built-in smoke screen" on the features list*
Re: (Score:2)
More like a variant on the helicopter/quadcopter, but pretty much.
Re:Is that English? (Score:5, Insightful)
It can go across any terrain! Of course, the enemy will hear you coming from twenty miles away and your troops will need to wear constant ear protection since we essentially had to strap jet engines to the thing. This also means they won't be able to hear anything including incoming fire or communications with other troops. But it HOVERS!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Makes more sense if you replace "in" with "as". Probably intended to edit it from "in both a manned and unmanned manner" but didn't catch all the needed changes.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been noticing more typos on the BBC website lately.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been noticing more typos on the BBC website lately.
Best we sell it to Rupert Murdoch ASAP then.
I want it. (Score:2)
These have a fatal flaw (Score:5, Funny)
Enemies of NATO will just genetically engineer Ewoks.
These are not the Fiats you are looking for... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Propellers ARE anti-gravity devices, just noisy fuel-thirsty air-requiring debris-tossing anti-gravity devices.
(It occurred to me that's also how my wife describes me, minus the anti-grav part.)
Derpa (Score:1)
I don't remember hoverbikes in Star Wars. (Score:1)
There were hovering bikes in ET. Those were very similar to the Omicronians' hovering bikes in Futurama - powered by love. Don't think that would work for the US Military.
This is Slashdot, you know, news for nerds (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you were a real nerd, you'd know that "Star Wars" is the overarching title for the franchise, and that the first film was called "A New Hope."
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
My hoverbike is full of eels.
Logistics? (Score:2)
Why bother? (Score:2)
how about "flying cans" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought it was older than that? I recall seeing it, I think I was a kid though. It was around the time the government made an effective jet-pack. It was not as effective as they liked. Also, I recall this device you speak of being jet powered and not rocket powered. I am not sure what it was called or how to refer to it or I would look it up and get more information. I seem to recall that there is a documentary about this, though more centered on the jet pack, and it contains a lot of information about th
Re: (Score:1)
I followed Irate Engineer's link below and came across this: http://www.transportation.army... [army.mil]
This is similar looking, but not exact, to what I had recalled in my earlier post. The one I am thinking of had the railing, I think it went most or all the way around, and was jet powered (not rocket powered).
Maybe I only think I have seen star wars... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I've seen this before... (Score:2)
The AirGeep (1957) [army.mil]
Strangely enough, they never caught on. Maybe because for the number of troops you could deploy with the same sound footprint, you could actually use helicopters accompanied by gunships? And the troops are therefore not encumbered with their own transportation?
Giving everyone in the platoon their own hoverbike means that you have a bunch of hoverbikes that you have to keep and maintain. And the Ewoks can still kick your ass because they are unencumbered with such hardware.