Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Stealth British Tanks?
RaptorZ    10/31/2007 7:15:05 PM
Army tests James Bond style tank that is 'invisible' Last updated at 11:56am on 30th October 2007 Comments (4) New technology that can make tanks invisible has been unveiled by the Ministry of Defence. In secret trials last week, the Army said it had made a vehicle completely disappear and predicted that an invisible tank would be ready for service by 2012. The new technology uses cameras and projectors to beam images of the surrounding landscape onto a tank. Scroll down for more... Now you see it: How the tank might look with background images beamed onto the side The result is that anyone looking in the direction of the vehicle only sees what is beyond it and not the tank itself. A soldier, who was at the trials, said: "This technology is incredible. If I hadn't been present I wouldn't have believed it. I looked across the fields and just saw grass and trees - but in reality I was staring down the barrel of a tank gun." Breakthrough: The MoD's 'Q', Professor Sir John Pendry How the technology works in a combat situation is very sensitive, but the MoD is believed to be testing a military jacket that works on the same principles. It is the type of innovation normally associated with James Bond, and the brains behind the latest technology is the MoD's very own "Q" - Professor Sir John Pendry, of Imperial College London. He said the only drawback was the reliability of the cameras and projectors. But he added: "The next stage is to make the tank invisible without them - which is intricate and complicated, but possible." ============================== Thoughts? Sounds cool, and I remember seeing these clothes that the creator of them wore in the city and it looked like where he was walking on the sidewalk was just that....the sidewalk.... So with that said, is the tech already available or is this a new state of the art military option?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
bob the brit       10/31/2007 7:25:27 PM
here's the link for anyone interested in seeing the original article
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       10/31/2007 7:26:30 PM
or if that doesn't work
 
h**p://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490669&in_page_id=1770
 
Quote    Reply

EW3       10/31/2007 7:37:41 PM
While it is touted for tanks, it would actually be very useful for static installations.  Make an radar antenna or SAM launcher disappear.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       11/1/2007 6:01:37 AM
will backup the static use.
 
 
it will cost too much and not be as effective for mobile units. you can still detect movement if looking at the target and it won't be long at all before some optical computer gear will be able to spot straight away with some nice processing.
also does not take in to account radar, thermal imaging, lrf..... ect
 
Paul
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       11/1/2007 9:50:42 AM

it will cost too much and not be as effective for mobile units. you can still detect movement if looking at the target and it won't be long at all before some optical computer gear will be able to spot straight away with some nice processing.

also does not take in to account radar, thermal imaging, lrf..... ect

 

Paul

Define "Cost too much", Paul.  Nothing is perfect, everything has flaws- but it is an advantage, and every advantage gives you an edge.  If this gives you enough of an edge to kill an enemy before he kills you, money well spent, no?
The West can't afford to throw away hordes of cheap, replacable cannon fodder in the Long War like the enemy can.  Nor would our society permit it.  Better to cost too much money than too much blood.

SGTObvious
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       11/1/2007 10:28:37 AM




it will cost too much and not be as effective for mobile units. you can still detect movement if looking at the target and it won't be long at all before some optical computer gear will be able to spot straight away with some nice processing.



also does not take in to account radar, thermal imaging, lrf..... ect



 



Paul



Define "Cost too much", Paul.  Nothing is perfect, everything has flaws- but it is an advantage, and every advantage gives you an edge.  If this gives you enough of an edge to kill an enemy before he kills you, money well spent, no?

The West can't afford to throw away hordes of cheap, replacable cannon fodder in the Long War like the enemy can.  Nor would our society permit it.  Better to cost too much money than too much blood.

SGTObvious


not cost effective... the money would be better used on something else..... the money comes out of a budget and that means the extra "protection" for the tank means that someone else doesn't have the stuff they need.
would this sort of tech be of any use against javelin or other IR seeking anti tank missiles???? spend the money defeating that threat.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Paul question....   11/1/2007 10:37:10 AM
not cost effective... the money would be better used on something else..... the money comes out of a budget and that means the extra "protection" for the tank means that someone else doesn't have the stuff they need.
would this sort of tech be of any use against javelin or other IR seeking anti tank missiles???? spend the money defeating that threat.<paul1970

Would you say that they should not do research anymore? The value of this thing is that it helps the owner be the first one to see the opponent. First see first kill. It probably is not cost effective today but with research some affordable benefits will help give an additional quality edge to British Challengers over Ivan the Putin or the next Saddam.
 
Good work, keep it up I say.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       11/1/2007 11:29:03 AM

not cost effective... the money would be better used on something else..... the money comes out of a budget and that means the extra "protection" for the tank means that someone else doesn't have the stuff they need.


would this sort of tech be of any use against javelin or other IR seeking anti tank missiles???? spend the money defeating that threat.<paul1970

Would you say that they should not do research anymore? The value of this thing is that it helps the owner be the first one to see the opponent. First see first kill. It probably is not cost effective today but with research some affordable benefits will help give an additional quality edge to British Challengers over Ivan the Putin or the next Saddam.

 

Good work, keep it up I say.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky


i'm at an in-between with this one, i definitely see it's application being better suited to a static role, but who knows it's early days yet, then again, i also see the tank becoming more and more obsolete.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Secret "Death Ray" research...   11/1/2007 11:48:20 AM
 
Some UK clown decided to perform research on energy rays directed against attacking aircraft. What he ended up discovering was Radar and it helped save the Emerald Isles of my Grand Parents in the Battle of Brittan and the Battle of the Atlantic.
 
Blind alleys in research are not necessarily a bad thing. Do the work and see where it takes you.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       11/1/2007 12:00:23 PM

not cost effective... the money would be better used on something else..... the money comes out of a budget and that means the extra "protection" for the tank means that someone else doesn't have the stuff they need.


would this sort of tech be of any use against javelin or other IR seeking anti tank missiles???? spend the money defeating that threat.<paul1970

Would you say that they should not do research anymore? The value of this thing is that it helps the owner be the first one to see the opponent. First see first kill. It probably is not cost effective today but with research some affordable benefits will help give an additional quality edge to British Challengers over Ivan the Putin or the next Saddam.

 

Good work, keep it up I say.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky


obviously you keep working on it but I see this more for static use or SF use rather than on MBTs. if it only counters eyes on rather than tech on then it has limited use.
Paul
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics