Invisible Tanks by 2012?

[P_Funk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811
Don't get too exited since that image is a 'what if', but apparently this is real...

[Chock]

This probably means that the export versions of tanks will only be in panned and scanned and the superior domestic versions will be widescreen 2:1 anamorphic:rotfl:

Chock

[kiwi_2005]

I was playing Crysis demo the other day and it got me thinking now only if the milatary came up with a Crysis suit for the infantry, surely they can do this. It amazes me how with todays modern techonology our soldiers still go out to battle in cotten clothing some lucky enough to wear upper body armor thats still flimsy as. Forget about spending billions on space techonology use the money to invent a Crysis full body suit

[P_Funk]

Well I'm pretty sure that the new digital camo that Canadian and American soldiers are wearing has some organic ability deflect infrared signatures. So thats not quite JUST cotton.

I can see crysis suits for Spec Ops but imagine funding a few Middle-Eastern wars of occupation at the cost of those! Lets see... what would it cost to have 150 thousand crysis suits... :p

[JSLTIGER]

Given that Crysis is set in 2020, I see no reason why this technology would not be possible by then. The real trick will be creating the power source to keep it running...contrary to what Duracell would have you believe, battery technology has not come all that far in the last twenty years, without a substantial breakthrough, it seems unlikely that things will change anytime soon.

[P_Funk]

Yes that does seem to be the case. Usually ideas for technology far outstrip the availability of necessary materials. A good example is railguns. Those things are insane (using electrical current like in electro-magnets to propel projectiles to really high speed without a conventional propellant). The only problem is that one or two shots wears out the rails!

Just think of all the secret half-finished designs in the bowels of agencies and development firms all over the world. I might be a lefty-pascifist-america-hating-uponfreedomshatting-bolshevik, but this stuff still turns my crank (to borrow from my grandpa's nomenclature).

[Chock]

What would actually be more funny, is if you could project the image of one of your own tanks onto an enemy one from a satellite; that way you wouldn't even have to bother turning up on the battlefield, you could just let the enemy destroy himself:rotfl:

Chock

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Yes that does seem to be the case. Usually ideas for technology far outstrip the availability of necessary materials. A good example is railguns. Those things are insane (using electrical current like in electro-magnets to propel projectiles to really high speed without a conventional propellant). The only problem is that one or two shots wears out the rails!

No, the real problems are recoil, cost effectiveness and an enegry source.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

No, the real problems are recoil, cost effectiveness and an enegry source.

Are you sure?
Energy sources shouldn't be a problem for any rail gun. With a large enough compasitor bank you can get extreemely high voltage
from just a few small batterys if you only need it for a fraction of a second.

I don't know about millitary projects, but in amature rail gun projects (there are plenty)
the big problem is that the projectiles try to fuse with the rails so you get nasty weld
scars all along the rails.

I belive the millitary is looking at "one shot" rail guns for very heavy projectiles as an
alternative to cruise missiles.

[baggygreen]

As i understood it, there was no recoil, but the problem lay with the energy source as you mentioned. Id not heard of rails wearing out, tho i suppose it is logical..

[P_Funk]

Well if you take into consideration the speeds which the projectile is going to reach as it runs along the rails and then the subsequent friction caused you can imagine that finding a metal that is highly conducting but also heat and wear resistant can be tough.

[Skybird]

1.) It remains to be visible on thermal scanners, infrared, radar.
2.) Moving in dust and mud makes the hull being visible by the dirt on it.
3.) Sounds like a very sensible, easily malfunctioning technology.
4.) Camera projections remain to depend on the viewer's position, and so slight changes in angles will produce visual artifacts.

In the SB forum, a guy, an ex-tanker, just commented with this: "It's useless."

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...ad.php?t=11012

Active camouflage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_camouflage (thanks for the heads-up, JAS39! )

It probably makes more sense for aircraft, than for ground combat vehicles.

[STEED]

It's bound to breakdown in 3 days.

[CptSimFreak]

Originally Posted by Skybird

1.) It remains to be visible on thermal scanners, infrared, radar.
2.) Moving in dust and mud makes the hull being visible by the dirt on it.
3.) Sounds like a very sensible, easily malfunctioning technology.
4.) Camera projections remain to depend on the viewer's position, and so slight changes in angles will produce visual artifacts.

In the SB forum, a guy, an ex-tanker, just commented with this: "It's useless."

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...ad.php?t=11012

Active camouflage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_camouflage (thanks for the heads-up, JAS39! )

It probably makes more sense for aircraft, than for ground combat vehicles.

I was thinking exactly same thing.

[SUBMAN1]

Yep - old news. This is more useful for a soldier, not a tank.

I see one problem that has not been described yet too - Light Emiting Diodes create just that - light. Don't ya think this would make a tank stand out like a sore thumb on a set of IR goggles? This further limits its effectiveness.

-S