NationStates Jolt Archive

This (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=490669&in_page_id=1811)could be pretty slick, if it can be made with the kind of reliability that battlefields demand... Invisible tanks!

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/DisappearTankLL_468x182.jpg
Of course, it would still be very visible in the IR spectrum, as well as to RADAR, but not everyone can see in those spectra...

Don't tanks leave some very obvious tracks?

Hmm... Very interesting.

I can see this kind of technology working very well in conjunction with conventional camoflauge techniques.

I wonder how it could work without the sensitive camera system.


Don't tanks leave some very obvious tracks?

Of course armored units wouldn't patrol around with such a system on. You can't disguise the rumble of the engine or the obvious tank tracks. I imagine it'll be used primarily to supplement traditional camoflauge in certain environments.

Artillery vehicles and Anti-Tank positions would benefit quite a bit from this kind of tech.

Godmod!!!!

This (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=490669&in_page_id=1811)could be pretty slick, if it can be made with the kind of reliability that battlefields demand... Invisible tanks!

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/DisappearTankLL_468x182.jpg
Of course, it would still be very visible in the IR spectrum, as well as to RADAR, but not everyone can see in those spectra...

Problem is, I'm not sure it would have as much of a use as one might think at first. In actual combat the tank is going to be obvious whenever it fires and they're not maneuverable enough to move out of the way before whoever they're trying to hide from fires at its last known position.

I can see it being useful for ambushes and the like, but not for full combat.

Problem is, I'm not sure it would have as much of a use as one might think at first. In actual combat the tank is going to be obvious whenever it fires and they're not maneuverable enough to move out of the way before whoever they're trying to hide from fires at its last known position.

I can see it being useful for ambushes and the like, but not for full combat.

Given the likely expense of the camou system, what with all of the sensitive and powerful cameras and projectors, I really doubt it'll be a common sight on the battlefield. It'll probably be a must for covert strike teams down the road.

Given the likely expense of the camou system, what with all of the sensitive and powerful cameras and projectors, I really doubt it'll be a common sight on the battlefield. It'll probably be a must for covert strike teams down the road.

Exactly. We also have to take into account that we're likely to see integrated night vision/infrared vision goggles made available for soldiers in the future, which might render this technological development entirely irrelevant.

Of course that presumes technological parity with our foe...given the nature of warfare in this day and age that's unlikely at best.

biggest waste of money ever .... it may be useful if they can get it to work for people so the speacial forces type troops can use it etc but you only have to look at the Iraqi invasion to see the flaws

They had dug there tanks in etc and had them well hidden .... then one dozy pilot (well i heard it was a mistake anyway but you never know) hit the infer red camera ..... all the dug in Iraqi positions lit up at night as the metal on the tanks cooled at a different rate to the land around ..... now ive typed that i guess if they can get a cooling system on the go at the same time it cold be useful but if not for tanks and large metal unit type things heat will give it away

Exactly. We also have to take into account that we're likely to see integrated night vision/infrared vision goggles made available for soldiers in the future, which might render this technological development entirely irrelevant.

Of course that presumes technological parity with our foe...given the nature of warfare in this day and age that's unlikely at best.

I suppose that really depends on who we're going to war with.

Well, don't IEDs use infrared triggers?

I don't think infrared technology is out of the hands of Iraqi insurgents, and if such a system leaves the vehicle visible in the IR spectrum, doesn't this add up to an obsolete sytem?

Well, don't IEDs use infrared triggers?

I don't think infrared technology is out of the hands of Iraqi insurgents, and if such a system leaves the vehicle visible in the IR spectrum, doesn't this add up to an obsolete sytem?

Some of them use IR beams, some use cell phones, some use garage door openers, some use old fashioned commo wire and a clacker.

And no, IR (or image intensifiers, to be more accurate) is not out of the reach of the insurgents. When I was over there we often caught people observing our installation using camcorders with night vision.

I suppose that really depends on who we're going to war with.

Some of them use IR beams, some use cell phones, some use garage door openers, some use old fashioned commo wire and a clacker.

And no, IR (or image intensifiers, to be more accurate) is not out of the reach of the insurgents. When I was over there we often caught people observing our installation using camcorders with night vision.

Well, great...the one enemy it would be useful against is capable of detecting it anyway.

Back to the drawing board! "This time...make tank invisible to radar and infrared..."

Well, great...the one enemy it would be useful against is capable of detecting it anyway.

Back to the drawing board! "This time...make tank invisible to radar and infrared..."

The thing is that night vision like that doesn't work so well during the day, as daylight is too intense for them, especially over there. It'd have been nice to have something like this when my Regiment was sitting on the Syrian border. Their night vision generally isn't very good so they generally don't see an Abrams or Bradley until it's far too late at night.

Also, the OP may have been referring to thermals when he said IR, in which case I've never seen the Iraqis using any such thing, nor have I heard of it. Thermals are rare even among US non-armored forces (although they're becoming less so) and are extremely expensive.

The thing would definitely still glow like a Christmas tree on thermals, and I'm pretty sure the projectors that are projecting this image would show up on image intensifiers.

The thing is that night vision like that doesn't work so well during the day, as daylight is too intense for them, especially over there. It'd have been nice to have something like this when my Regiment was sitting on the Syrian border. Their night vision generally isn't very good so they generally don't see an Abrams or Bradley until it's far too late at night.

Also, the OP may have been referring to thermals when he said IR, in which case I've never seen the Iraqis using any such thing, nor have I heard of it. Thermals are rare even among US non-armored forces (although they're becoming less so) and are extremely expensive.

The thing would definitely still glow like a Christmas tree on thermals, and I'm pretty sure the projectors that are projecting this image would show up on image intensifiers.

So...it is useful, then, in your professional opinion as a military serviceperson?

So...it is useful, then, in your professional opinion as a military serviceperson?

To an extent. During the day, if it works as advertised, it would be useful. Even if one has a general idea where the tank is, by engine noise or tracks, that doesn't translate to being able to hit the damned thing, especially somewhere you'll do some damage i.e. not the front slope or turret. If the vehicle were to be in a hide position, in a wadi on the Syrian border for example, this would render the vehicle virtually undetectable to non-Western armies.

This would be particularly useful for someone such as myself, a scout. If this worked for HMMWVs, this would make my life a lot less scary in a conventional conflict as unarmored HMMWVs don't hold up well to the attention of anything larger than a thrown rock. And in a reconnaissance role you want to use unarmored HMMWVs because you often go into less than ideal terrain in an effort to avoid detection and the M1114's (the super up armored ones in Iraq) weigh a metric shit-ton and would easily get stuck.

As for at night, we vastly outclass non-Western armies already. With the optics we have on the Abrams and Bradley we can engage at the same ranges during the night as we can at the day, which are around 2500m and 1200m respectively for the main guns. Most Soviet type tanks (except the T-80 which I don't know about) can only effectively engage at around 500m-800m.

Ah. Good to know then, thanks. I was worried for a bit there that our military was once again wasting money for no good reason.

I suppose that really depends on who we're going to war with.

Exactly. All the high tech nations are on the same side. A war between two modern Western democracies is no longer a possibility. Even in the "iffy" nations, the high tech PEOPLE tend to be our side.

omg h4x0r

In secret trials last week, the Army said it had made a vehicle completely disappear and predicted that an invisible tank would be ready for service by 2012.

I knew it! War will be the end of us!

I say we votekick england!

I say we votekick england!

England? Why? England's not the one cheating with invisible tanks!

(Speaking of which, we need a lolcat invisible tank picture. Like, now!)

Ah. Good to know then, thanks. I was worried for a bit there that our military was once again wasting money for no good reason.

Actually, this is the UK military, but don't worry, I'm sure Uncle Sam is throwing enough money at worthless programs to make up for it.

Actually, this is the UK military, but don't worry, I'm sure Uncle Sam is throwing enough money at worthless programs to make up for it.

Oh....err...

Wow. Now I feel like a complete and total jackass. I just assumed it was the U.S. military doing it. Talk about arrogance...

This (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=490669&in_page_id=1811)could be pretty slick, if it can be made with the kind of reliability that battlefields demand... Invisible tanks!

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/DisappearTankLL_468x182.jpg
Of course, it would still be very visible in the IR spectrum, as well as to RADAR, but not everyone can see in those spectra...

There are still ways to detect "invisible" tanks without IR or RADAR... like a flashlight.

Problem is, I'm not sure it would have as much of a use as one might think at first. In actual combat the tank is going to be obvious whenever it fires and they're not maneuverable enough to move out of the way before whoever they're trying to hide from fires at its last known position.

I can see it being useful for ambushes and the like, but not for full combat.
It should beat the heck out of the camouflage that is provided by some netting. Disad is that the netting will no longer provide shade in some very hot parts of the world.

I think this is one idea that will eventually be workable, but it's going to be a decade or so away.

It should beat the heck out of the camouflage that is provided by some netting. Disad is that the netting will no longer provide shade in some very hot parts of the world.

I think this is one idea that will eventually be workable, but it's going to be a decade or so away.
Will the Brits share the technology with the rest of NATO?

There are still ways to detect "invisible" tanks without IR or RADAR... like a flashlight.

Getting within flashlight range of a Western tank that wants you dead isn't exactly conducive to a long and happy life.

Will the Brits share the technology with the rest of NATO?

If by share you mean sell/trade then I don't see why they wouldn't.

If by share you mean sell/trade then I don't see why they wouldn't.

Oh, good. I wasn't sure how much technology was traded between the NATO countries.

What about, say, Russia, or China? Any possibility of trade there, or are relations not THAT close yet?

What about, say, Russia, or China? Any possibility of trade there, or are relations not THAT close yet?

That I highly doubt, but I'm certainly not an expert on the subject.

That I highly doubt, but I'm certainly not an expert on the subject.
Fair enough.

In any case, it's exciting, for many different reasons. I see it as exciting because it might mean a conflict ends much sooner so fewer lives are lost. Any advancement of military technology that leads to fewer overall lives being lost is fine by me.

Unfortunately, its advantage can be negated by a can of spray-paint.

Unfortunately, its advantage can be negated by a can of spray-paint.

And how exactly does that work?

Unfortunately, its advantage can be negated by a can of spray-paint.

Yeah, no. As far as I'm aware all tanks come standard with anti-infantry weaponry. You'd last all of three seconds, IF THAT, and maybe get off a very slight amount of paint somewhere that would not be noticeable. That's presuming you get close enough to paint it in the first place, and if you know where it is so you could do that, it would have no reason to keep hiding and would kill you before you got close.

And how exactly does that work?

The tank relies on a sophisticated network cameras to camouflage itself; if, say, a leaf landed on top of the tank, it would be visible. Similarly, if one applied spray-paint in the general vicinity of the tank, that blotch of paint, seemingly suspended in mid-air, would become very salient indeed.

Yeah, no. As far as I'm aware all tanks come standard with anti-infantry weaponry.

You'd be wrong.

Yeah, no. As far as I'm aware all tanks come standard with anti-infantry weaponry. You'd last all of three seconds, IF THAT, and maybe get off a very slight amount of paint somewhere that would not be noticeable. That's presuming you get close enough to paint it in the first place, and if you know where it is so you could do that, it would have no reason to keep hiding and would kill you before you got close.

Thus revealing itself, yes. It's hard to rove undetected if you're firing guns at someone.

You'd be wrong.

Suppose I should have clarified "all Western tanks" but I'd probably still be wrong?

F&G: Well, I thought that too at first, but the system would still be useful--to a lesser degree--even in combat, and if it's in combat, you're not getting close enough to do that unless the tank doesn't have an anti-infantry weapon, and frankly I think it'd be foolish to put this system on a tank that didn't just in case someone tried to pull that kind of crap.

Thus revealing itself, yes. It's hard to rove undetected if you're firing guns at someone.

Okay, I know you have problems with comprehension, but here's the deal; IF YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS SO YOU CAN SPRAYPAINT IT, IT HAS NO REASON TO KEEP TRYING TO HIDE.

Unless you're suggesting an army of spraypainters everywhere--something not even remotely feasible--there'd be no reason for someone to try this unless they knew where the tank was. If they know where it is, then it has no reason to try to stay hidden, and therefore will stop them.

Well, I thought that too at first, but the system would still be useful--to a lesser degree--even in combat

That begs the question: where would this tank be deployed? It can hardly wander, invisible, through the street of Baghdad, crushing oblivious drivers in its path. Perhaps it could participate in a conventional war -- except that in that instance, the enemy would mostly possess some form of radar.

Unless you're suggesting an army of spraypainters everywhere--something not even remotely feasible

Yes, it is. Spray-paint is not an expensive good; if all insurgents carried a can of it on their person, they could blindly apply it upon perceiving a tank in the vicinity (unless this tank magically makes no noise and leaves no tracks).

That begs the question: where would this tank be deployed? It can hardly wander, invisible, through the street of Baghdad, crushing oblivious drivers in its path. Perhaps it could participate in a conventional war -- except that in that instance, the enemy would mostly possess some form of radar.

Sure it can. Plus, it doesn't have to be on a tank. Nouvelle Wallonochie mentioned the possibility of placing it on a Humvee or other scout vehicle. Tanks could lie in ambush for enemy patrols and move into position. While urban deployment might be tricky, it'd be doable.

What I wonder is if we could make a portable version of this capable of being used by a single person...THAT would be incredibly valuable.

Yes, it is. Spray-paint is not an expensive good; if all insurgents carried a can of it on their person, they could blindly apply it upon perceiving a tank in the vicinity (unless this tank magically makes no noise and leaves no tracks).

"in the vicinity" being defined as w/i about 5 feet?

Godmod!!!!

lmao!!!!

It is interesting though.

The scanty description of how this works is enough to see a major limitation on its usefulness.

Mirrors (presumably mounted at angles on the tank, between the observer and the tank) relay a picture taken by a camera on the tank, to a specific observer. They are presumably three dimensional images which appear at the same distance as the background. A flat image at the distance of the tank would be no better than well-chosen camouflage.

The problem is, you need to know the exact position of the observer (and you probably have to position the projectors at the right distance too.) I'm having trouble seeing how more than one set of mirrors could cover any one part of the tank, without being semi-transparent which would give the game away. Two observers in almost opposite directions could be fooled, but two observers separated by a few metres, not so. Best result would be an approximate view of what is behind the tank from the two different angles.

Another prob is the projectors. You have big bright things pointed at the tank you are trying to hide. Counter-measures would include leaving smoldering heaps of camel-dung around installations which need protecting from invisible tanks. Blow the crap out of the projectors, then you see the tank. Or just blow the crap out of the thing you can't see which has projectors pointed at it.

Passive infra-red could be made to work as well as visible light I'd guess. As the OP said, RADAR is trickier because it's active not passive.

Not militarily significant as designed so far. If there is a surface which can direct different images outward throughout 180° horizontally (and ideally, 90° vertically) then it can be hooked up to cameras on the tank, to show a 3D image of whatever is behind the tank from any angle. The bandwidth requirements would be huge, but hey it's the future.

We'll know when that is possible, because such surfaces are better forms of something we want already: 3D monitors. Oh boy, we're going to love those when we get them!

Okay, I know you have problems with comprehension, but here's the deal; IF YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS SO YOU CAN SPRAYPAINT IT, IT HAS NO REASON TO KEEP TRYING TO HIDE.

Unless you're suggesting an army of spraypainters everywhere--something not even remotely feasible

Aw, you're no fun. I love the idea of tags trundling around without apparent support by any physical object. ;)

F&G was half-right actually. The projectors separate from the tank have many simple counter-measures. Even without that, the mirrors would be pretty obvious is you just spray a bit of laser light around and keep a bit of smoke in the air.

The tank relies on a sophisticated network cameras to camouflage itself; if, say, a leaf landed on top of the tank, it would be visible. Similarly, if one applied spray-paint in the general vicinity of the tank, that blotch of paint, seemingly suspended in mid-air, would become very salient indeed.

1) You'd have a very difficult time getting close enough to an Abrams or Challenger to spraypaint it

2) Something like this isn't meant to hide a tank that's 10m from you. Tanks engage each other at several hundred meters (up to 2500m in the case of the Challenger and Abrams), and using this technology while in a hide position would make you very very difficult to detect. As for using this in Iraq, it's not as though you'd drive around Baghdad "cloaked". This would be used for putting a vehicle in an observation or ambush position hundreds of meters away from what its target. Again, I use the example of the troops guarding the Syrian border. Also, when I was over there we conducted a number of missions where we observed a building and waited for certain individuals to come along, and when they arrived aircraft would bomb the house. Having an invisible tank (or better yet, an invisible HMMWV on a hill about 10km away using the LRAS3 (http://www.raytheon.com/products/lras3/)) would make things like that much easier and even eliminate the need for the aircraft, as a couple of HEAT rounds will do the job on most buildings over there.

As for radar, the type it would be worried about is the ground surveillance kind (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/an-pps-5.htm). The problem with using such a thing against US forces is that it will be detected and neutralized quickly, either electronically or physically.

Don't forget the next generation stealth fighter!

Ultimate in Stealth! (http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/7e39d4f6)

rumor has it that the F-22 incorporates a similar system, but that has been unconfirmed publicly, but several military friends of mine have alluded to the existence of the system

Given the likely expense of the camou system, what with all of the sensitive and powerful cameras and projectors, I really doubt it'll be a common sight on the battlefield. It'll probably be a must for covert strike teams down the road.

Nah, just get the chinese to manufacture it. They can make shit for pennies.

Nah, just get the chinese to manufacture it. They can make shit for pennies.

I can make it for free.
Well, if you feed me.

*morphs into pacman*

I'm going to be mighty pissed-off if anyone has invented a surface which can emit a different picture in several different directions, and now they're keeping our 3D monitors and TV's from us so they can sneak up on goat-herders with their Abrams tank.

It's a killer application. The porn alone would be enough to justify some laxity in military secrecy.

I'm going to be mighty pissed-off if anyone has invented a surface which can emit a different picture in several different directions, and now they're keeping our 3D monitors and TV's from us so they can sneak up on goat-herders with their Abrams tank.

It's a killer application. The porn alone would be enough to justify some laxity in military secrecy.

Eh? The chinese did that years ago. They have some type of projection tank thingy which makes holograms in real time. It's part of their on going effort to cure smoking related diseases so they can smoke with impunity.

Those people are going places.

Of course, the next stage is to mount this on planes or choppers. They'd have to mount one on Air Force One, if nothing else for the fact that having Air Force One decloak as it comes in for landing would be awesome.

Cloaking a plane against a background of blue sky should be a lot easier than cloaking a ground vehicle against a random background at different distances.

The sky has no distance, for one thing. No details which allow eyes to judge distance by parallax. All you need is coloured light.

The known stealth planes are black. Black! They could be painted barbie pink and they'd still look black against the sky. But light them up just like sky, that might work.

Of course, the next stage is to mount this on planes or choppers. They'd have to mount one on Air Force One, if nothing else for the fact that having Air Force One decloak as it comes in for landing would be awesome.

Dude, we need a CGI artist NOW! Someone who can do a Star Trek style decloak effect on some footage of Air Force One as it lands. Funny. Stuff.

Aw, you're no fun. I love the idea of tags trundling around without apparent support by any physical object. ;)

F&G was half-right actually. The projectors separate from the tank have many simple counter-measures. Even without that, the mirrors would be pretty obvious is you just spray a bit of laser light around and keep a bit of smoke in the air.

Sssh! You're ruining my logc!

You're right though. I wish I had thought about that, but I was too busy correcting the stupid that was the idea you could just walk up to a tank and spraypaint it.

Captain: "Where exactly did you park the tank Sergeant Wilkins?"

Sergeant: "I think it was next to a tree"

Captain: "Goddamit man that is the fifth tank you have lost this month"

So, England = Nod? So who are the GDI?

So, England = Nod? So who are the GDI?

Argentina. *nod*

Argentina. *nod*

*cowers from the Argentinian Mammoth MK.II*

So, England = Nod? So who are the GDI?

ROTFL!

All hail Brown! All hail Brown!

Captain: "Where exactly did you park the tank Sergeant Wilkins?"

Sergeant: "I think it was next to a tree"

Captain: "Goddamit man that is the fifth tank you have lost this month"

Ouch .... found the one :D




and gah i forgot troops in c+c .... makes a noted to boot it up tomorrow and reminis