Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Invisible

  1. #1 Invisible 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7
    Figured this would be of interest to a lot of you on here:

    http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/...technology.asp

    Something like this could really change modern warfare - what do you reckon?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Back in my day, a real coward would just sneak up behind a guy and shoot him in the spine. None of this techno hokus pokus.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    lolz, why coward? its an extreme tactic of teh m0st eX7r3me 1337 h4xx0rs!
    ya sneak behind yar nemessis and stab him in teh back, no noise and ure free
    to move on to yah next target
    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Back in my day, a real coward would just sneak up behind a guy and shoot him in the spine. None of this techno hokus pokus.
    Stealth is a real war maker, as such.

    Stealth is only becoming if you are the underdog nation.

    Not the big giant nation, hiding.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cardiff
    Posts
    5
    decent story I read this elsewhere as well.

    Flanking Manoeuvres..... think of all the situations this would benefit....

    with improvements you could even have a landing craft that pop up on your shore!

    "Hello, you did not see us coming did you!"

    Considering the British have those stealth warship / tank designs, who knows, they might already be out there!
    All I do in my life is .....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7
    Some interesting thoughts there guys...

    I guess one question is this though:-

    Stealth aircraft, warships etc, all well and good, but what about the weapons?

    As surely weapons give off some kind of radar image (heat, etc) and, when they're fired, wouldn't the machine firing it suddenly become "unstealthy"?!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman ASTROPHYSICIST137's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    U.K
    Posts
    39
    Stealth camo that could make one’s self invisible is like impossible because u would have to bend light... only strong gravity can bend light such as a black hole so if u want to have stealth then ur a black hole lol. :-D
    K.T.B
    Men speak of killing time and yet, time secretly kills them....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    I spent a total of almost 25 years working with various kinds of leading edge radar a lot of what I see claimed today is no more than crap. Stealth is not invisible to RADAR, on a visit to a UK airshow a US 'stealth' aircraft was tracked as it flew past using a small rapier missile system. US Stealth aircraft have a reduced radar signature and thats all, as radar receivers become more sensitive this edge will be lost, it is no more than the usual 'counter catch up scenario'. Invisible? Bollocks, maybe at a few frequencies but not across the band, all while there is a junction between atmosphere and plane (ie they consist of differing materials/density etc) it can be detected - simple as that. I am aware through friends of a new system being developed which is projected to show up 'stealthy' aircraft like rabbits caught in headlights, as always the system is ingenious and incredibly simple - and rather amusingly, the technology is very cheap.

    There was also an incident with the B-2 being tracked at Farnborough (2
    September 1996), when BAe caused a storm after it released a video
    showing the Rapier SAM system tracking the B-2 Stealth bomber in IR as
    it did a fly past. The Rapier had recently been updated with newer radar
    and tracking systems specifically designed to track such aircraft.
    That was 13 years ago, what do think we Brits have done since then? :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by ASTROPHYSICIST137
    Stealth camo that could make one’s self invisible is like impossible because u would have to bend light... only strong gravity can bend light such as a black hole so if u want to have stealth then ur a black hole lol. :-D
    I guess you are unfamiliar with the super high technology involved in the construction of the 18th century prism?

    There has already been recent work involving making something invisible to high wavelengths like radio, and even more recent work up to and including visible light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    I'm a proponent of extending the lifespans of existing airframes. Of course one cannot become stagnant in the highly competitive field of air dominance, but I like the more economical approach at times. The F-15 "Silent Eagle" was just introduced with stealth coatings, conformal fuel tanks and internal weapon bays. While it does carry a large price tag at $100 million a piece, it's still cheaper than the 187 F-22's the US just ordered at $140 million each, not to mention that it is a proven design with a stunning combat record. In the bomber realm, I would like to see the B-1B Lancer lifespan extended. It's radar signature is close to that of the B-2, has a far heavier munitions payload than any aircraft in the arsenal (yes, including B-52), more range and is faster than most other bombers.

    That said, I like the way the US is approaching this. The Air Force ordered F-22's and F-35's sparingly and cut other expensive development programs, intending to gradually replace the F-15, and F-16.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Stealth is a real war maker, as such.

    Stealth is only becoming if you are the underdog nation.

    Not the big giant nation, hiding.
    No.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Quote Originally Posted by ASTROPHYSICIST137
    Stealth camo that could make one’s self invisible is like impossible because u would have to bend light... only strong gravity can bend light such as a black hole so if u want to have stealth then ur a black hole lol. :-D
    I guess you are unfamiliar with the super high technology involved in the construction of the 18th century prism?

    There has already been recent work involving making something invisible to high wavelengths like radio, and even more recent work up to and including visible light.
    The recent 'work' on invisibility was in the near IR wavelength, and covered less than 2% of a single octave. Numsgi, I detect you have no more than a tabloid knowledge of these things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    clicky.

    Tabloid? No. Lay publications aimed at casual readers? Yes.

    I didn't say it was production ready. Just that there is current work on making things invisible, so that it is quite possible. Given more time they can probably invent something with real world abilities. At this point it's just an engineering problem, not a theoretical is-this-possible problem.

    And as for calls of stealth being a coward's game: that's just silly. The underlying US military doctrine makes blitzkrieg look like a game of chess by mail. You hit them hard, you hit them fast, and you do it without casualties. On our side at least. Stealth fits into that perfectly.

    "All war is based on deception" - Sun Tzu.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Unfortunately, some scientists have a great knack of convincing politicians that certain technologies are possible when there is no direct evidence that they are, thus large sums of money are then spent on such white elephants with no tangible benefits. (Or perhaps I should say some politicians are so gullible and easily convinced of things that do not exist such as death rays, IRAQI WMD etc)

    Examples,

    1917 or so..

    "It is theoretically possible to concentrate radio waves into such an intense beam that when directed at an aircraft it could de-stabilise it's molecular structure"

    (THat instruction was given to Watson Watt as his brief for developing a WWII deathray, he quickly pointed out the flaws but did discover and develope radar instead)


    ALmost the day after the first practical laser beam was demonstrated (1960-1?)

    "It is theoretically possible to use high intensity laser beams to vaporise a target many thousands of miles away"

    (25 years or so later President RayGun) spent a lot of US tax money on such weapons only to have the USSR coat their satellites with highly reflective laser paint (reportedly bought in the US and secretly shipped to the USSR at a final cost of around $130 a gallon).

    Cold fusion 1990's... etc etc etc

    IF I could explain in lay terms, suppose you look at the amercan flag through red tinted glasses, the red and white stripes will appear as a single block, you may summize that either the red or the white stripes have become 'invisible' whereas infact you still see them, you will not see what is behind them, now look at the blue stars, they will appear as very dark, possibly almost black, infact they will now stand out to be more bold than they were in the first place.

    If you want a material that treats all wavelengths of light the same, then simply put a sheet of thin lead in front of the flag, result you can no longer see it. Does that make it invisible though?

    At best what we have at present is a primitive form of 'electronic camoflage'

    Now I hope this is de-classified, otherwise I could be in the shit...

    Radar

    If you know you are being illuminated by a radar beam you can with suitable equipment capture the beam details, and generate false return echoes, such that an enemy may see 2 or 200 planes coming from one direction whilst perhaps a few from another, all this can be generataed by a single plane to confuse the enemy whilst a real attack is coming from another direction. That's why Desert Storm left two Iraqi radar posts 'undamaged' other than a few 'near misses'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    "It is theoretically possible to concentrate radio waves into such an intense beam that when directed at an aircraft it could de-stabilise it's molecular structure"
    Actually it is possible to do that. The problem was always getting enough juice. During WW2 there were two "fantastic" "impossible" "super weapons" which would almost automatically ensure victory. The atom bomb and the death ray. Both are impossible sounding. With hindsight we know one is more practical than the other, but no one knew that at the time.

    Japan actually had a death ray program, for instance.

    And in modern times, there's a way to "spike" a nuclear weapon to concentrate its EM burst into concentrated "death ray" bands.

    "It is theoretically possible to use high intensity laser beams to vaporise a target many thousands of miles away"

    (25 years or so later President RayGun) spent a lot of US tax money on such weapons only to have the USSR coat their satellites with highly reflective laser paint (reportedly bought in the US and secretly shipped to the USSR at a final cost of around $130 a gallon).
    No actual such lasers were ever produced. The SDI initiative had (and has) many missile defense strategies it plays with. The SDI continues to this day to find ways of protecting troops in the combat theater from missiles and other ballistics.

    Likewise the ability to paint missiles with reflective paint or use reflective metal, etc. was a criticism, not something that anyone actually did. However, it's important to note that a) it would be much harder to reflect higher frequency lasers and b) even optical or IR range reflections are not 100% effective. An IR Laser could still take down a "laser reflected missile" with enough time and juice. But its ability to take down multiple missiles would be reduced.

    Cold fusion 1990's...
    Last I checked the scientific community at large never really jumped on that band wagon. Not to say that DARPA hasn't spent some money on cold fusion research. The rule at DARPA seems to be to leave no stone unturned. Which has made for some expensive failures, but also some really neat discoveries. Like the internet.

    IF I could explain in lay terms, suppose you look at the amercan flag through red tinted glasses, the red and white stripes will appear as a single block, you may summize that either the red or the white stripes have become 'invisible' whereas infact you still see them, you will not see what is behind them, now look at the blue stars, they will appear as very dark, possibly almost black, infact they will now stand out to be more bold than they were in the first place.

    If you want a material that treats all wavelengths of light the same, then simply put a sheet of thin lead in front of the flag, result you can no longer see it. Does that make it invisible though?
    Present metamaterials do "work" on very specific frequency bands. But that is not a theoretical limitation is it? And the technology is very young. Imagine if when they discovered uranium fission they had said "great, you've found an expensive way to produce barium".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    I do not see any great disagreements in your replies, I had considered stating the death ray as being 'possible' but after some 90 or so years, and at least three serious attempts nobody has managed it yet. It is even today, still not practical, One of the main reasons of course is the energy of the wavelength, e=hf (or e=hc/l) thus radio waves of the original projected frequency (280MHz or approx 1.1Metre) is effectively impractical when considered along side light whose wavelength is of the order of hundreds of nanometres (ie 10-9 Metres) and thus having hundreds of billions times more energy per photon. I believe I read somewhere that as originally proposed all the (then) power stations of the world could not provide enough energy (at 280MHz) to ignite a candle.

    On SDI I seem to have omitted the word 'research' ie the money was spent on weapons research and not weapons.

    Cold fusion.
    You say the science community did not jump on the band wagon, my memory is more that they would not admit to it later, the fact that many university labs went and bought welding transformers as the essential power-supply may have slipped your memory.. I'll look later for a reference and provide it if I find one.
    Present metamaterials do "work" on very specific frequency bands. But that is not a theoretical limitation is it?
    I would really like to see the mathematics that allows wideband 'invisibility' if you can provide a link, I'd be happy to comment.

    But I'll give you 9/10 for your reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I do not see any great disagreements in your replies, I had considered stating the death ray as being 'possible' but after some 90 or so years, and at least three serious attempts nobody has managed it yet. It is even today, still not practical, One of the main reasons of course is the energy of the wavelength, e=hf (or e=hc/l) thus radio waves of the original projected frequency (280MHz or approx 1.1Metre) is effectively impractical when considered along side light whose wavelength is of the order of hundreds of nanometres (ie 10-9 Metres) and thus having hundreds of billions times more energy per photon. I believe I read somewhere that as originally proposed all the (then) power stations of the world could not provide enough energy (at 280MHz) to ignite a candle.
    Energy is energy. A 1000 Watt laser at microwave frequencies and a 1000 watt laser at visible wavelengths are the same wattage. You should be able to light a candle with a common household microwave oven, if you "tune" it properly.

    On SDI I seem to have omitted the word 'research' ie the money was spent on weapons research and not weapons.
    And...? If you know the outcome of research it isn't really research. It's engineering. The SDI had many techniques it looked into, from lasers to kinetic kill weapons, etc. Lasers weren't all that great a method, but the SDI continues to this day (renamed several times, IIRC) to research and produce methods to shield troops and civilians from missiles and other ballistics.

    The money wasn't wasted, which I think is the point you're trying to make. There were and have been tangible benefits to the research. Not all research paths panned out, but that's part of the research game.

    You say the science community did not jump on the band wagon, my memory is more that they would not admit to it later, the fact that many university labs went and bought welding transformers as the essential power-supply may have slipped your memory.. I'll look later for a reference and provide it if I find one.
    Yes, please do that. Here's my impression. Cold fusion guys: "We invented cold fusion!" Science community: "Impossible!" Cold fusion guys: "Ah, well it was working before. Can't reproduce it." Science community: "Told ya so."

    I would really like to see the mathematics that allows wideband 'invisibility' if you can provide a link, I'd be happy to comment.
    I can't show you math. This really isn't my field. But nothing I read indicates it's impossible. Very difficult, because the metamaterials have to be organized on the scale of microns. Which is literally state of the art at the moment. I think they managed to get visible light cloaking in 2007ish. So only time will tell what they can come up with. But the continued funding by DARPA would certainly seem to indicate that the US military doesn't think it's impossible.

    So don't dismiss the possibility out of hand. It might be that it's impractical like a death ray is. Or it might be just a bit of an engineering challenge, like that atom bomb is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    I do not dismiss anything out of Hand, I designed parts for the following radar systems, MR12 and AR5, I worked at Jodrell Bank designing parts for one of the smaller Radio telescopes, Spent almost 25 years all told in Radar systems and research, from 10Ghz right up to 80GHz - Have given talks to MOD reps - been places that look like they were from a Bond movie, Designed some early radar signature analysis kit for the UK Air defence system, Have undertaken Feasability studies at various times, made improvements to the 909 radar (UK Fleet Defensive system) designed a small part of the Space Shuttle system. I think I might just know a little about RADAR, SAR & PAR systems oops, almost forgot played a good part in IFF/SSR systems as well, I don't really have to debate, I know what is and what is not possible in this field, I know what's coming and when for at least the next 20 years or so, I am still in touch with former collegues, I say there is no maths or engineering principles today that permit the discovery of a cloaking device in the sense that a lay person understands it.

    If you wish to convince me that it (invisibility) is possible show me the maths, since all electronic equipment can be modelled perfectly with mathematics it should be possible. The truth is as I said, it is only acheivable at a single wavelength and not over any useful range, and only for very small objects, from a single angle. It's just another flight of fancy and when offered funding, who would not say it was 'theoretically possible' do you know who hard it is to fight for a budget?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    clicky.

    Presumably you (and any other readers) are literate. Anything I tell you will just be me regurgitating things I've read, so take it to the source. Read those articles and make up your own mind about whether wide spectrum invisibility is possible. Certainly someone seems to have "fooled" DARPA into thinking it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Back in my day, a real coward would just sneak up behind a guy and shoot him in the spine. None of this techno hokus pokus.
    Stealth is a real war maker, as such.

    Stealth is only becoming if you are the underdog nation.

    Not the big giant nation, hiding.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Stealth is the only defense these days. There are no more armored knights on horseback, because there's no such thing as armor that can stop modern weapons. (Tanks, but they only stop weak weapons)

    But, you make a good point in saying that stealth is a real war maker. Stealth allows better black ops stuff to go down, because we have more ways to attack somebody else and then lie and say we didn't. It's all about plausible deny-ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I spent a total of almost 25 years working with various kinds of leading edge radar a lot of what I see claimed today is no more than crap. Stealth is not invisible to RADAR, on a visit to a UK airshow a US 'stealth' aircraft was tracked as it flew past using a small rapier missile system. US Stealth aircraft have a reduced radar signature and thats all, as radar receivers become more sensitive this edge will be lost, it is no more than the usual 'counter catch up scenario'. Invisible? Bollocks, maybe at a few frequencies but not across the band, all while there is a junction between atmosphere and plane (ie they consist of differing materials/density etc) it can be detected - simple as that. I am aware through friends of a new system being developed which is projected to show up 'stealthy' aircraft like rabbits caught in headlights, as always the system is ingenious and incredibly simple - and rather amusingly, the technology is very cheap.

    There was also an incident with the B-2 being tracked at Farnborough (2
    September 1996), when BAe caused a storm after it released a video
    showing the Rapier SAM system tracking the B-2 Stealth bomber in IR as
    it did a fly past. The Rapier had recently been updated with newer radar
    and tracking systems specifically designed to track such aircraft.
    The defense side of the race is pretty much always the more expensive, isn't it? How much does a bullet proof vest cost vs. a gun that shoots armor peircing bullets?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    It seems to be a common theme in this sub-forum to make sweeping generalizations about warfare. To say "there are no more armored knights" and "armor only stops weak weapons" is incorrect. Modern tanks like the Abhrams and Challenger will defeat most anti-tank weapons up to and probably including the Javelin missile. I recall a story from Desert Storm, where an American M1 Abhrams was immobilized in a sand pit. If my memory serves, it recieved 3 direct strikes to the turret from enemy T-series tanks and no damage. After destroying the enemy tanks (it put a sabot round through a dune and into a tank by reading it's thermal signature) a Hercules tow vehicle unsuccessfully tried to extracate the M1. It was decided that the immobilized M1 would be destroyed by a second M1 and abandoned. Two 105mm sabots fired into the vulnerable portion of the turret had little effect. The third penetrated, struck the internal magazine, and the munitions blast was vented out the roof, as designed. At that time, another tow vehicle arrived on scene and extricated the tank. Later, when the M1 was opened up by mechanics, the only damage to the vehicle was a misalignment of the barrel to the targeting system, necessitating a simple recalibration. To be sure, a full autopsy of the vehicle was performed and minimal damage was confirmed.

    Likewise, "defense side of the race is pretty much always the more expensive" is incorrect and "black ops" where nations blame others for attacks are mostly the stuff of Tom Clancy novels.

    To reiterate, warfare and the development of weapons is a very complex subject with so many variables, one cannot encompass any element of this struggle with blunt statements such as these.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA, VA
    Posts
    102
    i seem to recall doing a science journal on something like this before.


    here's the notes i still ahve left over:
    im not real sure where it came from though....

    High-tech cloaking machines could one day render very small objects nearly invisible and perhaps improve military stealth technology, scientists said Monday.

    The idea is straight out of science fiction -- cloaking technology made Romulan spaceships disappear in Star Trek. A humble version of the device could become a reality, according to Nader Engheta and Andrea Alu of the University of Pennsylvania.

    But don't expect to hide yourself or your spaceship anytime soon, at least not in the standard sense of invisible. In practical terms, the research is more likely to lead to improved technical and research devices, and even these applications are years away.

    How it would work

    The proposal involves using plasmons -- tiny electronic excitations on the surfaces of some metals -- to cancel out the visible light or other radiation coming from an object.

    "A proper design ... may induce a dramatic drop in the scattering cross-section, making the object nearly invisible to an observer," Nader and Alu write in a scientific paper that was made available to the public Feb. 14.

    But cloaking ability would depend on an object's size, so that only with very small things -- items that are already microscopic or nearly so -- could the visible light be rendered null. A human could be made impossible to detect in longer-wavelength radiation such as microwaves, but not from visible light.

    A spaceship might be made transparent to radio waves or some other long-wavelength detector.

    The idea is in an infant stage but appears not to violate any laws of physics, according to an article Monday in news@nature.com, an online companion to the journal Nature, which provided advance copies of the story to reporters.

    "The concept is an interesting one, with several important potential applications," John Pendry, a physicist at Imperial College in London in the UK, told the publication. "It could find uses in stealth technology and camouflage."

    But Engheta, co-developer of the idea, said such applications can't even be considered yet.

    "Things like airplanes are very complex objects -- complex shape and complex materials -- and I do not know to what extent our concept can be applicable to that," Engheta told LiveScience. "We are still in the conceptual stage, and there are several important questions that have to be answered before any practical scenario can be considered."

    Plasmons are real

    You've seen cloaking technology at work on television, when blue backgrounds are used to make a person invisible. Alu and Engheta envision something far more sophisticated.

    Small Stuff


    Micromachines

    Microscopic Images
    as Art





    Objects are visible in the optical range because they reflect light, a process scientists call scattering. Objects absorb light, too, and what is absorbed is not seen. The sky is blue because the atmosphere scatters blue light more than red.

    A plasmonic cloaker would resonate with a particular wavelength of light, so that the wavelength would not scatter.

    Plasmons are real, a product of a strange characteristic of light, which is made up of both particles and waves. Plasmons are created when electrons on the surface of a metallic material move in rhythm. They have other odd properties.

    Back in 1998, researchers led by Thomas Ebbesen of the Louis Pasteur University in Strasbourg, France shone light on a sheet of gold foil that contained millions of tiny holes. The holes were smaller than the wavelength of the light, and Ebbesen expected no light to get through. Amazingly, more light came out the other side than what hit the holes.

    Follow-up research found that plasmons -- jittery little waves on the surface of the metal -- were snagging light and stuffing it through the holes. "When the energy and momentum of the photons match the energy and momentum of the plasmons, the photons are absorbed and radiated again on the other side," according to an article in the May 1998 edition of Photonics Spectra magazine.

    Reality sets in

    Engheta and Alu say objects coated with perhaps loops or coils of silver or gold might do the trick.

    But there are many hurdles. It is not clear how even a small object could disappear in daylight, which itself contains many different wavelengths, or colors, of light. Presumably a plasmonic device would have to be built to cloak each wavelength.

    Anything not perfectly ball-shaped presents additional problems. The researchers' calculations suggest "homogeneous spherical objects" in the nanoscale range -- really, really small -- could be rendered optically invisible.

    Practically speaking, the technology, if developed, might be used in antiglare materials or to improve microscopic imaging in about five years, Engheta said.
    Taken Down, With Hearts Alive
    Our Hearts Alive
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    I think that's a different technology than the ones I linked to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    It seems to be a common theme in this sub-forum to make sweeping generalizations about warfare. To say "there are no more armored knights" and "armor only stops weak weapons" is incorrect. Modern tanks like the Abhrams and Challenger will defeat most anti-tank weapons up to and probably including the Javelin missile. I recall a story from Desert Storm, where an American M1 Abhrams was immobilized in a sand pit. If my memory serves, it recieved 3 direct strikes to the turret from enemy T-series tanks and no damage. After destroying the enemy tanks (it put a sabot round through a dune and into a tank by reading it's thermal signature) a Hercules tow vehicle unsuccessfully tried to extracate the M1. It was decided that the immobilized M1 would be destroyed by a second M1 and abandoned. Two 105mm sabots fired into the vulnerable portion of the turret had little effect. The third penetrated, struck the internal magazine, and the munitions blast was vented out the roof, as designed. At that time, another tow vehicle arrived on scene and extricated the tank. Later, when the M1 was opened up by mechanics, the only damage to the vehicle was a misalignment of the barrel to the targeting system, necessitating a simple recalibration. To be sure, a full autopsy of the vehicle was performed and minimal damage was confirmed.

    Likewise, "defense side of the race is pretty much always the more expensive" is incorrect and "black ops" where nations blame others for attacks are mostly the stuff of Tom Clancy novels.

    To reiterate, warfare and the development of weapons is a very complex subject with so many variables, one cannot encompass any element of this struggle with blunt statements such as these.
    Black ops is more about just plain denying we did it, not blaming anyone else. Like when we gave all those AK-47's and rockets to the Afghanis in the early 1980's. The reason we didn't send M-16's is that we had to be able to plausibly deny our involvement. ..... That doesn't mean anyone had to necessarily believe our denials.

    As for tanks, I guess I can't say for sure. Are you saying the US military has no weapons capable of cutting through that armor? Depleted Uranium would just leave a few pock marks on the outer surface?

    To suggest that armor is still effective by describing what an army as primitive as the Iraqi army can do against it would be rather like pitting an armored Spanish knight in the 16th century against a bunch of Aztec warriors, who have neither Long Bows, Heavy Cross Bows, nor Gun Powder weapons, and then judging the viability of knights in armor on the basis of that engagement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Black ops is more about just plain denying we did it, not blaming anyone else. Like when we gave all those AK-47's and rockets to the Afghanis in the early 1980's. The reason we didn't send M-16's is that we had to be able to plausibly deny our involvement. ..... That doesn't mean anyone had to necessarily believe our denials.
    This noteable "black op" didn't require any sort of advanced stealth measures that might relate to this thread. The then, Director of the CIA William Casey was flown to an airbase in Islamabad in a C-141 Starlifter cargo plane. He ambled around training camps in Pakistan more or less asking people what kind of guns they wanted. Correct, we didn't send the Mujahideen M-16's but we gave them American made Stinger missile systems. The CIA also thoughtfully provided a handy Stinger missile training center complete with a neato TV screen you could shoot fake missiles at to electronically guage effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Are you saying the US military has no weapons capable of cutting through that armor?
    Almost, yeah. I'm going through the worldwide stockpile of anti-tank weapon systems in my head that could reasonably penetrate Chobham armour and that list is pretty short. Unless I'm mistaken, the M1 in my story repelled 105mm sabots but the tanks have since upgraded to 120mm cannons. There is a new Mid Range Kinetic Energy round in development for the 120mm as well. It is rocket assisted and intended to be the most lethal penetrator yet. I mentioned that the relatively new Javelin missile which was actually tested on an Abrams, may penetrate but how reliably I don't know. I've learned to be skeptical of published ballistics claims. Given it's limited production and cost of $80,000 per shot, I'm not too worried about the average bearded angry guy from the Hindu-Kush getting a hold of one. In any case, new armour is in development and will continue to advance to match new threats. It's a constant struggle with no end in sight.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    To suggest that armor is still effective by describing what an army as primitive as the Iraqi army can do against it would be rather like pitting an armored Spanish knight in the 16th century against a bunch of Aztec warriors, who have neither Long Bows, Heavy Cross Bows, nor Gun Powder weapons, and then judging the viability of knights in armor on the basis of that engagement.
    At the time of the Gulf War, Iraq was the fourth largest army in the world. As are most enemies a western nation is likely to conflict with, Iraq drew weaponry from the now antiquated Russian arms industry which, to my knowledge, still doesn't produce anything capable of stopping modern main-battle tanks.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Are you saying the US military has no weapons capable of cutting through that armor?
    Almost, yeah. I'm going through the worldwide stockpile of anti-tank weapon systems in my head that could reasonably penetrate Chobham armour and that list is pretty short. Unless I'm mistaken, the M1 in my story repelled 105mm sabots but the tanks have since upgraded to 120mm cannons. There is a new Mid Range Kinetic Energy round in development for the 120mm as well. It is rocket assisted and intended to be the most lethal penetrator yet. I mentioned that the relatively new Javelin missile which was actually tested on an Abrams, may penetrate but how reliably I don't know. I've learned to be skeptical of published ballistics claims. Given it's limited production and cost of $80,000 per shot, I'm not too worried about the average bearded angry guy from the Hindu-Kush getting a hold of one. In any case, new armour is in development and will continue to advance to match new threats. It's a constant struggle with no end in sight.
    That's pretty sweet.

    I think about half of what I like to come to this site for is good sci-fi material. The more true to life the better. The possibilities that open up if this Chobham armor could be applied to things other than tanks (like battle mechs..... you know... in fiction....) It could be pretty good material.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    35
    haiz there gonna be a headache between best radar in the world and the best stealth system in the world
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I do not dismiss anything out of Hand, I designed parts for the following radar systems, MR12 and AR5, I worked at Jodrell Bank designing parts for one of the smaller Radio telescopes, Spent almost 25 years all told in Radar systems and research, from 10Ghz right up to 80GHz - Have given talks to MOD reps - been places that look like they were from a Bond movie, Designed some early radar signature analysis kit for the UK Air defence system, Have undertaken Feasability studies at various times, made improvements to the 909 radar (UK Fleet Defensive system) designed a small part of the Space Shuttle system. I think I might just know a little about RADAR, SAR & PAR systems oops, almost forgot played a good part in IFF/SSR systems as well, I don't really have to debate, I know what is and what is not possible in this field, I know what's coming and when for at least the next 20 years or so, I am still in touch with former collegues, I say there is no maths or engineering principles today that permit the discovery of a cloaking device in the sense that a lay person understands it.

    If you wish to convince me that it (invisibility) is possible show me the maths, since all electronic equipment can be modelled perfectly with mathematics it should be possible. The truth is as I said, it is only acheivable at a single wavelength and not over any useful range, and only for very small objects, from a single angle. It's just another flight of fancy and when offered funding, who would not say it was 'theoretically possible' do you know who hard it is to fight for a budget?
    I can't believe I overlooked this. That last part makes sense. It seems like a lot of optical technologies run into problems when they try to deal with more than one wavelength of light.

    I'm curious, however: What if instead of trying to conceal a person, they focused on building a invisible robot? Could they apply the same principles that allow a chameleon to conceal itself?

    For that matter, I'm curious: Even as a suit for a human, is chameleon armor at least possible? Could we build a suit that, given sufficient time in a stationary position, was able to recolor itself to camoflauge perfectly with its surroundings?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11
    While absolute invisibility is, as pointed out here several times, either impossible, or probably more cost than effect. However, instead of focusing on absolutes, would it be more apt to design something the worked more like active camo? instead of trying to warp light around something and reconstruct it at multiple wave lengths, could we instead find a happy medium where it only resembles the backround at multiple viewing angles? I don't have any suggestions at this point myself, but perhaps someone else might have some.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Firstofthe4
    While absolute invisibility is, as pointed out here several times, either impossible, or probably more cost than effect.
    There are plenty of available forms of camouflage that militaries choose not to utilize because of cost. Before we start thinking about invisibility, why not spend a bit of extra money on decent, conventional personnel uniforms? The US Army adopted a worthless combat uniform colored bright white and teal that conforms to no environment and only becomes useful in concealment when dirty. This, when the far superior all terrain Multicam pattern is ready for production, albeit at a higher cost. Two uniforms for differing terrain would even be preferable, as the US Marine Corps or British Army uses.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11
    The effects of camoflage isn't what I was getting at. However, on the case of the army uniform, it is actually designed to be a type of urban camo targeted at our current theater. The intent of the camo was not to hide the person, but to break up outlines, therefore allowing for miscalculation when enemy surveyers attempt to place a number on a large group.

    The intent I was debating was more emphasized on the word "Active" rather than "Camo". The cost factor in standard uniform will always be the lowest bidder simply because you have to mass manufacture so many of them. The issue at hand would be specialized uniforms for specific special operations. I've seen the amount of money we pour into the budget which spans over at best 25 men sometimes, so the developement of an active camo, while expensive, would render enough benifits that the goverment would feasibly fund it.

    With all of the hypothetical situations, I'd like see if there isn't a way to find out how, should we try, would we develope an active camo to adapt to the enviorment and emulate similarities across all spectrums, or at least a large array.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I wonder if we could make a person invisible from just a single vantage point? From all other directions, you're totally exposed, but one individual observer can't see you?

    Maybe a wide angle lens could be used to film terrain behind you, and a projector projects the image in front of you through another lens designed to correct the optics so the observer sees exactly what they would have seen if you weren't there?

    It would be useful if you're trying to sneak past a single guard, who's position is known to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    53
    this stuff isn't possible guys!
    the more science you know, the less crap you get.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •