At what point will humanoid robots be combat-worthy?
>>64314209Exoskeletons are far more practical.
Never probably. Will always be more costly than organics.
>>64314230with the coming population collapse it will be worth it for many nations
>>64314209would
>>64314230They seem more likely to be used for policing than for military imho.
>>64314209Never, inhuman robits bristling with weapons are the most optimal grunt unit.
>>64314209>Power Supply for longevity in combatBasically when they can function in the field for more than 5 days without needing resupply. They won't replace infantry but I can easily see combined organic/inorganic units. A fireteam plus 4-8 clankers as backup. The fireteam will double as maintenance for said clankers to keep them in the fight. If Ukraine has shown us anything, it's that the new trench/static line of modern war will require more specializes units to break through. Drones in the air is half the equation, drones on the ground is the other. Not just for resupply but having a team of 4 robots doomguy their way through infantry across no man's land, as well as mapping safe paths to cross and take ground. Also, the weapons required to take down walking drones would be very different from anti-personnel weapons, meaning you need more logistical support on the front. Most armies can barely keep the front line supplied, now you're adding on anti-walker weapons to each shipment. And such equipment is probably pretty delicate compared to standard infantry weapons. That said, infantry would adapt but it would take a lot of time and tinkering. I like the idea of the airburst rounds from Elysium being the primary anti-walker weapon. Tickles that sci-fi nerd in me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SyRQrPCzrQ&t=4shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4_yho6mxfkMore than likely, we'll see less human soldiers but not by much. Maybe 25% less current numbers in the next 20 years, then it will shift to 50% in the next 40 or so, then in about 60 years, the battlefield (for modern armies) will be mostly robots. We'll gradually see the standards for infantry go up to at least Ranger equivalent since humans will be less necessary but "security" forces demand will go up, which can be done by private corporations rather easily.
>>64314587I disagree. Effective policing requires a human touch and even a single officer with robot backup will seem very impersonal and very scary for the average person (criminal or not). These robots are meant to be weapons first, and utilizing weapons as a gendarmerie is a recipe for disaster (see Iraq and Afghanistan). I could see limited use in SWAT/HRT applications though but, armored exosuits would be cheaper and more relevant; ie. the fear/morale killer of seeing 8 Jin-Roh looking dudes kicking the door in and knowing your small arms won't do shit to them. Considering 90% of law enforcement is dealing with mundane/minor misdemeanors, robots are overkill.
>>64314685Isn’t this the plot of the robocop remake?
>>64314209When we have nanobots capable of repairing even microlevel wear and tear just by consuming random matter and fuel.
>>64314209Infinite Warfare is fucking great and I'm tired of pretending it's not
>>64314685>the fear/morale killer of seeing 8 Jin-Roh looking dudes kicking the door in and knowing your small arms won't do shit to themBPRE style Man In The Loop robot kill teams with picrel Advisors replaced with human handlers and the Assaulters with Chappie type killbots would be sick.
>>64314762Wonder if they deliberately made that intro creepy to be like "this is the last thing a third world child with an AK sees before getting their head blown off"
>>64314230I don't really believe that. Remember modern missiles basically blow up a computer that would have been priceless in the 50s. It's all relative
>>64316190A child with a AK could easily disable that. Even if it was made out of titanium that could withstand small arms fire the head senor is the obvious target as are the joints.
>>64314230I swear some people think war is just about underbidding the other guy when I'm pretty sure a tank is worth more than a nude man with a butter knife, even if one costs a hell of a lot more.
>>64314230Not really. A soldier costs ~20 years of food and housing and education in addition to his gear, plus all the potential future economic output he'd have produced if his life hadn't been wasted in warfare.Infantry are by far the most expensive way to wage war in terms of their costs relative to their potential lethality in combat.
