Star Trek-style force-field armour being developed by military scientists
97 replies, posted
I've known about this for a while, when I applied for a job at DSTL a few weeks ago I mentioned it. It seemed to do good, they were pleased I show interest in the companies projects.
Anyway, electrically charged armour, its not designed to be fitted to every vehicle in the British army, I doubt if it would enhance the protection on something like a Challenger much at all. It is intended to be fitted to lighter vehicles which typically only protect against small arms or cannon fire, and rely on SLAT cages for protection from RPG's and other shaped charges. Therefore it needs to be a lightweight system capable of being fitted to anything from a Snatch up to and including a Warrior, just like a SLAT cage. If it works will see an end to the SLAT cage. I know under the FRES programme it is to be fitted to the Piranha V APC/IFV and if selected, either the BAe variant of the CV90, or a variant of the ASCOD to fill the reconnaissance role. FRES is the biggest change the British Army has ever made, and this new armour is only a part of it.
Edit, SLAT cages aren't reusable. ECA seems to be, hence the replacement.
[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;20892092]How about we develop a technology that prevents wars?
On second thought, we tried that.
First bombs, then guns, then rockets, then machine guns, the atomic bomb, ICBMs, and soforth. People always said they'd be too horrible for anyone to conceive of using in a war. Heh.[/QUOTE]
The atomic bomb has ended war for the United States. We've not declared war since world war 2.
I know everyone believes that is just a formality, but it isn't. War is very VERY different than every conflict which has occurred since. War occurs between two nations on par with one another seeking to destroy the other. Every subsequent engagement by the United States has been a military engagement. We've (largely) made it a point to not intentionally target civilian targets simply because they were civilian.
In war, this is not the case. In war you intentionally target civilian centers, specifically those which support the war effort in some fashion.
The atmoic bomb brought an end to war for the United States. No two nuclear capable countries can ever declare war upon one another because the instant one starts to lose, (assuming they don't nuke each other day one) then they nuke their opponent. Any non-nuclear countries are generally so minuscule militarily that a declaration of war isn't necessary and a limited conflict can be fought.
[QUOTE=GunFox;20894380]The atomic bomb has ended war for the United States. We've not declared war since world war 2.
I know everyone believes that is just a formality, but it isn't. War is very VERY different than every conflict which has occurred since. War occurs between two nations on par with one another seeking to destroy the other. Every subsequent engagement by the United States has been a military engagement. We've (largely) made it a point to not intentionally target civilian targets simply because they were civilian.
In war, this is not the case. In war you intentionally target civilian centers, specifically those which support the war effort in some fashion.
The atmoic bomb brought an end to war for the United States. No two nuclear capable countries can ever declare war upon one another because the instant one starts to lose, (assuming they don't nuke each other day one) then they nuke their opponent. Any non-nuclear countries are generally so minuscule militarily that a declaration of war isn't necessary and a limited conflict can be fought.[/QUOTE]
There's a fuzzy line between "war" and "military conflict". When Iraq was invaded we thought they had WMDs. Turns out they didn't, but the point still remains that the US, UK, France, etc. were all willing to fight against a country that could have nuked us.
(Unless you define WMDs as chemical or biological weapons)
/uneducated reply
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;20894521]There's a fuzzy line between "war" and "military conflict". When Iraq was invaded we thought they had WMDs. Turns out they didn't, but the point still remains that the US, UK, France, etc. were all willing to fight against a country that could have nuked us.
(Unless you define WMDs as chemical or biological weapons)
/uneducated reply[/QUOTE]
Iraq was one big clusterfuck. The stated reason for the invasion was bullshit from the start.
There was no fuzziness in Iraq. It was a military engagement. Civilians were seen as innocents and casualties were avoided. If it was a war there would have likely been weeks if not months of bombings of the cities until anything above a single story was rubble.
Wow Britain are on a role. The first working prototype cloaking device, now this. Lets hope we don't give this one to everybody else too.
Holy shit this is awesome.
This is kinda the same
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_yz_ONZltA&feature=player_embedded[/media]
[QUOTE=Fat_Primate;20887234]Sweet Britain is doing something cool for once, next on the list warp drive.[/QUOTE]
Phasers next, then warp. Then an NX-01.
First we had prototype cloaking, then we had prototype directed-energy weapons, and now we're getting prototype energy shields! Yep, this sure is the 21st century...
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;20893236]Obviously this shield's weak point is that it can only deflect one projectile and then has to take time recharging, it's still better than nothing, gives time for the vehicle to escape/fire back.
Don't need to go that far, just overload the shield by firing 2 RPGs or more.[/QUOTE]
I doubt them using 60mhz Cores for this.
[QUOTE=ironman17;20897502]First we had prototype cloaking, then we had prototype directed-energy weapons, and now we're getting prototype energy shields! Yep, this sure is the 21st century...[/QUOTE]
At least the first and last have no working prototypes, only theories.
Real active cloaking is extremely hard to make. There is still no real concept on how to make anything seriously invisible, even at great range. My bets are that they will always stay at passive, or somewhat spontaneously assimilating to it's environment.
On topic with the energetic shielding - Again, it's only a bare concept. I see many problems with it.
Basically, it would either only work on purely explosive projectiles, or, it would need extreme amounts of energy, and probably would be of one use nature.
Also, usage in personal armors seems almost totally impossible to me. We don't even have any materials that could contain enough energy that could be discharged, while leaving the human still lift it. It would have been to be extremely heavy, and even if they got it working, they would need even more weight used to save the user himself from discharges of the armor.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;20898701][B]At least the first and last have no working prototypes, only theories.[/B]
Real active cloaking is extremely hard to make. There is still no real concept on how to make anything seriously invisible, even at great range. My bets are that they will always stay at passive, or somewhat spontaneously assimilating to it's environment.
On topic with the energetic shielding - Again, it's only a bare concept. I see many problems with it.
Basically, it would either only work on purely explosive projectiles, or, it would need extreme amounts of energy, and probably would be of one use nature.
Also, usage in personal armors seems almost totally impossible to me. We don't even have any materials that could contain enough energy that could be discharged, while leaving the human still lift it. It would have been to be extremely heavy, and even if they got it working, they would need even more weight used to save the user himself from discharges of the armor.[/QUOTE]
he means this electrical armour I do believe for this last part
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;20898701]At least the first and last have no working prototypes, only theories.
Real active cloaking is extremely hard to make. There is still no real concept on how to make anything seriously invisible, even at great range. My bets are that they will always stay at passive, or somewhat spontaneously assimilating to it's environment.
On topic with the energetic shielding - Again, it's only a bare concept. I see many problems with it.
Basically, it would either only work on purely explosive projectiles, or, it would need extreme amounts of energy, and probably would be of one use nature.
Also, usage in personal armors seems almost totally impossible to me. We don't even have any materials that could contain enough energy that could be discharged, while leaving the human still lift it. It would have been to be extremely heavy, and even if they got it working, they would need even more weight used to save the user himself from discharges of the armor.[/QUOTE]
The MOD announced in 2007 they had a working prototype of an active camoflage, ready for implimentation by 2012
[QUOTE=Spartex;20899195]The MOD announced in 2007 they had a working prototype of an active camoflage, ready for implimentation by 2012[/QUOTE]
Yeah, on 1m square of glass sheet, with half a ton electronics behind it.
I won't believe anything about it until they show working prototype vehicle, including reliability tests.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;20887568]Actually, imagine this on a Challenger.[/QUOTE]
It's a Challenger, the only thing that can kill a Challenger, is a Challenger, it doesn't need this.
[editline]09:53PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;20894521]There's a fuzzy line between "war" and "military conflict". When Iraq was invaded we thought they had WMDs. Turns out they didn't, but the point still remains that the US, UK, France, etc. were all willing to fight against a country that could have nuked us.
([b]Unless you define WMDs as chemical or biological weapons[/b])
/uneducated reply[/QUOTE]
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technnical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons
^
You were saying?
[QUOTE=Fat_Primate;20887234]Sweet Britain is doing something cool for once, next on the list warp drive.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive[/url]
Soon...
They had them in Star Trek in the 50s, so I don't see what the big deal is.
[quote]Although it would last for only a fraction of a second, if timed correctly it could prevent rocket propelled grenades[/quote]
Hm, so it behaves like a Pyro's compressed air blast? Sure this would be useful, but depending on the situation would it even help? A mistake can completely invalidate its purpose in combat, and I'd imagine it'd cost a heap of money to produce just even one.
[QUOTE=Nodon;20904731]Hm, so it behaves like a Pyro's compressed air blast? Sure this would be useful, but depending on the situation would it even help? A mistake can completely invalidate its purpose in combat, and I'd imagine it'd cost a heap of money to produce just even one.[/QUOTE]
There are countermeasure devices in use at the moment which work by shooting down incoming projectiles with their own, and they're reliable.
This works in a similar way but uses a magnetic field instead of a solid object. The aim of it is to stop shaped charges that cause massive damage if they hit directly. It could easily save the life of everyone on board the vehicle, multiple times.
Making one small enough to carry around in a squad would be awesome.
If someone fires an RPG at a squad, some sort of sensor could activate it.
This is indeed very promising.
There is a way to defeat this armor, very easily. fire one rocket and empty the supercapacitors and fire another one right after before the capacitor can re charge.
[QUOTE=blah45;20906369]There is a way to defeat this armor, very easily. fire one rocket and empty the supercapacitors and fire another one right after before the capacitor can re charge.[/QUOTE]
Tandem charges do exactly that and they've existed since the late Cold War era. I haven't seen any reports on tandem charge weapons like the RPG-29 or TOW-2A being tested against this electric reactive armor so we won't really know how it'll deal with that.
More useless military equipment and a waste of money
yippie
The first thing I thought when I heard this was, "Will they need to retreat to let their shields recharge?"
Well it obviously will have a few flaws at first, but I'm confident that they will work out all the kinks and possibly create a real life force field in the far future.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;20907748]More useless military equipment and a waste of money
yippie[/QUOTE]
You have no idea what you are talking about.
We have a huge issue with armor weight right now. We want to make lightweight personnel carriers so that they can travel over shoddy 3rd world roads and bridges without collapsing them and causing the vehicle to become stuck. But even simple MRAP vehicles are severely hindered by where they can go due to armor weight. Even uparmored humvees can't go some places. There are locations where we basically have to waltz in with our asses hanging out because we simply cannot haul armor into the region.
This system would allow for drastically lighter armored vehicles. Perhaps even armored aircraft.
Beyond the military applications are space applications. One of the hurdles for manned space flight is finding a way to stop micrometeorites.
GunFox is right, an update to armor and protection is needed drastically to keep troops from getting injured or KIA.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;20911939]GunFox is right, an update to armor and protection is needed drastically to keep troops from getting injured or KIA.[/QUOTE]
That's not my point, why the hell are they getting shot at in the first place is beyond me. The uk government should focus on pulling out of this useless war then fucking spending millions of pounds to try and put a band-aid on the issue.
[editline]07:43AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;20911862]You have no idea what you are talking about. [/QUOTE]
for the record, i do know what I'm talking about. It's more shit for a useless war.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;20912110]That's not my point, why the hell are they getting shot at in the first place is beyond me. The uk government should focus on pulling out of this useless war then fucking spending millions of pounds to try and put a band-aid on the issue.
[editline]07:43AM[/editline]
for the record, i do know what I'm talking about. It's more shit for a useless war.[/QUOTE]
Yeah because we are never going to be fighting in such a situation again.
This IS the new face of war. You should get used to it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.