Inventor Slims Down Exoskeletal Body Armor 416
The Hamilton Spectator is reporting that inventor Troy Hurtubise, creator of the "bear-protection suit" made famous by taking a hit from a moving vehicle, has slimmed down his design in hopes of landing a lucrative government contract. From the article: "He has spent two years and $15,000 in the lab out back of his house in North Bay, designing and building a practical, lightweight and affordable shell to stave off bullets, explosives, knives and clubs. He calls it the Trojan and describes it as the 'first ballistic, full exoskeleton body suit of armour.'"
Clock? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly if I wanted to place a clock in an efficient location "dangling between the legs" isn't one of the first places I would think.
what an embarrassment for the us military (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WOW! Could it live up to his hype? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what an embarrassment for the us military (Score:3, Insightful)
Mass production costs would be higher (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Inventor hopes to sell armour suit to the milit (Score:3, Insightful)
"Worse than a serial killer, that's what he is."
Methinks you contradict yourself.
Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC, aiming for the joints was a common tactic in days of yore, when knights wore similar protection systems..... once you have the guy crippled and on the floor, a stab to an artery in the groin area would see him off.
I thought some armour protected the joints too, so I suggest he look at 14th to 16th century solutions to a 21st century problem.
Slightly incredulous (Score:4, Insightful)
In general, stuff in video games is designed to look cool, rather than to be functional. I mean, look at MechWarrior for example. Why would you ever make a combat robot that walks? All you have to do is destroy one of its legs, or, hell, trip it up with a cable. (Of course, there's solid precedent [wikipedia.org] for this.) I'm not saying that this is impossible, but when people announce technologies like this to the media before they undergo substantial testing, it usually means that they need venture capital. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and let's not even go into the Angel Light and God Light (which can "make blind men see and lame men walk").
you joke but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article mentions "high powered weapons", such as an elephant gun. Only problem is- an elephant gun isn't "high powered" in military terms. It's a damn big bullet, but big bullets have low velocities and are horrible at piercing armor because they spread their impact energy across a wide area.
An AK47 is a very high powered assault rifle (well over 2,000fps) and the favorite weapon of Iraqi guerrillas. Standard 7.62mm bullets (no idea if that's what the guerrillas are using) reportedly goes through more than a quarter inch of steel at close range. The armor piercing rounds will slice through a titanium+kevlar jacket like butter; it's doubtful this guy's suit could fare any better. I'm guessing Iraqi guerrillas don't have many AP bullets, but I bet they could find some if they needed to.
How about a 30-06? Small round, and extremely high velocity (over 2,500 fps.) AP rounds were used in WW2 against "lightly armored" targets (jeeps and such.)
BMG .50 cal? Aka the gun that marines use to punch holes in just about everything short of armored personnel carriers. And yes, there are a number of non-US rifles similar in purpose to the .50 BMG that Iraqi guerrillas could get their hands on. Getting hit by a .50 BMG in the head would probably give you a severe concussion or kill you just from the physical energy of the round alone. To stop said bullet, your helmet would probably have to weigh more than the entire suit...
Re:While it would rock if this were the real thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you've seen it, you wouldn't believe the level of miscommunication, ineptitude, petty politics, and flat out greed that can get in the way of actually getting a real product developed with the government.
Re:Mass production costs would be higher (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WOW! Could it live up to his hype? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what an embarrassment for the us military (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a reason many soldiers to use all of their armor, there's always tradeoffs.
I didn't say anything about fitting (Score:2, Insightful)
Inspecting a pair jeans to ensure that it meets fit for use standards means a visual inspection on an assembly line. A single worker can inspect a few pairs of jeans per minute. And if a unit passes inspection without being fit for use, the manufacturer, at most, has to refund the wholesale cost of a single pair of jeans /if/ the consumer complains about it.
Inspecting body armor to ensure that it meets fit for use standards means a pain-staking, time-consuming inspection which includes hitting it with several types of ordinance and exposing it to all sorts of chemicals. Further, statistical analysis must be done so to ensure that the the sample size takes the percentage of units that will be suitable for use in the field to at least three (if not four or five) nines. If a unit passes inspection without being fit for use, someone may die or be critically wounded and the manufacturer may be subject to recalling entire lots of thousands of units if not subjected to a huge product liability law suit.
Don't confuse fitness for use with the armor fitting a soldier. The two have very little to do with each other.
Don't forget about arrows.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So you are absolutely right about "1-2 disabling blows deflected by armour" but I would like to add that arrows make up a significant portion of those disabling blows. In fact, look into the history of warfare for different regions and you'll see that armor gets stronger along with bows getting more powerful. I would argue that increased armor is a result of more powerful bows + armor piercing arrowheads.
Willy
What about the Hospital Bill (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll use US soldiers for an example because that's what I'm familiar with.
Injured soldier:
Hospital: approx $6k/day
Artificial limb: ~$3k
Flying home on medivac: $10k
Dead Soldier:
$250k insurance policy(he pays for it, but it's heavily subsidized)
$100k death gratuity for dying in a war zone/hostile action
In either case you have the loss of a trained soldier to worry about.
It quickly adds up. It pays off exceptionally well if you give it to the soldiers who are 1% or more likely to die in the line of duty of something this would prevent, and about 10% likely to suffer an injury requiring medivac to an out of theater hospital and extensive rehab or seperation from service.
As for mass production, he's obviously tested the suit, possibly multiple suits, though it's probable that he's simply repaired the one after shooting it. Heck, that'd be a benefit right there. Replacing a $500 breastplate after being shot is still cheaper than replacing an entire $1.5k intercepter vest. Well, at least $1250 of it, it's $250 each for the front and back plates, and one may still be usable. Once shot the vest itself is to be discarded.
Buy a few thousand of them and the fact you completely destroy ten suits in testing would still add less than $10 to the cost.