engineering plausibility question thread

Thanks.

No matter how reliable the technology, I can't see any moderately responsible government allowing vehicle's to have windshields that could at any point suddenly block the drivers sight. A HUD for navigation and instrument readings is one thing. Having your 50mph drive down the freeway interrupted by the latest episode of "Cybermortis, why we should worship his genius" is something else....

This would apply to any kind of video display in the driving compartment, no matter how it is installed.

I. Should also say I do agree with LTW putting indirect fire weapons like missles or a howitzer would be better on the turret so it could be dropped out of LOS would be better if you went down that route, they should also have close support weapons like an mg on them.
Or possibly a mix of weapons in a squadron of hovercraft support weapons and close defense turrets to protect the rest.
I would not want to drop them in view of the enemy, they then just become easy targets for their weapons to destroy them, call in artillery or an air strike against them. They lack the strength of a hardened bunker to survive direct hits or the mobility to,shoot and scoot.

Another bit that came to mind:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Amphibious_Vehicle

Imagine an amphibious track like this... as a landing pad for a light gyrocopter. The sides and top flip down so that the aircraft can deploy. This would enable the aircraft to do its job (light recon work, commando insertion, et cetra) and then return, with no full-sized carrier at risk.

That type of Amphibious Assault vehicle needs an assault ship to deploy from that ship can act as a landing platform for a gyrocopter or ordinary helicopters anyway.
A ship borne aircraft could be slightly larger and carry a greater fuel load and payload that would more than outweigh any marginal ability to,deploy closer to the beach from such an assault vehicle.

[qufote author="ironhold" source="/post/108535/thread" timestamp="1487914884"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Transit

Another idea I've been chewing on -

See the vehicle at the top of the article?

Something like that converted into a caravan (re: mobile home) with minimal exterior modification. The mental image I have in my head is of a small bathroom area (toilet, shower, sink, water reserves) in the rear, a small kitchen area (sink, stove, small refrigerator, microwave, counter space) on the wall opposite the side door, stow-and-go seating and tabletops opposite the side door opening, and front driver & passenger seats that can safely go completely flat. One flat-screen television would be pre-installed on the front center console, while a second would be pre-installed in the small kitchen area; the kitchen one would have a hookup for a game console or a DVD player. The television sets would already be set up to receive broadcast signals from local television stations. Extras would include solar panels, satellite television, and satellite radio.

The logic would be that in the universe they'd be used in, they'd be comparatively cheap "starter" models for childless couples or close friends. The trade-off, however, is that users would have to either sleep in the front chairs or sleep on the floor once the seats & tables are stowed (I'm having trouble envisioning how proper bedding could be inserted into a design like this short of futon mats). [/quote]


In the US, that is called a a "Class B" RV. Sometimes they are also called conversion vans. Here is just one example of a company who makes them.
www.roadtrek.com/

A google search will find you tons more. Another option is you could go visit a local RV dealer and ask to look at what they have on the lot if you want research these in person.

The problem with these is that they are usually a fair amount more expensive than a house. You can get a mini house for $20,000 USD, mobile and modular construction houses start $50,000 plus land. In my area, you can get a small house for $75,000. Less for a fixer-upper.

However, conversion vans start at $75,000 for a supper cheap one. Most are in the $150,000 range. That will buy you a fairly descent home.

So, say, it'd be more logical to have an amphibious transport that can quickly deploy a modular structure to set up a quick-start field outpost?

You'd have an assault version, intended to secure a beach head and which could make use of small drones to scout the immediate area. You might also have a command version, which replaces the troop compartment with communication equipment and maybe larger drones for scouting further out and providing information for artillery bombardments.
Actual base building would be done by an engineering variant, with specialised equipment, not a 'standard' or command version. Assuming that landing craft are not used, in which case engineering vehicle's will probably be based on the chassis of a main battle tank instead.

here's a really cool thing about helicopters: they can go places without being transported on a truck. a fully loaded Gazelle helicopter weighs nearly two tons.

your AAV can carry about a thousand pounds without sinking.

the helicopter also puts the center of mass about 10 feet higher than the design of the AAV intends.

I have loaded a sailboat on a trailer onto a truck and driven it. I routinely haul 200 pound power poles on a 10 foot tall truck. I've driven a Jeep on two and three wheels. I've put 10 wheels sideways. I routinely carry 12 and 13 foot ladders vertically. loading something that barely functions as a boat with something that weighs twice the design weight, and ten feet above the design position just sounds like all kinds of trouble waiting to happen. especially when it means the helicopter will be going 8 miles per hour while under fire instead of 80.

as far as landing craft: the crew is high on the side, so they have good vision, without obstructing the unloading process.