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

[TLAM Strike]

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

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]

USS Chicago SSN 721

How does he do that

What gave it away to you TLAM?

[TLAM Strike]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Castout

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]

Originally Posted by Growler

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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

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

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Growler

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Growler

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]

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."

[Hakahura]

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Betonov

a simple shadow would give it away

Photoshop Spotting 101

Originally Posted by Hakahura

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Oberon

"Well the things gotta have a tailpipe."

Biggest flaw to any space based stealth right there...

[UnderseaLcpl]

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.

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.

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?