![]() ![]() Its lower power of 1.2 MW is offset by its much lower weight (112 t), but you might want to upgrade the engine just to make sure. If you want a version that looks good and walks, but doesn’t have military strength or functionality, it should cost around 9 New Routemaster buses (1 head + 6 body + 2 legs), or $4.6M. That’s not so much more than the cost of a F-22 Raptor($150M). At full power, we will need 1 MW of power to run them, which should be covered by the power of the gas turbines. So that’s another $50M for the two lasers. ![]() I've estimated the cost (you can read about it here: How much would it realistically cost to build an Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer?) to be $25M each. The AT-AT has two lasers sticking out of its head. ![]() On top of the vehicle cost comes the main weapons. So the AT-AT vehicle itself will cost around $146M to build. This means that our AT-AT is about 17 Abrams in size, which works out to 1020 t of weight and 19.1 MW of power - more than enough, considering that the AT-AT moves much slower than the Abrams. ![]() The legs are quite thin, although the feet are large - let’s assume 1 more Abrams per leg. The head is approximately one more Abrams. They cost GBP 355k each (USD 513k as of May 2016).īelow you can see each of these vehicles to scale.įor the rest of the calculation, we will assume that the AT-AT should be at least as survivable as the M1 Abrams tank (ignoring obvious weaknesses in the legs and neck of the AT-AT), and should therefore have a similar weight of armor.īy inspection, you can see that the main hull of the AT-AT is about 2 Abrams long, 3 Abrams high and 2 Abrams wide, i.e. For those of us (like me) who are not accustomed to tanks, the New Routemaster bus used in London is another useful size reference (11.23 m long, 4.38 m high, 2.52 m wide, 12.4 t weight). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |