If The American Military Is So Great, Why Is There No Metal Gear REX Yet?

>fictional

No its not

Kys

its amphibious

Yes I'm sure it's all hidden in area 51 and they're just waiting for the right time to deploy it.

Aaaaany time now.

>end the wars much much faster
Yeah. Because you'll be easy pickings.

Really? It doesn't look very seaworthy.

Attached: huh.gif (498x342, 632K)

Rey is amphibious. I don't think Rex is.

You wanna try and explain how simple ammunition is more powerful than a mf railgun?

yeah i got them confused

china's going to skip that bullshit and go straight for developing the superhuman cyborg who can suplex that pile of shit

Only Ray is you retard Rex was made for army land operations while the marines made their anti metal gear metal gear euphonious to fit the USMC mission

If only we had a senator to counter that...

Attached: images_(2).jpg (600x502, 30K)

>land combat
there is your first mistake

They waste all our taxes on predator drones instead

Attached: 1491549691394.png (1280x720, 511K)

yeah i got them confused im sorry

I'd rather have samurai husbandos

Attached: I'm my own toothpaste now.gif (500x300, 971K)

Amphibious*

The best over $600 billion can buy baka

It's okay fren.

Probably a better investment considering the complexity and expense of a bi-pedal war machine.

Attached: 1550706072565.jpg (1024x667, 64K)

bipedal tanks is stupid anime cringe that's why

>extremely awkward to move, loud
>expensive for maintenance
>expensive to develop
>too expensive to transport
>need a massive power source
>anti-tank missile can easily destroy its limbs

counterpoint:
theyre badass
all weapons and armored vehicles have weaknesses
it has more destructive potential and can carry a larger payload
it can cross terrain that vehicles can’t
its badass

>anything on land
Get ready to get fucking killed by a jet fighter that’s two miles away from you!
Win by air, then mop up those ground forces

Dude it's got a high precision railgun. Nothing is touching that thing

too easy of a target for AI drones.

You don't know how accurate and far a railgun can go, do you?

Accurate and far reaching railgun can blow them out of the sky

That isn't the main purpose of the REX railgun. It was designed to launch a nuclear ballistic warhead in a way that exploited a loophole in ICBM laws. In MGS4, the removal of the railgun from REX to Outer Haven was intended to use it's capability to launch a projectile into earth orbit. In other words, it's a super railgun.
Overall, REX was designed to act in a similar fashion to a Transporter Erector Launcher like the one the Russia uses for the TOPOL. It provides mobility and a way to conceal the location of these assets. REX, however, was designed to be able to traverse almost any terrain, which would potentially give it greater range than other tank or wheel based TELs.

Attached: topol-launcher.jpg (1941x1344, 354K)

>If The American Military Is So Great, Why Is There No Metal Gear REX Yet?

because bipedal tanks are a logistical and engineering nightmare.

And they have basically no practical benefits over treaded vehicles.

Counter-Counterpoint:

Maintinance would be a nightmere
Maintinance would be SUPER expensive
Power plant capable of moving the thing would be large, heave, unweildy and run out of fuel very fast.
Feet would literally sink into the ground on any surface except heavily reinforced concrete (it would be capable of operation on super heavy aircraft runways, and super carriers only)
If it tripped (protip: it would) it would basically be rendered mission killed.

tl;dr there is no practical reason to ever make or field a metal gear.

kek

A railgun doesn't have recoil you fucking moron

No, you are the moron.

A railgun has MASSIVE recoil.

You have no idea how warfare works if you think that a special robot would end a war quick.

a ship with a bigger rail gun off shore
a trip wire
a strategically place hole
destroying terrain around it
multiple shots at its joint and radar

Attached: 8b6.jpg (680x554, 31K)

Yes it does. Newtons 3rd law doesn't just magically disappear just because it's a rail gun.

It does have recoil, its legs plant into the ground through spikes.

As a practical design it's terrible. If you want mobile nuclear first strike capability you use a Submarine.

I take it you didn't take kinematics in school...

Attached: 1507904957579.gif (400x399, 193K)

You're thinking too small mate. What they should be working on (if they don't already have it) is something like a "clean" nuke. Something with the same destructive power but no fallout

Huge things like that are just not viable it's why nobody is using Battleships anymore. the future are smaller/stealthier/faster tech.

Just not worth it to build somenthing huge that is slow gets spotted on sattelite images and will be instantly taken out by a Rocket

they have those, it uses a vacuum

Combat mechs are finally seeing commercial civilian production. Black ops have had them and more for much longer but you will never see that until a century down the road when they are just accepted as history.

1. no suitable power source
2. bipedal war machines are huge slow targets
3. tanks do it better
4. most engagements are over within seconds or from long distances
5. railguns tend to explode and have massive recoil

I'm gonna have to see a picture of that.

air depletion bombs?

those are pretty sweet, but they aren't up to par with nukes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

>Combat mechs are finally seeing commercial civilian production

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladaptive_daydreaming

>Just not worth it to build somenthing huge that is slow gets spotted on sattelite images and will be instantly taken out by a Rocket

Exactly... modern mechanized warfare isn't like "Huge machines shooting at eachother until one side hits the others weakpoints"

It's more like "Armor advances and then promptly explodes for no apparent reason from a missile or shell fired from over the horizon"

Modern warfare is lightning fast and real hard to keep track of with the old Mk1 eyeball.

Go post that on Jow Forums and return with the (you)s

If nuclear energy can power an aircraft carrier, it sure as fuck can power a metal gear.

Mechs will never be viable in any theater of war. They're a stupid idea fit only for videogames and cartoons.

polygons weigh nothing.

Superior weapon coming through.

Attached: Object_10_2-490x276.jpg (490x276, 45K)

Perfectly true. However, the intended clientele would have included landlocked nations. In other words, same undetectable first strike capability (stealth projectile design, no chemical thrust signature) but for land. And, although the railgun was designed with nuclear capability, it could also launch conventional projectiles.

So we could imagine it being sold to developing nations in a conventional package for local warfare to boost it's development contractor's budget, AND for it to be used a a part of the US nuclear triad except that it would provide us a mobile land force to enhance our primarily silo based land capability.

It's 2019, user. Current model cyborgs can defeat Metal Gear RAY. What's REX going to do against that?

they'd be viable in lighter gravity environments probably. But of course we are still stuck on earth/clown world atm.

what the fuck am I looking at?

An object.

Attached: 9801b2f979a4f8aa97fb3b8b8e8489f8ce9ccd23_hq[1].jpg (640x360, 47K)

...

Attached: 1529450602233.gif (300x351, 61K)

Because bipedal robots are retarded from a tactical standpoint

>Mechs will never be viable in any theater of war.
>>"The aeroplane will prevent war by making it too expensive, too slow, too difficult, too long drawn out." Orville Wright

They said the same thing about the airplane and the car.

Attached: Wright_model_a.jpg (300x234, 34K)

Baby Magnum

Wouldn’t the Hutchison effect be able to create an alternate power source for something like that?
At least, those are the allegations that I’ve heard and am repeating in case anyone actually knows about it, since I don’t.

Attached: 5F5E9E34-4E2D-44C7-9A25-A02A80C73BCB.jpg (706x1024, 381K)

>realise you just invented something that makes war easier
>want to sell it but don't want guilt
>nah my dudes, it would cost too much b...but not for civilian use!

Same reason we don't have AT-AT's: they're just big stupid fucking slow moving targets.

Same reason we don't deploy Zeppelin's in combat anymore: big stupid slow moving targets.

Attached: 1555297130597.jpg (1168x1810, 495K)

wrong

Attached: Tri-Core_-_Anime_Design.png (600x475, 758K)

You're all wrong. Behold, the TRUE destroyer of worlds!

Attached: BrutalCatDeath.gif (300x201, 335K)

Sometimes, inventors are very narrow minded. Nobel thought his dynamite would make mining safer (and it did by being less volatile), not contribute to advanced bombs and explosives. By increasing it's safety, he expanded the audience that was comfortable using it and who found other "surprising" ways to utilize it.

Bipedal combat vehicles would have complex servo systems that would be impossible to maintain in the field, and still struggle on rough terrain; plus their profile is unnecessarily tall, making them easy to spot and vulnerable to conventional anti-tank fire.

Basically this, not to mention the costs over a conventional tank, weight, etc

You fool, humans will stop at nothing when it comes to war. We built boats designed to lauch planes. Supercavitating torpedoes, hypersonic missiles. The fucking atom was split.
If there comes a time that benefits bipedal combat vehicles, it will be built.

Attached: supercav%20torpedo%2019%20June%202018.jpg.scale.LARGE[1].jpg (570x355, 24K)

Because nuclear capable submarine with a hypersonic missile system makes more sense and covers most of the reasoning for a Metal Gear to exist. You might as well ask why they never built a P1000 Landkreuzer

Attached: ratte.jpg (645x591, 118K)

Because metal gears were funded by PMCs. Sage for not knowing the MGS plots.

>would be impossible to maintain in the field
If the "legs" were made out of bundles of electro active polymers, perhaps the vehicle could purge damaged or broken strands and maintain an emergency store of chemicals to replace those purged strands. Spit broken fibers out, build replacement fibers to replace.

Hard to build a great massive tank when you have to contribute most your resources on the Eastern Front at the time

2 reasons:
1) There aren't light enough materials
2) There's no great power source for such machines.

Battletech deals with this problem by having their mechs very light for the size and powered by fusion reactors.

Railguns do. Fig Newton's 3rd law.

Everyone in this thread has so little imagination.

If I was Mad Scientist, I would base robots off of insect bodies.

So Giant Killer Centipede Robots or Giant Spider Robots.

>If I was Mad Scientist, I would base robots off of insect bodies.

treads and wheels are far more effective.

That's less efficient and would lead to more heat and energy use. Bipedal walking is more efficient than quadruped walking.

The benefits of battlemechs 3-fold:
1) They're better in areas like forests and bad terrain.
2) They make basic trench defenses less effective. Stuff that works against tanks is easily exploited by mechs.
3) Mechs can be more resilient in warfare since leg damage can be compensated for while track damage on tanks can immobilize them.

>Giant
Spot a retard!

>blocks your path

Attached: FB35C80A-CC2E-47E6-843C-E8A0928DA6BE.jpg (500x281, 99K)

everything you said is wrong.

All a rail gun is is a electromagnet propulsion system for...

Wait for it..

...Simple slug ammunition.

Ever hear of a sabot, retard? With the right casing you can shoot just about any type of projectile out of a railgun

Walking machines are better for forests and bad terrain. They're NOT superior to tanks(one area where Battletech was wrong).

Attached: walking-tree-harvester.jpg (468x370, 81K)

Cause they are outclassed in every way by trucks and jet fighters?

They're best if they're stealthy and being used in forest regions for long-term reconnaissance. They're terrible as front-line units since a tank, with the same technology, will be superior in a head-to-head battle.

all a sabot is, is the filler around a simple slug, that allows it to be fired out of a larger barrel diameter than the slug itself.

and he likes to bandy around the term "retard". Project often do you?

You haven't been paying attention then. Cyborgs have been a reality for nearly 2 decades now maybe more. But only recently did that bionic fag have his Ted talk. Ironically it works just like mgsv bionic arm.