With the rise of anti-personel drones will armored exoskeleton concepts make a comeback /k/?

Ukraine war rendered infantry pretty useless against drones, especially FPV ones that can't be jammed. one small drone can easliy take out entire infantry squad. could heavy armor, powered with hydraulic press movement be strong enough to stop 60-80mm/2-3kg mini drone bombs? what do you think?

surely first world militaries can finance this, especially birth rates are declining worldwide and no country can afford such loss of manpower in modern warfare.

Also what alternatives are there? how can you "buff" your infantry against drones?

>>63839338 (OP)
>With the rise of anti-personel drones will armored exoskeleton concepts make a comeback /k/?
i would love it, i am the biggest supported of exoskeletons

but sadly drones have made armored exoskeletons even more of a far future idea.

you simply can't put enough armor on yourself to stop the payloads that fpv drones carry, and if you did add enough armor it would just be a slow piece of shit mech

then they would use an rpg warhead like they do for tanks and still kill you

No.

>>63839389
That's interesting how much armor would it take to stop the blast from these mini drones.

also modern warfare is much more slower, i don't think slow movement would be a much of a problem when your stuck in a trench below open field. would be very interesting how it would play out in the real combat.

>>63838136

>>63839338 (OP)
>Also what alternatives are there? how can you "buff" your infantry against drones?
the only way is hard kill systems that can reliably hit drones at least 50m away
lasers won't work in the long because of range/power/armored drones

think predator shoulder cannon or spot dog with a little turret

>>63839425
>That's interesting how much armor would it take to stop the blast from these mini drones.
they pop tanks like they are nothing
have you actually seen a 5 inch fpv drone irl? they aren't mini

>>63839435
Yeap these retarded lil robot dogs also came in my mind, if one squad can carry one of them with them, AI powered camera vision that can focus on the sky while infantry engages in ground combat, would be a relief for soldiers.

it's like having a mobile AA with you but for drones and it functions on it's own.

>>63839475
you could also just use those flat bed atv's that israel like

>>63839445
damn i've seen videos but i cant really tell sizes without seeing them in person, i had something like this in mind, your telling this shit can penetrate m1 armor?

>>63839496
yes
they can literally carry rpg warheads
7 inch on the left, 5 inch on the right

>>63839483
i haven't seen that one

>>63839515
holy fuck it's over

>>63839526
>holy fuck it's over
yeah
for unarmored soldiers you don't need rpg
but the second you uparmor your infantry they just break these out or just carry 5kg of tnt
either way your soldier will still kia for like 1 grand

>>63839338 (OP)
There are already FPV drones with 1kg blast warheads. No exoskeleton armor would save soldier from direct hit by such.

>>63839541
So what you're telling me is armored are not only not obsolete, they're the only way you have even a chance of moving near the frontline and surviving.

>>63840342
No, armored is worse in every way because you're getting killed just as dead but you're slower and carry less things

Armor is for shrapnel from artillery, drones are guaranteed kill if they hit you

>>63839496
An M1's roof is thinner than the glacis plate of most WWII tanks. Drones can reliably slap tanks in their weak spots.

Why not an automated mini turret that can shoot at incoming drones? It can warn the user and as a last chance it’ll at least blow it up a few feet away.

exoskeletons are a meme

Drones are just precise cheap artillery. It's like if you could take a ww2 era 80mm shaped charge mortar and hand-deliver it right on top of a tank. So infantry won't get more armor, they'll just be there to hold the position and fucking die. I much prefer infantry to tanks and planes and boats because I am not an unempathetic autist who can only develop feels for inanimate objects (or inanimate objects turned into a pretty girl), but I recognize their terrible fate is pic related.

In an interstellar age we will have rods from god and space-to-ground munitions and yet infantry will still be needed even if they are now getting meteor-droned from another planet because someone's gotta hold the point and someone's gotta die.

>>63839401
Spbp

>>63841325
>drones are guaranteed kill if they hit you
Not true, both sides report armor with multiple layers has a higher rate of survival than being outside where there is no armor at all to protect your squishy body from both the RPG shrapnel or the jet. Full penetration to cockpit isn't guaranteed either.
Having several people inside one IFV is going to get at least one of you killed by the copper jet though, which negates the value of carrying many people, but IFVs will still be valuable. They will probably be less likely to carry sensitive ammunition and fuel near the crew compartment in future however, and the NERA will be more complete. There's a lot of inner space a modern IFV can theoretically lose if the crew are forced to crawl.

>>63839338 (OP)
tanks cant tank drones - why armoured exoskeleton on grunt would make any difference?

>>63839526
at least for now such over loaded quad rotors have a short range and time of flight, at some distances running away fast enough might actually work.
weird looking rpg, like the base of an 85 mm with the nose of a 72 mm, probably weighs about 1.6 kg

>>63839338 (OP)
Any fucking day now OP. You'll jump the shark completely and people will stop replying to these gay bait threads altogether.

>you simply can't put enough armor on yourself to stop the payloads that fpv drones carry, and if you did add enough armor it would just be a slow piece of shit mech

>>63839389
This!
Drones can pierce a MBT they thus they should have no problem to take down a power armor.
On the other hand, a power armor can act as a support for some kind of active protection system. In this case the idea of a powered exoskeleton may be viable

>>63839389
>>63845325
Suicide drones are the exception rather than the rule. Most drones still drop grenades simply because it's cheaper and easier than bringing a dozen drones.

The only reason exoskeletons aren't a thing yet is that the technology just isn't there to make them good. Sure we could make some kind of an exoskeleton but realistically if you want to make it worthwhile it needs to relatively simple and cheap, have enough power to operate for like a week or a month out in the field and survive the elements, not be too cumbersome for the user and able to be easily repaired and maintained.

>>63845274
His brain is gonna be jello after that

>>63845325
Current exo designs tend to all be passive. The structure takes weight off the user's shoulders and hips like an improved version of medieval armor, so it's effortless to stand, but movnig around still costs calories.

This is because batteries and motors are never quite good enough to be worth it so far. For a SWAT team the passive armor is a useful boost.

See the Mehler Protection ExoM for the modern version or Revision's 2010s exoskeleton..

>>63839338 (OP)
Even if you created an armored exoskeleton, drone teams would just switch to more FPVs going after the exoskeleton troops and you're not designing an armor composite that can stop even basic old PG-7s from 1961 without it making the exoskeleton extremely cumbersome in physical dimensions

>>63841325
>Armor is for shrapnel from artillery, drones are guaranteed kill if they hit you

Right and the armour protects when they almost hit you

>>63846564
At the same time, a lot of infantry survived drone attacks with just smoke grenades. Being able to carry more smoke grenades would significantly improve survival rates.

>muh drones
bruh
why do magnets work?