Invisible Tanks, Planes and Armor Could Hit Battlefields in 5 Years

[Gerald]

Invisible tanks -- and maybe invisible soldiers -- may soon be charging onto battlefields.

A British weapons manufacturer is making good on the promise of Wonder Woman's invisible jet, describing an "eCamouflage" system that uses electronic ink to disguise combat vehicles by projecting videos of the countryside onto them -- electronic squid ink of a sort.Using highly sophisticated electronic sensors attached to a vehicle's hull, BAE Systems plans to project images of the surrounding environment back onto the outside of the vehicle -- enabling it to merge into the landscape and evade attack, explained London paper The Telegraph.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/18/invisible-tanks-planes-armor-hit-battlefield-years/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8247967/Invisible-tanks-could-be-on-battlefield-within-five-years.html


Note: Published January 18, 2011

[TLAM Strike]

The best invisible weapons platform for 110 years and counting.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8203/subhunting.jpg
There is no SUBstitute...


Anyone want to bet that this newfangled gizmo can be defeated by a pair of sunglasses with visible light filters (IR or UV only).

[Takeda Shingen]

The best invisible weapons platform for 110 years and counting.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8203/subhunting.jpg

Wrong.

http://img.engadget.com/common/images/4575937614869136.JPG?0.8624495567024028

[Krauter]

Bahaha reminds me of the Mirage tanks in Command and Conquer Red Alert 2 :oops:..

Anyways, I think this would only be good at night or bad visibilty, otherwise, your going to see a little refractions. Also, what about defeating Radar and IR sensors? Its all nice and dandy if any old G.I with a rifle can't visually detect you, but what about that tank with 120~125mm Canon with IR sensors? Or the Mud-moving bird coming in hot with FLIR or Ground scanning radar with heat seeking/radar guided missiles?

Didn't think so :)

Edit: What kind of sub is that? On first inspection I thought it was a 688 (i?) but, I didn't think LAs had a white coat of paint near the bow?.

[Takeda Shingen]

Edit: What kind of sub is that? On first inspection I thought it was a 688 (i?) but, I didn't think LAs had a white coat of paint near the bow?.

Fairwater planes with what seems to be tubes behind the sail. Not a lot of bulk behind the sail, so I don't think it is a Delta. Looks like an Ohio to me.

[Jimbuna]

Wrong.

http://img.engadget.com/common/images/4575937614869136.JPG?0.8624495567024028

LOL :DL

http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jkd/stealth.jpg

[Hitman]

Hey the good part of this is how the costs for developing 3D war games could sink, can you imagine what the 3D modellers for wargames will be doing for a living in some years? :har:

[Krauter]

True, but it still looks like the white 'paint' ( Think that's what it is..) that Soviet Subs had on their Bow..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Cuban_Foxtrot_submarine.jpg/300px-Cuban_Foxtrot_submarine.jpg

Note the white/reflective stuff on the bow?

[Takeda Shingen]

True, but it still looks like the white 'paint' ( Think that's what it is..) that Soviet Subs had on their Bow..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Cuban_Foxtrot_submarine.jpg/300px-Cuban_Foxtrot_submarine.jpg

Note the white/reflective stuff on the bow?

I get what you're saying. To me, though, the sail doesn't look like a Ruskie boat.

[bookworm_020]

I can see problems, how will the troops find their tanks after a night out?:hmmm:

[Kaye T. Bai]

I wonder what happens when the "invisible" plating gets hit by a .50 BMG round.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no way that anyone is going to make this happen, let alone the broke-ass British, in 5 years.

The problem with adaptive camoflauge is that it is both heavy and remarkably useless when it comes to absorbing fire. AFVs might be able to mount it in two decades or so, at great cost, but an infantryman wouldn't even be able to carry the power source effectively, nor would he want to. Infantry are terribly difficult to hit under even the best circumstances, which is why we rely on things like thermal imaging, artillery, air strikes, and automatic weapons, any of which would render adaptive camoflauge useless.

I hate to be a pessimist, but this just isn't going to happen.

[Kaye T. Bai]

I hate to be a pessimist, but this just isn't going to happen.

Maybe it's for the best.

[Castout]

I wonder what happens when the "invisible" plating gets hit by a .50 BMG round.

It will tear a hole which gets drawn to the other side adaptive camouflage plating. :haha:


It's no invisibility......long way to that.

If this technology doesn't cut it into military I can see its usage in decorating walls. Who wants changing wallpaper in your bedroom? or watching movie the size of your wall! :O:

[Skybird]

Invisible Tanks, Planes and Armor


Isn't that considered a cheat...?

Anyhow, I am against it. Playing SBP and two hours staring at an empty screen, then suddenly die, is no fun. Players could also misunderstand it and take their hardware to the shop for repairs.

[TLAM Strike]

Edit: What kind of sub is that? On first inspection I thought it was a 688 (i?) but, I didn't think LAs had a white coat of paint near the bow?. USS Chicago SSN 721

Isn't that considered a cheat...? No one ever said war was fair...
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/6660/cloak1v.jpg
KIRK: There. That distortion. See it?
SULU: Yes sir. It's getting larger as we close in.
KIRK: Opinion, Mister Sulu?
SULU: I think it's an energy surge.
KIRK: Yes. Enough energy to hide a ship, wouldn't you say?
SULU: A cloaking device!

[Krauter]

USS Chicago SSN 721

How does he do that :)

What gave it away to you TLAM?

[TLAM Strike]

How does he do that :)

What gave it away to you TLAM?

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08721.htm

[Growler]

It doesn't have to be truly "invisible" to work - all it has to do is delay detection long enough to take the initiative away - in a modern combat environment where he who gets the first shot off wins, that delay in identification could make a big difference.

[Castout]

It doesn't have to be truly "invisible" to work - all it has to do is delay detection long enough to take the initiative away - in a modern combat environment where he who gets the first shot off wins, that delay in identification could make a big difference.


But with heat signature sensor and radar signature sensor visual camouflage is getting more and more less important to worth a technological pursuit such as this. Unless you're talking about being totally transparent. Now that's being invisible.

[Growler]

But with heat signature sensor and radar signature sensor visual camouflage is getting more and more less important to worth a technological pursuit such as this. Unless you're talking about being totally transparent. Now that's being invisible.

Well, Castout, I'm sort of specifically talking about MBTs/AFVs, where combat usually boils down to, "You have to see it to hit/kill it." I probably could have said it better than I did. Even with ATGMs like Javelin, you have to be able to at least see the target well enough to get that shot off.

[TLAM Strike]

Well, Castout, I'm sort of specifically talking about MBTs/AFVs, where combat usually boils down to, "You have to see it to hit/kill it." I probably could have said it better than I did. Even with ATGMs like Javelin, you have to be able to at least see the target well enough to get that shot off.

I think very soon we will see portable ISAR sets at least on vehicles if not man portable. Which would mean visual masking isn't very important unless you are fighting the low tech Taliban or what not and even then its kinda obvious who you are.

Honestly I see this tech as a real money hole.

[Growler]

I think very soon we will see portable ISAR sets at least on vehicles if not man portable. Which would mean visual masking isn't very important unless you are fighting the low tech Taliban or what not and even then its kinda obvious who you are.

Honestly I see this tech as a real money hole.

Think of it this way: If we could install this kind of tech on a Stryker or HMMWV, and it worked - would you say that it would make it harder for someone to command-detonate an IED, for instance? As a scout, I would have LOVED tech that made me harder to spot. :DL

Money hole? Oh, heck yeah. Somebody in an R&D lab is laughing all the way to the bank, for sure.

[TLAM Strike]

Think of it this way: If we could install this kind of tech on a Stryker or HMMWV, and it worked - would you say that it would make it harder for someone to command-detonate an IED, for instance? As a scout, I would have LOVED tech that made me harder to spot. :DL

Are they going to mask the engine noise too? What about the tires kicking up dust?

IF they could make it work on a trooper's BDUs (some sort of adaptive camouflage ghilie suit) then maybe it would be worth it since individual soldiers tend to be stealthy. But I don't see them making stealthy ground vehicles.

For a scout to be effective it must be one of two things, Fast (Like a recce aircraft), or Small (like a scout-sniper team). Ground vehicles are neither.

[Skybird]

Well, Castout, I'm sort of specifically talking about MBTs/AFVs, where combat usually boils down to, "You have to see it to hit/kill it." I probably could have said it better than I did. Even with ATGMs like Javelin, you have to be able to at least see the target well enough to get that shot off.
On ground vehicles like MBTs and IFVs, targets within a 2000m range or so get detected with thermal displays first. And often you do not have longer lines of sight in terrain anyway, especially not in woods and hills. At ranges in excess of this, projected camera picture son hulls cannot be seen by the eye anyhow, so this new camouflage certainly is meant to be used at relatively short ranges. Interesting is the vehicle list they plan to equip with this camouflage. No heavy Chally-2 there, no heavy IFV there, if I get that right.

This camouflage probably is not meant for genertal use, but only for vehicles expected to be operating in scenarios/environments where there is no stiff resistence by MBTs and IFVs expected, but infantry/militia/guerilla/pickups/technicals not having NVGs and thermals in use.

I wonder if and how this camouflage works at night, and in heavy rain, and how it looks with NVGs.

[Betonov]

a simple shadow would give it away

[Oberon]

USS Chicago SSN 721

No one ever said war was fair...
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/6660/cloak1v.jpg
KIRK: There. That distortion. See it?
SULU: Yes sir. It's getting larger as we close in.
KIRK: Opinion, Mister Sulu?
SULU: I think it's an energy surge.
KIRK: Yes. Enough energy to hide a ship, wouldn't you say?
SULU: A cloaking device!

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090919151649/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/e/e1/Nyota_Uhura,_2293.jpg/292px-Nyota_Uhura,_2293.jpg

"Well the things gotta have a tailpipe."

[Hakahura]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no way that anyone is going to make this happen, let alone the broke-ass British, in 5 years.

The problem with adaptive camoflauge is that it is both heavy and remarkably useless when it comes to absorbing fire. AFVs might be able to mount it in two decades or so, at great cost, but an infantryman wouldn't even be able to carry the power source effectively, nor would he want to. Infantry are terribly difficult to hit under even the best circumstances, which is why we rely on things like thermal imaging, artillery, air strikes, and automatic weapons, any of which would render adaptive camoflauge useless.

I hate to be a pessimist, but this just isn't going to happen.


Yes we're broke.

I believe things were even worse for us when we came up with a couple of war winners you might not have heard of....

Radar ?
Colosuss ?

Both pretty far fetched and impossible at the time ?

Innovation does not come out your pocket.

Lots of other things come out your pocket, but that might take us off topic to a dark place best not discussed or thought of.

[TLAM Strike]

a simple shadow would give it away
Photoshop Spotting 101 :O:

Yes we're broke.

I believe things were even worse for us when we came up with a couple of war winners you might not have heard of....

Radar ?
Colosuss ?

Both pretty far fetched and impossible at the time ?

Innovation does not come out your pocket.

Lots of other things come out your pocket, but that might take us off topic to a dark place best not discussed or thought of. The US NRL built the first functioning purpose built radar set in 1934.

The German Zuse Z3, and American Atanasoff–Berry were built years before Colosuss.

This camouflage probably is not meant for genertal use, but only for vehicles expected to be operating in scenarios/environments where there is no stiff resistence by MBTs and IFVs expected, but infantry/militia/guerilla/pickups/technicals not having NVGs and thermals in use.

I wonder if and how this camouflage works at night, and in heavy rain, and how it looks with NVGs. I've seen people who have made $15 night vision devices out of sunglasses, a couple of filters and some IR LEDs. Which makes me wonder how such vehicles would appear though a viewer that filters out visible light leaving just IR or UV light.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090919151649/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/e/e1/Nyota_Uhura,_2293.jpg/292px-Nyota_Uhura,_2293.jpg

"Well the things gotta have a tailpipe."

Biggest flaw to any space based stealth right there... (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php)

[UnderseaLcpl]

Yes we're broke. Yep, but I hope you didn't take offense at my saying so. I enjoy the occasional jibe at Her Majesty's distinguished subjects from time to time. I think it's an American thing.


I believe things were even worse for us when we came up with a couple of war winners you might not have heard of....

Radar ?
Colosuss ?

Both pretty far fetched and impossible at the time ?


I wouldn't even argue the point. I didn't mean to imply that the British aren't innovative or lack resourcefulness, far from it, it's just that the expense of fielding such a technology is beyond their means at present, and of dubious value anyway.

And besides, the British did invent the Americans, and we're forever winning wars for them:DL Okay, I'm sorry, that's the last joke at British expense. I promise.



Innovation does not come out your pocket.

No, but the money to incentivize it generally does, especially when we're talking about a state initiative. I just don't see this as being a wise investiture at the moment for a nation that has much bigger problems. The US is here to defend you, and apparently everyone else, regardless of whether they want it or not, so why not take the time to save on defense expenditures?



Lots of other things come out your pocket, but that might take us off topic to a dark place best not discussed or thought of.


Indeed. I once pulled a piece of lint from my pocket that looked like Sarah Jessica Parker. Well, it didn't look exactly like her, but it bore an uncanny resemblance to a huge, malformed nose. Disturbing, huh?

[Hakahura]

Offense?

None taken at all.

Couldn't resist a chance to state the obvious.


Seriously though it's a promising avenue of research.
No doubt it will have it's limitations and there will be countermeasures that will defeat the teschnology if it comes to fruition.

But if it gives an edge against some oponents some of the time then surely it will be worth while.

Also on the plus side, the UK will surely share this technology with the colonial cousins.

[Gerald]

If the cousins are lucky, they may be having to share the cake, :yep:

[Cohaagen]

Also on the plus side, the UK will surely share this technology with the colonial cousins.

In the tradition of Chobham armour, self-sealing fuel tanks, the Whittle jet engine, plastic explosives, mirror landing sight, the gyro gunsight, GEE, angled flight deck, cavity magnetron, proximity fuse, steam catapult, flexible coupling and rafting for nuclear subs, Frisch-Peierls Memorandum, sub propulsors, etc.