Prototype Chameleon Coming Soon?
- Thread starter Sturn
- Start date
far-trader
Mongoose
Years to go yet, and even then like Traveller's own chameleon hull tech, not without it's faults if you think about it.
Take the tank pictured as an example. Project a near perfect (and that's granting a lot) image of what you would see if the tank wasn't there...
First question: From what angle?
Second question: At what range?
Third question: At what relative elevation?
...etc., etc., you get the idea? It will be different for each of those. Perhaps subtly so, but discernible. And the human eye/mind is well practiced and sharp at detecting anomalies like this.
Then you have to ask, ok, if the enemy is close enough that the active camo is going to be visible, won't they notice the other aspects?
"D'uh, Sarge, what's that noise? Sounds like a tank but I don't see one? And what's with that dust plume? And what's making those tank tracks appear? How come the ground is shaking?"
Yeah, better hope the enemy IS that dense lol.
On the other hand if the enemy is so far away that those other elements aren't part of the picture, then they are probably so far away that the whole active camo is pointless.
Beginning to sound like a huge milgov pig trough development program to you yet?
Then there's the oops moments where the program crashes. Of course by the time the tech is developed enough I'm sure programmers will have overcome the annoying habit of the software to foul up. Right? ;-)
And what happens when you get the first bit of damage to the e-ink coating? Back to the factory for a repair? Or soldier on with these odd spots of metal showing through the scenery?
And planes? Give me a break. Who does visual targeting of supersonic fighters? lol
Oh, right, there's the invisible (Emperor's New Armour!) body armour for the soldiers. Might be useful for sneaky scouts and snipers, but seriously a bad idea at the fire team and up level. <blam> "OW! Hey watch where you're shooting! It's me!!" Sorry Joe, I was shooting at the enemy and didn't see you there! Nice invisible armour.
All in all which is to say, it's fine in a sci-fi setting where we don't think about it too much, or presume (magic wand hand wave) all the kinks are worked out. It does not look at all promising for the near future though. Certainly not in 5 years.
Take the tank pictured as an example. Project a near perfect (and that's granting a lot) image of what you would see if the tank wasn't there...
First question: From what angle?
Second question: At what range?
Third question: At what relative elevation?
...etc., etc., you get the idea? It will be different for each of those. Perhaps subtly so, but discernible. And the human eye/mind is well practiced and sharp at detecting anomalies like this.
Then you have to ask, ok, if the enemy is close enough that the active camo is going to be visible, won't they notice the other aspects?
"D'uh, Sarge, what's that noise? Sounds like a tank but I don't see one? And what's with that dust plume? And what's making those tank tracks appear? How come the ground is shaking?"
Yeah, better hope the enemy IS that dense lol.
On the other hand if the enemy is so far away that those other elements aren't part of the picture, then they are probably so far away that the whole active camo is pointless.
Beginning to sound like a huge milgov pig trough development program to you yet?
Then there's the oops moments where the program crashes. Of course by the time the tech is developed enough I'm sure programmers will have overcome the annoying habit of the software to foul up. Right? ;-)
And what happens when you get the first bit of damage to the e-ink coating? Back to the factory for a repair? Or soldier on with these odd spots of metal showing through the scenery?
And planes? Give me a break. Who does visual targeting of supersonic fighters? lol
Oh, right, there's the invisible (Emperor's New Armour!) body armour for the soldiers. Might be useful for sneaky scouts and snipers, but seriously a bad idea at the fire team and up level. <blam> "OW! Hey watch where you're shooting! It's me!!" Sorry Joe, I was shooting at the enemy and didn't see you there! Nice invisible armour.
All in all which is to say, it's fine in a sci-fi setting where we don't think about it too much, or presume (magic wand hand wave) all the kinks are worked out. It does not look at all promising for the near future though. Certainly not in 5 years.
far-trader
Mongoose
...and you have to consider the last line of the article:
"A spokesman for ...DARPA -- the U.S. Department of Defense's research and development wing -- told FoxNews.com on Tuesday that a similar program that utilized "negative index materials" was scuttled in 2009 due to unviable research."
How much anyone want to bet this gets canned for the same reasons, AFTER billions of government funds are sunk into it and several CEOs are stinking richer...
"A spokesman for ...DARPA -- the U.S. Department of Defense's research and development wing -- told FoxNews.com on Tuesday that a similar program that utilized "negative index materials" was scuttled in 2009 due to unviable research."
How much anyone want to bet this gets canned for the same reasons, AFTER billions of government funds are sunk into it and several CEOs are stinking richer...
Yeah - probably not so useful a tech on a tank. Tanks have lots of power and move a lot of mass, so its probably just more practical to start with...
But, consider - a lot of those same basic arguments apply to existing camo - i.e. why spend money coloring, maintaining and changing existing surface camo for vehicles, aircraft, and personnel? When it comes to life and death even a small edge can be worth a lot of coin...
Yes - it doesn't defeat other senses nor technology like radar, heat, conducted vibration, gravimetric, etc. (Speaking RL here.) These require other forms of 'stealth'. In your examples, active noise suppression (wave cancellation) and capturing exhaust (for later disposal - think Green
) can be easily implemented.
Mostly this could have value against lower TL opponents - bearing in mind that destroying expensive, high tech systems often can be done with cheap munitions, however, counter detection systems often don't follow this trend. For personnel and lightly armoured vehicles, one can certainly see value in this against sniper attacks and portable munitions like rocket launchers and mortars.
And, those taxpayer billions won't all be wasted - if it funds development of color eInk for me!
But, consider - a lot of those same basic arguments apply to existing camo - i.e. why spend money coloring, maintaining and changing existing surface camo for vehicles, aircraft, and personnel? When it comes to life and death even a small edge can be worth a lot of coin...
Yes - it doesn't defeat other senses nor technology like radar, heat, conducted vibration, gravimetric, etc. (Speaking RL here.) These require other forms of 'stealth'. In your examples, active noise suppression (wave cancellation) and capturing exhaust (for later disposal - think Green
) can be easily implemented.Mostly this could have value against lower TL opponents - bearing in mind that destroying expensive, high tech systems often can be done with cheap munitions, however, counter detection systems often don't follow this trend. For personnel and lightly armoured vehicles, one can certainly see value in this against sniper attacks and portable munitions like rocket launchers and mortars.
And, those taxpayer billions won't all be wasted - if it funds development of color eInk for me!
Nuclear Fridge Magnet
Mongoose
far-trader said:
Come on, how often does that happen? :roll:
Reminds me of the recent decision to scrap the Royal Navy's carrier-based strike aircraft... but don't worry, they're keeping the carriers!
As what? Expensive overflow car parking?
Well, no - to operate carrier aircraft from. But they've finally decided to build them properly, with catapults so it's not limited to STOVL aircraft.
The fact that the VTOL version of the F-35 is the one that's massively behind schedule may have been a big influence on this...
Always been the problem with 'stealth' for ground vehicles. Don't get me wrong; spending money on camoflage research is money well spent - some of the newer digital cammo is scaryily good compared to classic DPM patterns - but I'm not convinced by electronic stealth unless it's countering electronic detection.
On such a note; I suggest that in the not-too-distant future this observed effect might be fairly useful:
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=184385&CFID=24781350&CFTOKEN=58658330
The fact that the VTOL version of the F-35 is the one that's massively behind schedule may have been a big influence on this...
Always been the problem with 'stealth' for ground vehicles. Don't get me wrong; spending money on camoflage research is money well spent - some of the newer digital cammo is scaryily good compared to classic DPM patterns - but I'm not convinced by electronic stealth unless it's countering electronic detection.
On such a note; I suggest that in the not-too-distant future this observed effect might be fairly useful:
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=184385&CFID=24781350&CFTOKEN=58658330
DFW said:BP said:In your examples, active noise suppression (wave cancellation) and capturing exhaust (for later disposal - think Green
Capturing & storing the jet engine exhaust of an M1 can easily be done? :lol:
No.
Tank exhausts don't generally provide direct propulsion. :lol:
far-trader
Mongoose
Just wanted to toss a thanks to Sturn for posting, so he doesn't get the wrong impression from my negativity 
I like "new idea" links, even when they don't look promising.
And so also thanks for the additional related link locarno24.
I like "new idea" links, even when they don't look promising.
And so also thanks for the additional related link locarno24.
This type of camo does not need to be perfect to have merit - just good enough to give the seconds of advantage need to kill first and survive.
I doubt the military seriously is looking for this to be effective once the turret begins spewing munitions or when decidedly on the move (yet).
Consider, pre-placed assets can certainly take advantage of such dynamic camouflage - which negates much of the angle issues when placed properly before the right static terrain features… and when not on the move, these assets can be quite quiet and their exhausts (when one assumes systems not capable of running off batteries for required durations) readily dealt with.
Generally, the tank's role is not to 'sneak up' on infantry positions and blast them at point blank range, though they have been put to such use in the middle east in recent years. They are a mobile weapons platform and the top of the line are extremely well suited for some extraordinary accomplishments under very adverse conditions.
The example given was the CV90 pictured in the link and I did not state M1, you did.
And doubly wrong.
I never mentioned anything about capturing & storing jet engine exhaust (the CV90 has a diesel engine). Mainline M1's do typically use jet fuel (though the turbine engine is quite capable of using others) and their exhaust makes following on foot not fun.
IIRC, an engine was in development a few years back for mainline Abrams that sported almost no optically visible exhaust.
I made no mention of M1 class U.S. tanks in this thread - though I have, in fact, experience related to them. In one project (years ago, non-classified) having codeveloped a prototype for inspection of the nosecone bondline on their munitions (the shell is designed to burn away to prevent jamming the turret and the nosecone holds the warhead which comes in various types to accommodate different objectives - and, after being primed, can be (has been) quite lethal when the nosecone bondline fails).
I doubt the military seriously is looking for this to be effective once the turret begins spewing munitions or when decidedly on the move (yet).
Consider, pre-placed assets can certainly take advantage of such dynamic camouflage - which negates much of the angle issues when placed properly before the right static terrain features… and when not on the move, these assets can be quite quiet and their exhausts (when one assumes systems not capable of running off batteries for required durations) readily dealt with.
Generally, the tank's role is not to 'sneak up' on infantry positions and blast them at point blank range, though they have been put to such use in the middle east in recent years. They are a mobile weapons platform and the top of the line are extremely well suited for some extraordinary accomplishments under very adverse conditions.
Wrong.DFW said:According to you, yes.BP said:
The example given was the CV90 pictured in the link and I did not state M1, you did.
And doubly wrong.
I never mentioned anything about capturing & storing jet engine exhaust (the CV90 has a diesel engine). Mainline M1's do typically use jet fuel (though the turbine engine is quite capable of using others) and their exhaust makes following on foot not fun.
IIRC, an engine was in development a few years back for mainline Abrams that sported almost no optically visible exhaust.
I made no mention of M1 class U.S. tanks in this thread - though I have, in fact, experience related to them. In one project (years ago, non-classified) having codeveloped a prototype for inspection of the nosecone bondline on their munitions (the shell is designed to burn away to prevent jamming the turret and the nosecone holds the warhead which comes in various types to accommodate different objectives - and, after being primed, can be (has been) quite lethal when the nosecone bondline fails).
Hmmm ... I would prefer a less complex approach that would be closer toSturn said:
the rather successful methods used by real world animals. They usually do
not attempt to use the precise image of the terrain behind them for their
camouflage, they only use a much less detailed camouflage pattern that
adapts to the general features of the terrain behind them. I think that this
would work just as well, but cost much less money, and would also be ea-
sier to maintain and repair.
far-trader
Mongoose
rust said:
Yes. Quite and precisely. Even some of the older and simpler methods of visual deception are far easier and long proven. Not to mention heaps cheaper. But nobody will make money by promoting them. This sounds like nothing more than a boondoggle to me.
Everyone is hooked on the "looking glass" idea of invisibility because it's been done in the movies. Naturally if it's in the movies it must be possible right? ;-) And who wouldn't want an invisible armed forces right? But nobody seems to fully considers the practical application side, at least not in this article, and presumably if they're at the funding stage it has had to pass some scrutiny by the end users and government.
But application issues are just details to be worked out once the concept is advanced enough to demonstrate. IF the concept is EVER advanced enough to demonstrate. Until then, as long as the brains can keep shoveling the BS to the brass they keep feeding at the trough. Cynical? Yes. Which is not to say that great advancements haven't been inspired by sci-fi. They have. Which is not to say the milgov can't do great stuff. They have. I just don't think this is going to be one of them for a long time.
Certainly not in just 5 years. Which time frame sounds much more to me like a retirement plan. In just 5 years the CEOs will have enough money from the R&D to retire nicely. Or fund other interests to make even more heaps of money. Did I mention I'm a bit of cynic? ;-)
Certainly agree with healthy dose of cynicism far-trader
But in this case I'd reserve most of it for the article.
It did start with "Invisible tanks -- and maybe invisible soldiers -- may soon be charging onto battlefields." - :roll:
Doesn't actually sound like a huge high dollar taxpayer boon-doogle (and BAE has a reputation and a lot bigger fish on the fryer). They are doing what a number of others are doing as well - looking into the feasibility of using derived consumer related tech for military systems. (A lot more viable sounding and fiscally responsible than the negative index materials approach - though not as cool).
Tanks are expensive and that is not even speaking to the 'assets' inside. There is certainly enough justification (fiscal and otherwise) for doing research in this area. Research costs - in this case there could very definitely also be some commercial ROI (eInk enhancements could save trees, power, etc.) that translates into taxpayers getting something back.
As to the 'detail' of camo like rust pointed out, that is probably exactly what they are aiming for initially (one does hope). The article really wasn't that technical in nature (and from its headline and leader line definitely sensationalist).
Unlike conventional forms of camouflage, the images on the hull would change in concert with the changing environment, always insuring that the vehicle remains disguised.
(Of course, as 'news', the author choose to use the word 'always' )
(Dealing with IR from the exhaust for diesel is quite feasible - but that still leaves the whole IR signature - a completely different tech discussion.)
But in this case I'd reserve most of it for the article.
It did start with "Invisible tanks -- and maybe invisible soldiers -- may soon be charging onto battlefields." - :roll:
Doesn't actually sound like a huge high dollar taxpayer boon-doogle (and BAE has a reputation and a lot bigger fish on the fryer). They are doing what a number of others are doing as well - looking into the feasibility of using derived consumer related tech for military systems. (A lot more viable sounding and fiscally responsible than the negative index materials approach - though not as cool).
Tanks are expensive and that is not even speaking to the 'assets' inside. There is certainly enough justification (fiscal and otherwise) for doing research in this area. Research costs - in this case there could very definitely also be some commercial ROI (eInk enhancements could save trees, power, etc.) that translates into taxpayers getting something back.
As to the 'detail' of camo like rust pointed out, that is probably exactly what they are aiming for initially (one does hope). The article really wasn't that technical in nature (and from its headline and leader line definitely sensationalist).
To quote from the article:DFW said:
Unlike conventional forms of camouflage, the images on the hull would change in concert with the changing environment, always insuring that the vehicle remains disguised.
(Of course, as 'news', the author choose to use the word 'always'
)The discussion was about visible optical spectrum - not IR.DFW said:
(Dealing with IR from the exhaust for diesel is quite feasible - but that still leaves the whole IR signature - a completely different tech discussion.)
