Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech Paints For Military
pmacwill wrote to us with a recent article on Pennet in regards to the U.S. military's proposed use of nanotech paints. Actually, it goes beyond proposal -- and beyond paint, as it would allow vehicles to change camo patterns very easily, and would also repair micro-cracks and fractures without the need for service.
Army researchers eye nanomachine-based 'smart' paints for combat vehicles
by John Keller
PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. -- U.S. Army experts are trying to embed microscopic electromechanical machines in paint that could detect and heal cracks and corrosion in the bodies of combat vehicles, as well as give vehicles the chameleon-like quality of rapidly altering camouflage to blend in with changing operating environments.
Officials of the Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (TACOM-ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., are working with scientists at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark, N.J., to develop nanotechnology-based "smart" coatings for Army vehicles and other materiel.
Unlike today's paint coatings on battlefield vehicles, Army experts seek to develop paints with the ability to self-correct because of changing circumstances and tell the user of potential anomalies such as corrosion or adhesion problems.
Today's conventional paints are labor intensive to apply, and potentially hazardous to the people working with them, Army officials say. In addition, most of these coatings need to be touched-up by hand, which can hide damage to the metal or other substrate material.
As a result, Army leaders estimate the total cost for U.S. Department of Defense corrosion-related problems at $10 billion per year -- $2 billion of which is related to painting and paint-scraping operations.
To rectify these problems experts from Picatinny and the New Jersey Institute of Technology plan to develop a prototype paint with nanomachine powders consisting of tiny machines that act as gears, motors, and electronic switches at the atomic level.
These "smart" paints should be able to alert maintenance technicians of potential problems with the coating, in addition to modifying their physical characteristics on command.
These future "smart" coatings will involve far more, however, than simply brushing on paint from a can, points out Joe Agento, program integration manager at the TACOM-ARDEC Industrial Ecology Center at Picatinny Arsenal.
"Rather than paints, we are talking about coatings, which could be electroplated, or put on with physical vapor deposition qualities. We are talking about more things than paints. They could be metallic or have other qualities," Agento says.
"We're trying to prototype a coating to replace the primers and top coats we use today, and develop a one-system coating that incorporates nanomachines within the coating itself," says Laura Battista, environmental engineer at the Industrial Ecology Center.
"Now we are looking at the first stage -- a coating with nanomachines," Battista says. "We want to determine what the nanomachines are that we need; we still have to determine what that nanomachine would be -- switches, motors, or gears -- to allow the coating to change on command."
Vehicle operators might quickly change the camouflage paint scheme on vehicles with "smart" coatings with an electrical impulse, Battista explains. "What we hope this coating can do is amazing. We're also looking at making it seem invisible."
Researchers will begin by determining what the properties of a "smart" coating would be. Later, researchers would develop a prototype, before applying the coating to a tank or other Army vehicle, Battista says.
A prototype "smart" coating may be developed as early as 2005, she says. "Once you already have the properties of the coating, such as the camouflage properties, we hope that changing the camouflage is as simple as changing pixels in the coating; it shouldn't be that difficult," she says.
Assuming that researchers receive the necessary funding, Battista speculates that "smart" coatings might be deployed with active combat forces sometime between 2005 and 2009.
Military & Aerospace Electronics October, 2002
Author(s) : John Keller
John
Yeah...but being invisible doesn't protect you from physical collisions.
Besides...I don't think they'll be able to change color that quickly, at least, not for a long time. (Though, looking at the acceleration of things, "long" might only mean ten to twenty years.)
What's this Submit thingy do?
All of those operations are performed by 'lowly' soldiers. ;)
Actually, they aren't anymore. Army vehicles must be painted with CARC (Chemical Agent Resistant Coating) paint, which is very hazardous to apply and generally is only applied by contractors or at the depot (like the one where I work). Big, special sealed paint booths are required to CARC paint a vehicle. This is why painting stuff is so expensive.
Of course, this could mean labor problems at the depot and with contractors, but that only affects civilians.
Unless they work up a nanopaint formula that's meant to be applied to rocks in the company area, soldiers will have plenty of painting to do for the forseeable future.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
A long time ago (1986 or so) I worked for a summer at the Night Vision Electro-optics lab at Ft. Belvoir, Maryland. The topic of study was infrared camouflage.
Visual camouflage works by fooling your eye into thinking the object is part of the background. This is done by breaking up profile, matching background colors, and various other tricks.
The same problem exists in the infrared, except you have the additional wrinkle of controlling IR emission (just like carrying around a flashlight blows visual camouflage).
IR happens to be a useful wavelength for detection, because it readily propagates through the atmosphere without loss (over 99% transmission, with exception of two frequencies near 2500 and 25000 where water absorbs and another absorbion band for CO2), and because most objects radiate it (e.g., people, sunlight on the hood of a vehicle, engines, leading edges on wingtips. etc.).
In the 2500 - 25000 nanometer range, to match up with the forested/vegetation background in Maryland, we needed to duplicate the chlorophyl curve, which is the dominant background emission spectra. And, pretty much, they were able to do so, with some expensive nets and other mechanisms. They were trying for an integrated visual/IR/radar camouflage system (the radar folks worked in the same lab).
It's very interesting to read about these paints, since this appears to be the first reasonably viable mechanism for achieving this. They would need a chlorophyl pattern for vegetated regions, a desert pattern for deserts, etc. They would also still need to baffle and reduce IR exhaust, since paint won't help camouflage heated air or hot gun barrels.
The mechanisms previewed so far in the literature (electromechanical gears, electroptical properties) wouldn't likely generate much signature, if any. However, there might be some operation characteristic (e.g., power on) that could be detected with a SQUID (superconducting quantum interference device). However, the SQUID would pick up the spark plugs in the tank long before the electronic signals to the paint.
--Adam
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
I work for a small research company that does a lot of stuff for the DoD.(Ok, I work when I'm not trolling slashdot, really.) Every so often, it varies by the branch, they throw out a big list(think 3" book) technologies they want. It's very public . I assure you very little, if anything from those solicitations works. Most of the work we do is evaluating if some methods of attacking a problem are even remotely plasable. Once some small fry like us proves it do-able, and reasonable then they'll usually throw it to one of the "Big Boys", Raytheon etc, to turn into something they can directly use.
Bottom line, the miliary wants lots of things, most of them would make a Sci-Fi author giggle.
- RustyTaco
I'd actually bet money that most people probably wouldn't buy this kind of car.
Why?
Well, I'm definitely not speaking from experience, but wouldn't radar-sucking paint have a somewhat non-shiny appearance? I know with an 8 year old car, the paint is starting to show signs of age, and newer cars all look shinier. Somewhat better.
But I'll keep mine, and maybe suck up some radar along the way.
Karnal
You don't really need the Stealth's paint to make a stealth car. Car & Driver magazine found out several years ago that a Black Car, with no trim & pop up headlamps is practically invisible to radar. (Sorry no link - it's an early 90's issue, and therefore preweb)
Laying down on the desert floor is one thing, but imagine the same guy sprinting down a supermarket isle and the suit trying to keep up with the thousands of colors and shapes flying at it..some SERIOUS processing power would be needed to handle that kind of rapid changing.
How is that even the tiniest bit different than what a video camera hooked up to a TV does?
It captures an image and reproduces it elsewhere in real-time. That certainly doesn't require massive processing power, and the resolution of this device doesn't even need to be as high as a video camera, since all you're trying to do is blend in. Camouflage works perfectly well for blending in, and it's hardly a high-resolution duplicate of the surroundings.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Negative.
Black cars with no trim and a low profile are practically invisible to LIDAR not radar.
Has something to do with finding a decent reflective surface to bounce the beam off of.
(Another reason the Ohio Highway Gestapo mandates the use of front plates)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass