OutOnTheOP

Horse hockey. Even if physics worked in some weird way where planes were irrevocably slower, more dangerous, and smaller payload than ground transport, there is STILL an obvious tactical advantage: it allows you to observe from above, and is therefore a fantastic recon machine.

Tanks can most certainly scale a fallen tree, and can bridge significant gaps. Or just drive around them! And other, simpler technologies can be used to allow conventional vehicles to bypass obstacles. I'd already mentioned (in response to a silly comment about how mechs are better because they can have jump jets), you can put jump thrusters on a conventional vehicle. You can put dozer blades on to gap obstacles. You could, with the same magical diamond nanotube unobtanium that you're all apparently planning to build these mechs out of, build lightweight extendible assault bridges that allowed a tracked vehicle to make a bridge or ramp over obstacles. You could put a high-caliber demolition gun, rocket, or mortar on them and just BLOW the obstacles out of your way. There's lots of other solutions to that particular problem. That aside, how much of earth's terrain do you think is a) inaccessible to conventional vehicles, b) is tactically significant, and c) would not STILL put the mecha at a disadvantage against infantry, in which case, it would be wiser to just use infantry instead? Because the mecha would only be advantageous in terrain that meet all three of those requirements.

Nooooo, that's proof that someone tried the concept, but that it wasn't really all as useful as they thought it would be. I'd be willing to bet a big reason it was abandoned (if I recall, it was for use in forestry... and there actually are some other walking machines currently used for forestry as well) was more along the lines of "hey, this thing's pretty cool, it lets us access parts of the forest we can't get to with a jeep.... but it's only like 5% more territory than we can already access, so %$# it."

Well, couple issues with this: 1) yes, air power is, indeed, designed to come in, deliver firepower, then leave (to rearm). We can most certainly make aircraft (drones, mostly) that can stay aloft a long, LONG time (I believe Global Hawk is in the 40-hour range?). However, if they expend all ordnance in 15 minutes, who CARES if they can stay up for an eternity? Even assuming your fantastical mecha could walk for an eternity on their magical powerplants, if they deliver as much firepower as fast as an attack helicopter, they will run out of ammo and have to go rearm, too. 2) Ok, fair enough, Apaches have short endurance. But your imaginary mecha have NO endurance, because they don't exist yet. You invoke "future technology" as an all-encompassing answer to any potential problem with mecha, but seem to have a real problem understanding that those same technologies can be applied to other vehicles. Ok, so the mecha has a fusion reactor? Gee, I wonder how long a fusion-powered helicopter could stay airborne? 3) You assume a drone would have very low payload. That's a HUGE assumption. Particularly considering that there's far, FAR less technological leap between a manned B-2 and an unmanned B-2. We've been making drone aircraft since the 1920s. It's not exactly a huge technological leap here. I guess B-2s have "small payloads"? Why do you jump on any alternative technology with claims of their ineffectiveness that are not only unsupportable by science, but ALREADY PHYSICALLY DISPROVEN WITH REAL-LIFE COUNTER EXAMPLES, yet so stridently defend the concept of the mech because "maybe at some point we could make the technology to make it possible"?

Aye, we have planes that fly through the air very inefficiently when compared to rail and sealift transport. Wanna take a guess which one is responsible for the bulk of people and cargo shipped around the world? The airplane wasn't developed because it was more efficient or "better", it was developed because it offered unique capabilities (high speed, freedom from terrain limitations, and an aerial perspective). What equivalent unique capabilities are you getting from a mech?

As has been pointed out by others, you don't seem to understand how evolution works. Yes, legs are inefficient. Flapping wings aren't particularly efficient, either. Don't even get me started on eyes: do you realize the design of the eye of every single land animal is, in fact, optimized for use underwater, because that's where they evolved, and once they went onto land, there was no evolutionary pressure to start from a blank slate? The human brain has a nerve cluster that actually goes from a sensory input (I can't remember if it's the eye or nose... I think the latter *edit* found it, it's the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and has to do with the operation and sensation of the larynx and vocal cords. Either way, it takes a huge, needless bypass. 20 feet, in giraffes! *edit 2* wow, I really should read all the way to the end of the thread before replying, rather than replying as I read on it. I just caught up to page 12, and Exorcet already stole my thunder hours ago =P ), all the way down to the base of the neck, then back up to the FRONT of the brain? It slows the signal down a LOT. Evolution doesn't "design", and it's not particularly efficient. It's a series of random mutations, and if one of them happens to work better than the others, it survives to future generations. No guarantee of efficiency. Also, regarding wheeled animals, of course not, that's silly; muscle tissue, the basic driving force of animal movement (again, evolved underwater) works in a linear, rather than reciprocating, fashion. You need reciprocating power to drive wheels. Yes, I'm aware that combustion and steam engines use linear cylinders. They also require transmissions and diferentials to transmit the linear power into reciprocating power- and any one of those individually is useless evolutionarily, they only mean something if taken together... so for evolution to select it, some critter would have to be born with three VERY PRECISE mutations in EXACTLY the right combination, AT THE SAME TIME. Not bloody likely.

Holy crap, dude... I don't think you actually think about the implications of what you write before you hit submit. Yes, you COULD put sufficient stabilization on a mech to actually shoot things. However, ANYTHING you put on a mech can be put on a tank, and the tank is INHERENTLY more stable. That's like saying "if you're a really good shooter, you can shoot accurately from the top of a jeep bouncing cross-country". Yeah, there's probably someone out there that could do it. But don't you think that same shooter (and the same stabilization technologies) would be a hell of a lot MORE accurate shooting from steady ground? Yes, with sufficient energy generation, you could make a mech move. With enough thrust, I can make a football stadium break the sound barrier, too. But it'd sure be a lot easier with a more efficient design, maybe something a bit more aerodynamic, don't you think?

Wrong. WrongwrongwrongwrongwrongWRONG. Also, a shitty, shitty straw man. You cannot, with physics, science, and actual tactical application, prove why it would be a good idea, so instead you try to claim that anyone without your "vision" is some backward luddite. You're just as bad as the idiots here in the US that immediately cry "you're a racist!" if you ever disagree with their policies. It's a deliberate mislead, and it's poor debating technique. It's also as good as admitting you don't have anything else to add to the debate. Please, though, tell me about all the folks that said that steam power, powered flight, or the tank were bad ideas? There may have been some that said "damn, this is hard to accomplish!", or "wow, this is pretty dangerous", or even "I'm not sure this is possible", but I have a very, very hard time believing ANYONE said "yeah, but even if you could, it's useless". Oh, and steam power? Been around since the Greek republics. Good luck sourcing the reactions of the scientific community on that one. And a large scale mecha, even if you could, just isn't that useful. It's not a matter of "we can't make it work", even, just that it's a stupid development path to put too much effort into. We COULD make guns that use energy stored in elastic materials to throw long-rod penetrators, too, but that would be inefficient- it's just the nature of the technology *rolls eyes*

How does this provide any advantage beyond an extentable sensor mast? Or vehicle-organic micro UAVs? Or, referencing the exact same video I'm sure you're referring to, how can this role not be performed by, say... helicopters, just like they did in the real event? Seems to me it worked out quite well, and the helicopter has the advantage of being able to FARP and rearm quickly, as well as supreme operational and tactical mobility, unlike the proposed mecha. Can it carry more than a wheeled or tracked vehicle can? Can it carry "gadgets" that a wheeled or tracked vehicle cannot? Not true. To maintain equivalent ground pressure, you would need to make the feet of equal surface area to the contact patch of the tracks or wheels of an equivalent-weight conventional vehicle. That aside, how difficult do you think it would be to put a mech back into action after a mine strike, compared to repairing track or isolating damaged road wheels (ten-to-thirty minute jobs)? A modern IFV already makes anything smaller than heavy RPGs and medium ATGM useless. How is this any improvement, other than being a bigger target to hit with those same systems? Also, please explain the physics of how the torso rotating makes RPGs less effective. Clue: it doesn't. At best, it makes it harder to precisely aim at weak points in the armour. But given that physics dictates the mecha would have lighter armouring than an equivalent-weight conventional vehicle, not sure that matters. I have yet to hear complaints about tanks or IFVs carrying too little ammo to last through a fight. ...... helicopter-lifting a THREE STORY TALL mech sufficiently armoured to survive 23mm and under? Do you have any earthly idea how much that behemoth would weigh? You're talking a vehicle EASILY four times the mass of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (which itself weighs 33 tons)! 120 plus tons? Please, by all means, find me a helicopter that can do that! The current heavyweight helos lift only 16 tons (CH53E Super Stallion) to 20 tons (Mi26 Halo) or the super-heavyweight Mil V12 at 44 tons. Gonna need to triple that, at least. Yes, yes, I know "future technology". There are practical limits to the effective lift capacity of a helo (like, for example, blade flex, or that as you increase rotor span, you run into issues with the blade tips going supersonic and large portions of the blade being (highly inefficient!) transonic. Do you know what (at least US) tankers fear the most? It ain't other tanks. They can spot other tanks and kill them easily enough. They fear the sneaky little bastard infantry with heavy ATGMs. A few dudes with Javelin, NLAW, AT4, RPG29, or any of a plethora of current shoulder-fired weapons would own the close terrain against those huge mechs. In fact, the infantry wouldn't even have to carry their own anti-mech missiles; they could just be networked into a series of non-line-of-sight high-velocity launchers that provide on-call fires, like NETFIRES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System and http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cheap-fast-deadly-the-netfires-missiles-in-a-box-program-updated-02653/). Infantry spots mech (shouldn't be hard!), infantry transmits mech coordinates to NETFIRES, NETFIRES launches semi-autonomous missile programmed to search for mech target signature (huge thermal and acoustic signature, if nothing else), NETFIRES drops several-hundred-pound warhead on mech. Infantry exchanges high-fives and charlie mike's. The only way the mech could assure superiority in close terrain is the profligate application of firepower; destroy everywhere infantry COULD be hiding. If you're going to do that, you might as well use artillery or air power, and just flatten the whole city. No, the infantry will continue to own close terrain. They just might need mule-sized "mechs" to help carry their spare ammo for their mortars- and for all those ATGM systems they slaughter the big mechs with. Look, I'm not set-in-ways; I understand there's a lot of ways the technology of warfare can be revolutionized. However, the most exciting and promising avenues are in communications/battle control, networked fires, networked intel and surveillance, active countermeasures (including hit-to-kill defenses like ), sensors, and stealth. NOT in hugely impressive but rather ungainly mecha.

Wow. Why would I NOT assume that the same material sciences used to build and armor the mech would also be used in a tank? I can just imagine the engineers' discussion now: engineer 1: "hey, we finally developed this diamond-lattice crystaline network nanotube armor! It's the strongest, lightest armour we've ever constructed! Finally, practical mecha are possible!" engineer 2: "yeah, but couldn't we just, y'know... mount that on a tank and have even MORE protection?" engineer 1: "of course not... because... uh... MECHS!" Your understanding of armour technology seems a little lacking. The "inherent flaws" in the armour array used on modern tanks is because they were DELIBERATELY designed that way, as a design compromise to maximize armour performance in deliberately selected directions, against threats from deliberately selected sectors. The only reason most modern western MBTs have the "blocky" look is because the current best generation of armour is composite arrays that are most easily made in, and are most effective in, flat plates. Why the #$%* would you assume tanks cannot have rounded armour? Because tanks NEVER have rounded armour, says the T54/55, T62, T64, T72, T80, M60, AMX30, IS1/2/3, M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing.... I could go on. Shall I? Yes, the human gait uses an inverted-pendulum action to help increase efficiency. It is STILL an inefficient form of locomotion. And not only that, but by using the inverted-pendulum action, you induce a very jerky up-and-down gait, terrible for weapons stability. If you've ever watched USPSA/IPSC/ 3-gun competitors, they tend to develop a crouched fast walk in which they try to keep their hips (and everything above) moving forward withOUT any up-and-down motion, because it's critical to maintaining shooting accuracy on the move. It is, however, very tiring, because it's even LESS efficient than normal human walking. Pick one: shoot with any degree of accuracy, or energy efficiency anywhere within an order of magnitude of wheeled or tracked chassis. Look, if we REALLY needed modular weaponry (or entire mission modules) on a wheeled or tracked chassis, they're NOT that hard to design. Put a hinged roof panel, a two-part trunnion, and a hydraulic crane, and wow, you can pick up other weapons and drop them into the trunnion. I remain VERY unconvinced that this would be necessary or advantageous. Please, PLEASE name one "recoil mitigation" technology that could be applied to mechs and not tanks (and I wasn't talking recoil anyway, I was talking stabilization; IE, damping out all the jerks and bumps from moving, so you can shoot on the move effectively). If you know anything at all about shooting rifles, you know that the way you increase accuracy is to decrease moving parts (both on the rifle and on the shooter). Most accurate you'll ever shoot is off a bipod and sand sock, with nothing but your cheek and trigger finger touching the rifle, because it beds the rifle solidly to the ground. Actually, more accurate yet are benchrest guns, which are bolted to a shooting bench and adjusted with traversing screws like a mini artillery piece, because then there's only ONE moving piece between ground and barrel, and that's a tight machine screw. Tanks have a low stance (less room to wobble) and limit moving parts to: suspension springs/cylinders, turret ring, and trunnion. The type of mechs you propose instead have wobbly ankles, wobbly knees, wobbly hips, wobbly shoulders, wobbly elbows, wobbly wrists, wobbly fingers (with significantly less consistent grip than a trunnion! Consistency breeds accuracy!), and wobbly shoulder weld. I'll assume we don't have to worry about cheek weld, since there's little reason to actually aim down rifle-type sights. That's a lot of moving parts to induce aiming error, isn't it?

Tanks WERE used in Vietnam, and were found to be quite effective indeed- particularly (oddly enough) the M551 Sheridan, which was otherwise a flop. The huge HE round and APERS flechette rounds were apparently absolute murder in jungle fighting.

Why are "biggie sized" huge rifles an advantage? Having them interface to the chassis via rather clumsy interfaces like "hands" introduces a hell of a lot more instability than a good trunnion system. You may not know it, but tank cannon are carefully positioned to drive their recoil straight through the center of the turret ring so as to minimize recoil disruption and maximize stabilization. Hanging your weapons off of a long lever (and arm) only introduces wobble. "High agility" is still limited by the bounds of mass, inertia, and the material limitations of the ground off which the mech is pushing (IE, imagine trying to make a sprinter's start with your feet on loose sand. For a mech, ALL ground will be like that, because the strength of the soil does NOT scale with the size of the sprinter). Given a powerplant of equivalent power, a tank will accelerate faster- due to higher powerplant efficiency, if nothing else. There is, equally, no reason a tank cannot pivot just as fast. Throw enough horsepower into the treads, and you could make it take off like a Ferrari. How is "peeking around a corner" inherently advantageous? For one, a tank can do that, too. For two, ok, I throw on a telescoping mast-mounted sight or micro-UAV on a tank, then equip it with datalinked indirect fire missiles (like Spike, which ALREADY EXISTS). Bam. I don't even NEED to peek around the corner, I just fire from around the other side of it. What, exactly, is an "artillery envelope"? Haptic controls could just as easily be tied to other bodily functions such as eye movements. Tie the weapons systems on a tank to eye movements, and you can kill a target by LOOKING at it. Doesn't get any easier than that. Not to mention, if you're talking direct neural control, that's silly- you'd want computer aiding anyhow; and at realistic combat ranges, you want a ballistic computer. Before ballistic computers and laser rangefinders, 800 meters was a "long" tank shot, and required 3-4 shots to ensure a hit. Nowadays, a modern western MBT can accomplish first-round hits (and kills) at 3500 meters plus. Are you SURE getting rid of those "super expensive" LRFs and BCs is such a brilliant idea? Particularly considering that the BC is less complex (and cheaper) than a smartphone? The expensive part of most fire control systems these days is the thermal imager... and it, too, provides a huge battlefield advantage you wouldn't want to lose. Certainly more advantage than the probably-more-expensive "walking" mechanism would add. A computer is MUCH better than the human brain at computing ballistic solutions, and the human neural system has a HUGE noise-to-signal ratio; do you really want involuntary muscle twitches translated to mech movement? If you already need computer filtering, just tie fire control to something simple like eye movement directing semi-automated fire control. Also, seriously? You're advocating a system of locomotion that requires, as you yourself admit, "real time processing capability and, unless extreme piloting schemes are used, highly advanced dynamic balancing algorithms are required, with terrain identification, gyroscopes, and a whole suite of sensors to boot.", yet you think the cost of the FIRE CONTROL is prohibitive? Seriously? "Tanks exist, so if you use tanks, someone else might have a better tank"? That's...well, kind of dumb. "No one uses marshmallowtanium armour, so it's to our advantage if we do!" Seriously. Ok, so you point out that tanks and aircraft are vulnerable to weapons systems SPECIFICALLY designed to take them out. Breaking news right here, indeed. Now, don't you think weapons systems designed to take out mechs would ALSO be developed? For that matter, would they NEED to be? What about mechs makes them invulnerable to those same "shoulder fired tech, and MW class anti-air/tank laser systems." or "lucky/extremely well placed RPG round"? As I mentioned regarding surface area-to-volume ratio, a mech will inherently, ton-for-ton, be less well armoured than a tank. With a powerplant of equal strength, it will accelerate more poorly than a tank. The walking stance will create a higher silhouette than a tank. This means it's easier to spot (proven the most critical phase in armoured combat- or ANY combat, for that matter), easier to hit, and easier to defeat the armour. I think a mech would have a very hard time avoiding something akin to Javelin ATGM. Unless they're magical Gundam mechs that magically accellerate at 20,000 g and zip all over the place in a eplilepsy-inducing anime blur. Also, I don't think you understand the volume of energy you're talking when you start getting into the megawatt class of laser- current military weaponry capable of defeating missiles is in the low kilowatt class (the set being fielded by the US Navy is 30 kW). You're talking 1,000 times more powerful. And further, you're making the assumption that it would require a long dwell time, rather than a capacitor-loaded millisecond pulse. If we're going to go all "anything's possible" here, let's at least be fair to ALL the technologies. Besides, why bother with the lasers; a simple KE or HEAT projo would do your mech in just fine. What, and you can't put modular weapons or replaceable mission modules onto wheeled or tracked chassis? Oh, wait, THEY ALREADY DO. For example, the Boxer MRAV. Further, those designs have turned out to be huge failures, because the cost and logistical ass pain of carting around a ton of extra mission modules so your tanks can be bridgelayers can be excavators can be IFVs is actually greater than just having a seperate tank, bridgelayer, excavator, and IFV. After all, you'd need an extra vehicle to haul all of those extra modules on to keep them forward as the FLOT moves, anyhow! Disadvantages: And this all equals cost. Lots and lots of cost. How does "agility" make up for lack of speed? The bullet/ missile doesn't care if the mech can do the downward facing dog lotus triple lutz, it only cares if that target is capable of accelerating fast enough to escape the maneuvering capabilities of the projectile (or can get out of the impact area before the projectile gets there). If the mech is "agile" (does that mean flexible? Capable of transiting difficult terrain?) but slow, the projectile is still going to hit it, and that's a bad day for the mech. Actually, you CAN throw a whole new turret onto a tank. It's done quite often. Look at the whole RANGE of WW2 tanks that were up-gunned or re-turreted (mostly German use of captured systems). The Brits have thrown a half dozen turrets on the Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre CVR(T) chassis alone. Usually the only "key interface" between the hull and turret is the power/communications transmission ring. Make sure the turret ring and turret basket is the right size, and that the new turret interfaces to the power/commo ring, and you're good to go. They just don't do it because a) why bother having modular turrets? and b) $$$ And if you're talking about battlefield salvage, I suggest you do some reading up on the recovery and redeploy rates of damaged and "destroyed" tanks. They most certainly CAN pull the turret off one to replace another. But this is usually done at depot level, because just like "mission modules", it's logistically silly to carry spares of such LARGE portions of a vehicle. Makes more sense to just have a full spare tank- and if you have an extra tank lying around, why isn't it up on the FLOT, accomplishing something? Also, what makes you think that the payload of a mech would be any less specialized, or that the introduction of a mech would somehow make battlefield functions like indirect fire, anti-armour fire, dedicated recon et al somehow obsolete? 5)

Then you're not talking about mechs at all, you're talking about powered infantry armour and unmanned analogues; which, AGAIN, most of us think are feasible. Quit moving the goalposts.

Key difference: the hot, lumbering WW1 beasts STILL had obvious advantages: they allowed you to move heavy weapons systems, under armour, protected from the most prevalent battlefield weapons systems of the time, into position to effectively engage the enemy. This was a capability that nothing else offered at the time. Ergo, tanks immediately offered obvious, new capabilities. It's not a matter of "oh, first gen walkers are just a hint of the future": first gen tanks showed obvious tactical advantages. What tactical advantages do the walkers promise?

And again, most of us have said that infantry power armour would be valid technology. Those, however, are getting toward the heavy side of practical, in my opinion. Much over 500 pounds, and they start to lose their usefulness, as they get too heavy for effective air transport... and the interior floors of a building would not support their weight. Kind of kills the flexibility of infantry, then. Particularly in the most likely future conflicts: urban in nature

VERY poorly chosen analogy. Those of us in the "there's not much practical use for them" camp recognize that they could in fact be built, and that many of the technologies to do so are already in existence or research. We merely question the utility of it- unlike flight, which has obvious military applications, the additional advantage of legged locomotion over wheeled or tracked is very, VERY limited, and in fact comes with additional inherent problems: INHERENT DOWNSIDES: -they are inherently less energy efficient. FACT. Mere physics. Can larger engines overcome it, sure, but those more powerful powerplants would still be more efficient in a tracked or wheeled vehicle -the additional ground clearance means they will be inherently taller than wheeled or tracked mounts. -they operate at a mechanical disadvantage vis a vis leverage. Again, new power transfer (IE, electro-elastics) can be applied, but ultimately, it's going to be less efficient still. -an inherently bouncy ride due to the stride. Can it be dampened with stabilization systems, sure, but again- those same stab systems can be applied more efficiently to a wheeled or tracked chassis. -tripping hazard/ balance issues are inherent. Like it or not, it creates an opportunity to defeat them. No amount of gyros will make a legged system harder to trip/ knock over than a tank. -HUGE surface area compared to internal volume. This means that for equivalent armour, they must be much heavier. The most efficient surface-to-volume shape is a sphere. A simple box shape isn't to bad either. A walker with limbs and crap hanging off is terrible inefficient. -Joints. Try as you like, they have to move. This induces weak points, as they are difficult to armour, and can be jammed with foreign objects. -High ground pressure. The footprint size on these beasts will likely be small compared to their overall weight, assuming they're armoured to any significant level. This means they will tear up roadways and bridges; particularly since legged locomotion puts energy into the ground in sharp impulses instead of a constant push like treads or wheels vs. INHERENT ADVANTAGES (and here I'm talking advantages that cannot be applied equally to wheeled or tracked chassis, so don't trot out the "but they have fusion engines! They can walk underwater! They're modular!" Etc. Don't confuse "what the sci-fi versions can fictionally do" with "what advantages are inherent to legged armoured vehicles" Besides, almost all the "advantages" mentioned by prior posters could be equally applied to wheeled or tracked chassis) : -high obstacle clearance. .....uh.... I would say "variable stance", but there are tanks that can significantly raise or lower their stance to best use protected firing positions. ....um.... intimidation factor? A tank could be made to jump with thrusters just like a mech, can be modular just like a mech, etc.

I prefer the Mustang solution; the constant-speed prop and auto-mixture means you really only have one lever to worry about in combat, but you can manually set prop rpm to either an efficiency setting or a combat acceleration setting; the German systems tried to do both simultaneously. I seem to recall German pilots complaining that the system was imprecise and prone to somewhat erratic behavior, too.

About the only thing I could think is mountain warfare; the tank for un-tank-able terrain. That said, even then, I'd imagine something more akin to Boston Dynamic's "Big Dog": four legs, low silhouette, high-mounted turreted weapons and sensors. (and I'm thinking something in the 20 ton or less class, armed with rapid-firing autocannon or automatic grenade launchers or mortars for the infantry support role, not really a tank). As Flagrum mentioned, they're just too high a profile and too inefficient a locomotion technology for anything else; you'll never hang as much armour on one as on a tracked chassis. Ultimately, I think any technology along that development route would be applied to powered infantry armour, not to "mecha"

Nightmare, I think you're thinking of the CITV, commander's independent thermal viewer... and yes, it's mounted plenty high up to see over terrain while exposing nothing of the tank but the CITV, antennas, and the flexible-mount machine guns. LeClerc and Leo 2A5 and up have a similar system, and Leo 2A4 has a high-mounted rotating panoramic telescope at a similar height above the turret. I'm not sure that telescoping-mast sights or higher mounts would be terribly practical on MBTs

To the best of my knowledge, IRIS-T and AIM-9X both have over-the-shoulder capability, and can engage targets pretty much anywhere (AIM-9X has a 90* seeker field of view and lock-on-after-launch capability)... though the farther the target is from straight ahead, the more range is reduced. R-73 has something like 45-60 degree off-boresight capability, with a projected upgrade to expand that further.

I love how the Sabre has such dark exhaust while the MiG's is clean. It's like the opposite of a modern US/Russian matchup (well, MiG29, at least). Is the MiG in the video re-engined? I thought ALL the old jets were smoky! Maybe I was wrong in my assumption?

If you mean "infrared" in the literal scientific sense, then yes- far IR (in a couple wavelengths) can see through clouds (as long as they're not really thick clouds). If you mean "infrared" in the military sense, then no: IR in that context means near-IR, while medium- and far-IR are generally called "thermal".

If you mean to imply that since North American Aviation no longer exists, that there could be no legal issues, you are quite incorrect. Boeing is the current holder of the North American assets, having acquired them (I *think*) from McDonnel Douglas when they purchased MD *edit* I stand corrected, it was Rockwell that purchased NAA, which then got purchased by Boeing. Either way, Boeing holds the intellectual property rights.

I don't make anything of it; it is a forgone conclusion that they would make such a statement, regardless of how awesome or how crap the aircraft might really be. ...would you really expect a government official to say something along the lines of "we're spending billions of dollars to make a new fighter that is pretty good, but it's still not better than some of the other ones out there"?

Modern paint, or 1940s-era? From what I've read, the older paints were significantly metal-bearing, and weighed a LOT.