Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on September 23, 2011, 01:26:50 pm
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/09/14/invisible-tank-stars-at-l_n_961587.html?1315998139
A tank that hides in front of your eyes is the star of the show at Defence and Security Equipment International, the arms and technology show on now at London's ExCel centre.
The invisibility cloak tank designed by BAE Systems uses patented “Adaptiv” technology to trick the opposition's infra-red cameras and goggles. The technology is based on hexagonal panels that can change temperature rapidly, while the outer skin displays background scenery that is picked up by on-board cameras. Alternatively, the hexagons can mimic another vehicle to fool the enemy, or display identification tags to avoid friendly fire.
-
A marvellous invention....
...for a war that isn't being fought.
This is something an army would use to camo against an army that is similarly equipped as itself. In this day and age of what is called asymmetrical warfare, it's not quite as effective.
-
Assuming that the current trend in warfare will continue forever is just as foolish as thinking this tank is designed to fight in the current trend in warfare.
-
+1
-
A marvellous invention....
...for a war that isn't being fought.
This is something an army would use to camo against an army that is similarly equipped as itself. In this day and age of what is called asymmetrical warfare, it's not quite as effective.
....... I'll take eight!
-
A marvellous invention....
...for a war that isn't being fought.
This is something an army would use to camo against an army that is similarly equipped as itself. In this day and age of what is called asymmetrical warfare, it's not quite as effective.
When the third world approaches 1st world status, asymmetrical warfare will fade away as a "transitional" period in warfare; much like the trenches in WWI. We'll be facing equally trained and equipped armies in the future just as we had in the past (WWII), its always good to be prepared for the future.
-
This guy made it clear too, that it isn't practical right now
Endre Lunde, defence consultant for Jane's said "There is no practical application for this technology right now, but the military have been trying to conceal the thermal footprint of vehicles for years. I don't think there will be any buyers of this at DSEi, because it is complicated to get right and the thermal footprint is just one part of a vehicle's footprint. It could be useful for big heavy vehicles, and could be used to beat specific thermal footprint-seeking weapons, but they would be no use somewhere like Afghanistan against an IED (improvised explosive device)."
Personally, I think this is bloody cool. Soon we will have active camouflage and I can finally get my James Bond car!
-
Oh wait, this is infrared ONLY. Well now I'm much less excited... :blah:
-
It's pretty obvious that it is...
-
There was a part of a video that seemed to also show visual camouflage (besides, that's not difficult to do, just slap displays on top of these hexagons).
On the other hand, they'd be like Stealth tanks in CIC. I don't think these panels are very resistant to being shot at, so such vehicle would have reduced armor, not to mention not being so stealthy after taking an MG burst. There are applications in which this would be very useful (mobile artillery, for instance), but an MBT would be better off with more armor.
-
There was a part of a video that seemed to also show visual camouflage (besides, that's not difficult to do, just slap displays on top of these hexagons).
On the other hand, they'd be like Stealth tanks in CIC. I don't think these panels are very resistant to being shot at, so such vehicle would have reduced armor, not to mention not being so stealthy after taking an MG burst. There are applications in which this would be very useful (mobile artillery, for instance), but an MBT would be better off with more armor.
Project manager, Peder Sjölund explains: “Earlier attempts at similar cloaking devices have hit problems because of cost, excessive power requirements or because they were insufficiently robust. Our panels can be made so strong that they provide useful armour protection and consume relatively low levels of electricity, especially when the vehicle is at rest in ’stealth recce’ mode and generator output is low.”
Figured I'd point that out
-
There was a part of a video that seemed to also show visual camouflage (besides, that's not difficult to do, just slap displays on top of these hexagons).
On the other hand, they'd be like Stealth tanks in CIC. I don't think these panels are very resistant to being shot at, so such vehicle would have reduced armor, not to mention not being so stealthy after taking an MG burst. There are applications in which this would be very useful (mobile artillery, for instance), but an MBT would be better off with more armor.
I would have to agree with you there it would be better for that or mechanised recon. I wonder how well it would apply to something like a field base?
There was a part of a video that seemed to also show visual camouflage (besides, that's not difficult to do, just slap displays on top of these hexagons).
On the other hand, they'd be like Stealth tanks in CIC. I don't think these panels are very resistant to being shot at, so such vehicle would have reduced armor, not to mention not being so stealthy after taking an MG burst. There are applications in which this would be very useful (mobile artillery, for instance), but an MBT would be better off with more armor.
Project manager, Peder Sjölund explains: “Earlier attempts at similar cloaking devices have hit problems because of cost, excessive power requirements or because they were insufficiently robust. Our panels can be made so strong that they provide useful armour protection and consume relatively low levels of electricity, especially when the vehicle is at rest in ’stealth recce’ mode and generator output is low.”
Figured I'd point that out
Usefull armour protection is not the same as equivalent armour protection
-
Surely this tech could merely be applied on top of most armour systems.
If it makes a tank less visible to attack planes, which AFAIK modern armour won't be able to stop, then there is it's use, in combined arms conflict against another major power (which is always possible, it'd be foolish not be prepared with at least modern designs and small numbers of proofs of concepts, against one)
-
Surely this tech could merely be applied on top of most armour systems.
If it makes a tank less visible to attack planes, which AFAIK modern armour won't be able to stop, then there is it's use, in combined arms conflict against another major power (which is always possible, it'd be foolish not be prepared with at least modern designs and small numbers of proofs of concepts, against one)
I presume to do that you would need to run cables etc through the the armour at some point which introduces additional weak points in the armour, even if it is just to the generator, which for many reasons is not ideal. You would also have to consider weight, as using this in addition to regular armour would increase its overall weight which has an impact on speed, movement range and ability to negotiate boggy and other soft terrain. Also this system like with everything else is not perfect and I suspect it wont be long before systems capable of circumventing the technology, for example detecting unusual or distorted magnetic fields would be developed which would reduce the effectiveness of the technique against smart weapons, though it's use against satellite recon and infantry patrols would probably remain.
-
there has already got to be a hole some place for intake and exhaust for the engine,run it through there.
-
I think that stealth recon, tank destroyers, arty and support vehicles could use that tech, just not MBTs/IFVs . While these panels do provide armor, they're not DU nor reactive armor in terms of efficiency. Also, I don't know if they'd be able to function after being hit. Not to mention there's one more thing to be considered - thermal imaging. This tech could work in visible-near IR (like in NV googles), but against thermal sights, it'd be much less effective, unless you find some miracle engine coolant.
-
I think that stealth recon, tank destroyers, arty and support vehicles could use that tech, just not MBTs/IFVs . While these panels do provide armor, they're not DU nor reactive armor in terms of efficiency. Also, I don't know if they'd be able to function after being hit. Not to mention there's one more thing to be considered - thermal imaging. This tech could work in visible-near IR (like in NV googles), but against thermal sights, it'd be much less effective, unless you find some miracle engine coolant.
I think the point is that it attempts to mask the IR signature altogether. I thought the video included use of thermal sights...
-
I think that stealth recon, tank destroyers, arty and support vehicles could use that tech, just not MBTs/IFVs . While these panels do provide armor, they're not DU nor reactive armor in terms of efficiency. Also, I don't know if they'd be able to function after being hit. Not to mention there's one more thing to be considered - thermal imaging. This tech could work in visible-near IR (like in NV googles), but against thermal sights, it'd be much less effective, unless you find some miracle engine coolant.
I think the point is that it attempts to mask the IR signature altogether. I thought the video included use of thermal sights...
That was my impression as well, quite frankly being able to thermal mask a platoon of hull down MBTs from air cover or an advancing enemy force would be pretty tactically worthwhile.
-
Well, if it works against thermal imaging, then it would also have plenty of drawbacks. For instance, it'd become much less effective in cold environments, and most likely unable to mask barrels and engine cooling grates. You just need to do something with that heat, or you risk overheating the whole thing.
-
Well, if it works against thermal imaging, then it would also have plenty of drawbacks. For instance, it'd become much less effective in cold environments, and most likely unable to mask barrels and engine cooling grates. You just need to do something with that heat, or you risk overheating the whole thing.
then fine you strip it off and slot on an extra layer of armour instead
-
Well, if it works against thermal imaging, then it would also have plenty of drawbacks. For instance, it'd become much less effective in cold environments, and most likely unable to mask barrels and engine cooling grates. You just need to do something with that heat, or you risk overheating the whole thing.
You should really read the article, you know. Or at least try to sound like you've read it, because 1) it's thermal and visual camouflage and 2) because the panels don't insulate so much as they change temperature themselves to mimic background temperature.
1)
the outer skin displays background scenery that is picked up by on-board cameras
2)
The technology is based on hexagonal panels that can change temperature rapidly
-
Well, if it works against thermal imaging, then it would also have plenty of drawbacks. For instance, it'd become much less effective in cold environments, and most likely unable to mask barrels and engine cooling grates. You just need to do something with that heat, or you risk overheating the whole thing.
You should really read the article, you know. Or at least try to sound like you've read it.
I think what dragon is getting at is that the heat will be produced not matter what you do and either goes somewhere or the internals of the tank get hot to the point that if crewed they will die of heat exposure and if not components will start warping, melting or burning. If the top and sides are covered in this stuff, they cant radiate the heat out because that defeats the purpose so that heat has to be directed somewhere else, all that is left is the ground which will then heat up forming a distinctive hot spot with a vehicle shaped void at the centre which would be blatantly obvious from any elevated position or aerial/orbital observer. The only exception I can think of is if the panels absorb the heat and use it to power them in some way.
-
Precisely.
I am aware it's both visual and thermal, but I somewhat doubt it's really able to mask thermal emissions for long without frying whatever it's supposed to mask.
If it doesn't incorporate a really effective method of changing heat into electricity, it'd be physically impossible for it to hide, say, a hot barrel without melting it (or having a huge and unwieldy cooling unit). Writing "BAE Systems" on the side of a test vehicle, for a while, is easy compared to what would be needed on battlefield. That said, visual camo component is still a great asset, which could be useful for hiding things from infantry. I'd like to know how many terrorists or 3rd world nations have access to any kind of TI, much less infantry TWSes.
-
Usefull armour protection is not the same as equivalent armour protection
He never said equivalent, he said reduced and probably couldn't take an MG burst without issue. As for useful, anything that can protect you from what's going on outside is useful, so yes, useful armour protection is the same as equivalent as they are both useful. Unless of course, the equivalent armour you're referring to is useless
I'm arguing a technicality in your phrasing. I am aware of what you mean
but I somewhat doubt it's really able to mask thermal emissions for long without frying whatever it's supposed to mask.
"covers the test vehicle in hexagonal panels whose temperature can be quickly adjusted"
Think each panel as an incandescent lightbulb with a dimmer. Combine it with it's ability to "consume relatively low levels of electricity, especially when the vehicle is at rest in 'stealth recce' mode and generator output is low" and you've got something that can last fairly long
-
"covers the test vehicle in hexagonal panels whose temperature can be quickly adjusted"
Think each panel as an incandescent lightbulb with a dimmer. Combine it with it's ability to "consume relatively low levels of electricity, especially when the vehicle is at rest in 'stealth recce' mode and generator output is low" and you've got something that can last fairly long
well.... no. there's already a BF incandescent bulb. it's the vehicle, and it doesn't have a dimmer. it's going to put out heat regardless of what the panels are doing. if you dim a light in front of another light, the light in back shines through. watching the video, it obviously works somehow, but i've got to wonder if those weren't very controlled circumstances and durations. like everyone's been saying, the heat has to go somewhere.
-
The vehicle is the bulb. The stealth system is the dimmer. It's probably something similar to putting a thermal blanket over a person. It hides them pretty well, except in this case the thermal blanket can control it's surface temperature.
-
there's already a BF incandescent bulb. it's the vehicle, and it doesn't have a dimmer
The way the article makes it sound, the hexagonal panels are like mud with a heat source (think Predator when Arnold covers himself in mud masking his heat. Now think of the mud projecting it's own heat to display something else)
At least, that's how the article appears to describe the functionality. It could very well be closer to what Scotty says instead where it covers rather than projects
-
Except the mud works only for a short time, that is, before it heats up. This can adjust it's temperature, but then, what you'd do with the heat generated by the engine and guns?
You have either to store or dump this energy, there's no other physically possible solution. Of course, in case of running off battery power, without firing the gun and engine off, they you could hide for quite some time, but this would mean the use for this tech would be constrained to recon vehicles (which shouldn't have to fire too much, and could afford standing still for quite some time) and setting up ambushes. In theory, rocket launcher firing it's missiles using compressed air and igniting their engines after some time would help reduce the problem (but would add a tell-tale smoke trail, making it necessary for the launcher to move frequently). In short, a real NOD Stealth Tank, right down to it's armament (at least if we're talking CIC1&2, I didn't played any other).
-
The impression I get from the article and video is that the panels sit off the hull and create a very thin barrier of cold/heat to mask the thermal signature of the vehicle sitting behind them, which radiates all its usual heat. The point is, if the panels are capable of rapidly and independently cooling themselves, the heat generated by the vehicle can be allow to escape through venting.
On IR imagery, when you see an object you're seeing the heat it contains rather than the heat it emanates. The reason why the exhaust port on a tank looks brighter than the rest of the vehicle hull is because the metal itself is a higher temperature. Radiating heat isn't the problem so much as heat the vehicle contains. This tech seems to imply that the temperature of the masking system hides the heat of the vehicle underneath, which is still allowed to vent/radiate - the panels are simply self cooling, so instead of warming and storing that radiated heat themselves, they allow it to pass.
There's no discussion on how long the system can operate, but I'm assuming there's a time factor of operating when the panels would no longer be able to self-cool and overcome their tendency to store the radiating heat.
The analogy of putting a thermal blanket over a person is accurate - except in this case, it can mask longer because the blanket itself has a built-in cooling system and presumably there's some sort of venting system that allows the radiant heat to escape.
-
On IR imagery, when you see an object you're seeing the heat it contains rather than the heat it emanates. The reason why the exhaust port on a tank looks brighter than the rest of the vehicle hull is because the metal itself is a higher temperature. Radiating heat isn't the problem so much as heat the vehicle contains. This tech seems to imply that the temperature of the masking system hides the heat of the vehicle underneath, which is still allowed to vent/radiate - the panels are simply self cooling, so instead of warming and storing that radiated heat themselves, they allow it to pass.
You fail thermodynamics forever.
Of course you see heat it emanates, how else could you SEE it? The only way to check actual temperature is through direct contact, though deep-infrared radiation corresponds to it.
You can't "hide the heat of the vehicle underneath", because you'd heat up the panels, and you can't vent heat without it showing somehow. You seem to be confusing heat and hot air. Heat contained by the vehicle, heat emanated by it and it's temperature are very closely connected by laws of thermodynamics. Also, what does self-cooling mean? What do they do with energy? Perhaps you meant that these things could very precisely regulate rate at which they radiate heat, heating up from the vehicle (and themselves when needed) and varying the cooling rate to reach and maintain a specific temperature. That could work, in theory, but I find it rather hard to believe.
-
Mine was a very poorly written post. Kindly don't even try to make sense of it, and I'll try again,
What I was attempting, and completely failing, to get at, was that you see infrared radiation from an object, which is dependent on its emissivity. Lower the emissivity, the lower the detectable radiation. You can then lower the heat signature of an object for IR imaging by either cooling it down (i.e. extracting the heat energy and emanating it elsewhere, as with an air conditioning unit) or decreasing its emissivity. Which this system is doing, I don't know. However, it appears to function (from the very limited information at hand) by presenting IR detecting equipment with a signature based on that detected in the background and blocking or absorbing the infrared radiation emanating from the vehicle itself.
Since IR imagery is dependent on a camera detecting infrared radiation in the first place, it stands to reason that a component of this system may be something analogous to the technology used to stealth aircraft - except instead of reflecting radar in every direction except back at the detecting equipment, this tech would imply storing and emitting infrared radiation in every direction but that where a potential detector lies. Not being an engineer on the project, that's rampant speculation on my part.
Regardless, from the video we know the following:
1. The system utilizes camera-based technology allowing the panels to visually mimic the surroundings.
2. The camera allows the panels to mimic the amount of infrared radiation emitted, transmitted, or reflected in the background (and from the video, it appears to accomplish this by making the vehicle appear cooler than it is).
3. The panels appear to be able to rapidly and accurately change their properties for the purposes of IR detection.
In general, we also know:
1. Vehicles generate high amounts of heat, particularly military vehicles in specific locations.
2. There is widespread knowledge of materials whose temperature (and therefore IR emissions) change rapidly and accurately with changes in pressure, through systems powered by electricity; although most of these materials are gases.
3. IR emissions can be absorbed and stored to a point.
Speculation:
-The panels operate using electricity (hinted at in the video) to change their properties for IR emission.
-The panels appear to be made of a composite material which is capable of absorbing and retaining, while reducing transmission, of infrared radiation on the inside.
-The outside of the panels is capable of varying the rate at which it either retains or emits/transmits the IR generated by the vehicle and interior panel beneath it.
I do wonder if each hexagon works something like a miniature heat pump, capable of releasing heat on either side depending on the way it's powered. Eventually, the heat on the interior is going to get to a point where the system can no longer cope, but there's nothing to suggest this system is designed to function for extensive periods of time.
EDIT: Pause the video at 0:22. You can see the hexagons are actually comprised of two components, with a different material closer to the vehicle's hull. It's probably an insulator, while the exterior face is the piece that uses electricity to block or transmit heat from the insulator beneath that initially absorbs it.
-
Since IR imagery is dependent on a camera detecting infrared radiation in the first place, it stands to reason that a component of this system may be something analogous to the technology used to stealth aircraft - except instead of reflecting radar in every direction except back at the detecting equipment, this tech would imply storing and emitting infrared radiation in every direction but that where a potential detector lies. Not being an engineer on the project, that's rampant speculation on my part.
Do some research. IR detectors are passive. This would never work against them (you can assume that radar receiver is at the same place as emitter, but with IR, you are the emitter yourself).
I do wonder if each hexagon works something like a miniature heat pump, capable of releasing heat on either side depending on the way it's powered. Eventually, the heat on the interior is going to get to a point where the system can no longer cope, but there's nothing to suggest this system is designed to function for extensive periods of time.
It'd basically amount to the varying heat emission rate I mentioned.
-
-The panels operate using electricity (hinted at in the video) to change their properties for IR emission.
This isn't speculation, this is fact. It was clearly stated in the article that it requires electricity, and not a whole lot of it
-
Well, of course it needs electricity. How else would you control it?
-
Since IR imagery is dependent on a camera detecting infrared radiation in the first place, it stands to reason that a component of this system may be something analogous to the technology used to stealth aircraft - except instead of reflecting radar in every direction except back at the detecting equipment, this tech would imply storing and emitting infrared radiation in every direction but that where a potential detector lies. Not being an engineer on the project, that's rampant speculation on my part.
Do some research. IR detectors are passive. This would never work against them (you can assume that radar receiver is at the same place as emitter, but with IR, you are the emitter yourself).
Do some reading. That was not what MP meant when he said that this system works like analogous to radar stealthing.
-
For me, this:
this tech would imply storing and emitting infrared radiation in every direction but that where a potential detector lies.
Seemed like he wanted to radiate heat in every direction but the one a sniper with a TWS is looking from (I admit, the mental picture of this was rather funny).
If it's not what he meant, please elaborate on what was the real intention.
-
I think it's a case of leave the plates on top running constantly, and only switch the side panels on in the direction of the enemy front lines which in a conventional war between comparable tech armies would be fairly easy to determine, the rest of the plates are deactivated to allow heat to radiate. the only down side in that is in a symmetrical war with a NATO or NATO allied country involved the comparable countries have aerial and satellite recon techniques which would be able to counter this due to being able to use the tank heating up near by ground.
-
I think it's a case of leave the plates on top running constantly, and only switch the side panels on in the direction of the enemy front lines which in a conventional war between comparable tech armies would be fairly easy to determine, the rest of the plates are deactivated to allow heat to radiate.
This sounds pretty reasonable. After all, it projects an image of the background scenery to a flat surface, which could only look convincing if you knew the general location of the viewer. Note that the demonstration video only ever shows the tank's side directly facing the camera. You'd get all sort of artifacts (cloak shadows for SC players) if you were to look at the "display" from some large oblique angle. So, the system doesn't cloak you unless you knew the general direction of who you are hiding from in the first place, which means that you'd only be using 1-2 sides at the same time anyways.
-
For me, this:
this tech would imply storing and emitting infrared radiation in every direction but that where a potential detector lies.
Seemed like he wanted to radiate heat in every direction but the one a sniper with a TWS is looking from (I admit, the mental picture of this was rather funny).
If it's not what he meant, please elaborate on what was the real intention.
I'm quite well aware that the vehicle is the emitter in this case, which is why I said analogous to radar.
headdie and Kolgena covered it. There are a couple directions you'll always be able to make the assumption that you don't need thermal masking in, though the vehicle would have to be able to determine what directions those are on the fly. For example, depending on the theatre and operating parameters, you may not need thermal camouflage from the sky.
-
Just figured I'd point this out
I'm fairly certain the people who made this tank have the answers to everything that has been discussed here.
Does anyone have the ability to contact this company and ask away?
-
of course they know how it works, but they aren't likely to come out and say "here are all the limitations" while trying to promote it as stealth technology. THAT'S what we're speculating on.
-
That may be true. However, a different take is they'll say what the limitations are so people will have an idea as to when it'll be fully operational
Worth a shot anyhow.
Here's another thing, you could very well shut off everything inside the tank except for what is required to project on the panels. This further reduces heat (if heat is even a factor; it's a likely one, but how do we know? It could be cold as ice inside and outside that tank)
-
heat generation is only part of the problem though. once it's hot, it's hot. it would take quite a while to cool down to ambient temperatures.
-
Depends on what sort of cooling system or just how well the material can disperse the heat
The other question also remains: Just how much heat is produced in the first place?
-
There are a couple directions you'll always be able to make the assumption that you don't need thermal masking in, though the vehicle would have to be able to determine what directions those are on the fly. For example, depending on the theatre and operating parameters, you may not need thermal camouflage from the sky.
Actually, there are no such directions in tank combat. If you do that, then you're playing a lottery with your life at stake. What if an enemy tank gets behind you, where you not expect it?
Depends on what sort of cooling system or just how well the material can disperse the heat
The other question also remains: Just how much heat is produced in the first place?
Guns can get really, really hot. M1 Abrams engine runs hotter than a Molotov Cocktail can burn. The answer is, a lot.
If you look into hard sci-fi stories, radiating heat in space is a major problem, since space isn't a good heat conductor. Air is a much better one, but this technology restricts it's use. My concerns are about how the vehicle would be able to get rid of this heat without messing up it's stealth or changing it's interior into a sauna. Getting rid of heat is actually a major technical problem in a lot of machines, thermodynamics are not very forgiving in that matter. (just look how elaborate the cooling system in a high-performance computer can get, or in a modern car).
-
Actually, there are no such directions in tank combat. If you do that, then you're playing a lottery with your life at stake. What if an enemy tank gets behind you, where you not expect it?
While an A-10 is about as close as we can get to a flying tank, I'm fairly certain that actual tanks cannot fly. There is also the matter of air superiority to consider.
As for enemy tanks flanking, I guess it depends on the purpose of the system. If it's for recce, then the whole thing needs camouflage. If it's purpose is to sit in ambush positions for denial of territory, then whole-vehicle masking probably wouldn't be necessary, allowing it to operate longer.
Again, there's a hell of a lot we don't know about how this system operates; any arguments we can make at this point are purely speculative.
-
Guns can get really, really hot. M1 Abrams engine runs hotter than a Molotov Cocktail can burn. The answer is, a lot.
I was under the impression you've been talking solely about the stealth aspect, not combined with the firing aspect. On that note, yes there will be a lot of heat. Not only that, but it also defeats any purpose of having the stealth technology active since well, you've just given away your position by firing
Also note, that the tank in the video doesn't appear to have any sort of massive gun on it (at least, none that I could see). So, I don't believe whether or not it can disperse heat after firing a weapon is in the discussion at this moment.
There is also the matter of air superiority to consider.
Jetpacks