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

Kaye T. Bai · 01-18-11, 05:26 PM

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

UnderseaLcpl · 01-18-11, 05:42 PM

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 · 01-18-11, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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

Maybe it's for the best.

Hakahura · 01-19-11, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

UnderseaLcpl · 01-19-11, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakahura

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.

Quote:

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

Okay, I'm sorry, that's the last joke at British expense. I promise.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · 01-19-11, 08:26 PM

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 · 01-20-11, 07:41 AM

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

Cohaagen · 01-20-11, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakahura

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.

Castout · 01-18-11, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaye T. Bai

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.

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!

Skybird · 01-18-11, 06:53 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-18-11, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krauter

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Isn't that considered a cheat...?

No one ever said war was fair...

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 · 01-18-11, 09:31 PM

Quote:

USS Chicago SSN 721

How does he do that

What gave it away to you TLAM?

TLAM Strike · 01-18-11, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krauter

How does he do that

What gave it away to you TLAM?

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

Growler · 01-18-11, 10:00 PM

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.

Oberon · 01-19-11, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

USS Chicago SSN 721

No one ever said war was fair...

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!

"Well the things gotta have a tailpipe."

01-18-11, 05:42 PM	#2
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

01-19-11, 08:26 PM	#6
Hakahura Grey Wolf Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Posts: 785 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Sir Humphey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO and MA. Britain's Greatest Orator, well bar that Churchill fellow.

01-20-11, 07:41 AM	#7
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	If the cousins are lucky, they may be having to share the cake, __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

01-18-11, 10:00 PM	#14
Growler A long way from the sea Join Date: May 2005 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,913 Downloads: 21 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ At Fiddler’s Green, where seamen true When here they’ve done their duty The bowl of grog shall still renew And pledge to love and beauty.

01-18-11, 05:26 PM	#1
Kaye T. Bai Samurai Navy Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster Posts: 585 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	I wonder what happens when the "invisible" plating gets hit by a .50 BMG round.