We're much more likely to get this from genetic engineering than nanomachines son. Although I'm not sure if the general public are ready to accept military projects that look like they were designed by Dr Moreau, the Marquis de Sade, and Fabius Bile after they all came off their medication.
>>629962
>This is never going to happen
Unless someone has hidden a Universal Constructor away somewhere (and can print them out for the cost of keeping the powerplants running) then yeah, pretty much. As specialist kit though where would they do the most good/make the most sense? Are we likely to be looking at small units of Exo-suit Operators (probably along the lines of modern Russian combat engineers or one suit in a platoon carrying larger weapons (carrying a greater weight of gear would be better given to a mule)?
>These suits were little more than sci-fi prop for propagandists to sperg about
True, but it looks a lot better than the various exoskeleton prototypes out there at the moment - and as this is a thread about something that probably won't be practical for another 50 years at least a ridiculous sci-fi prop seemed to fit the general theme of the discussion.
>>630284
>does it have what it takes to succeed in battle?
Currently? Almost certainly not. Give it a few years of R&D and it should be pretty decent. The interesting part will be whether they can actually afford to equip every soldier with it - if the final product is anything more than sci-fi looking body armour the cost of electronics could be vast.