Electric Armor Tested For Light Armored Vehicles

joncrie writes "The Telegraph is reporting that British MoD scientists are now testing a new electric armor to protect light armored vehicles against RPGs. The new electric armour is made up of a highly-charged capacitor that is connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. When an RPG warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection and thousands of amps of electricity vaporises most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull. The initial development was mentioned previously."

Comments

Two Shots?

[Alphanos]

So. if I understand correctly, this only vapourizes the incoming shot once it's most of the way through the armor. What happens when a second shot hits the same location? Alternatively, what if 2-3 shots are fired simultaneously at different locations in an attempt to overload the electrical system? It would be ironic if the electric armor protected the tank against these multiple shots only to kill its electrical system and immobilize it.

Interesting...

[Cheerio Boy]

Could a similar method be used to weld a breach in a ship's hull while at sea?

Suppose you made a ship with an insulated two-layer outer hull. The two layers are both insulated from the ship. In between the layers put something like coated metal pellets with a low melting point.

Something breaches the hull and you apply a massize but _localized_ charge around the area to melt the metal and seal the breach.

I think the biggest problem, duh, is how much of the charge gets leached into the water or the internals of the ship when sealing is taking place.

Then there's that whole frying the occupants things...

I never said it was foolproof! ;-)

Just like RIAA vs. File traders

[Superfreaker]

This sounds familiar, they come up with something to get us, then we come up with something to stop them...

Napster - centralized server (shut down)
Kazaa - Decentralized server (lawsuits pending)
Encrypted p2p networks (riaa = screwed)

Bazooka - (heavy plating neutralized)
RPG - (liquid copper spewing heads!)
Electric Field - (emp? = screwed)

Once you come up with a fix, you force the technology to evolve to its next form faster tahn it would have on its own.

Just MHO.

While this is helpful...

[dotslashconfig]

Although this is a step in the right direction, terrorists also seem to be advancing in their use of tank-busting mechanisms. As weapons proliferation continues, and more advanced technologies become readily available in the world's "hot spots", the greater threat is posed by ever-popular depleted uranium shells.

These DU shells have become a large problem because of the amount of R&D that went into these weapons - weapons that were subsequently banned by most of the western world for their hazardous properties (see also: http://www.sundayherald.com/32522). Then again, when has banning munitions ever stopped fundamentalists from using/supporting these devices?

Re:While this is helpful...

[Mad_Rain]

okay, I'll rise to the bait. I work at a Veteran's Affairs Clinic and have seen in patient charts "Vet has been exposed to high levels of depleted uranium from [combat in some location]." Doctors then go on to suggest that it may play a part in the following symptoms that the Vet is experiencing, and they have a long list...

This is just another example of environmentalist propaganda that isn't based on fact.

Uh huh. There is a lot of research to the contrary.

Foiled By water balloons?

[The_Real_Nire]

So if I understand this right, a direct hit from an RPG would cause a breech in the outter hull, exposing the inner, charged hull. While teh rpg would apparently not affect the vehicle, whay happens if they use those grenade looking water balloons on the hole the RPG made? will this short circuit the system, and possibly fry anyone inside? We need impenetrable EMP forcefields or adamantium hulls instead I think. :P

Only works with conductive charges

[bojanb]

Well, it seems that an anti-tank rocket filled with non-conductive charge would be able to defeat this armor, but is such warhead feasible to make?

One would need material that is as dense as metal, can be vaporized easily but is still a poor conductor. Any slahdotters aware of something like this?

Re:Only works with conductive charges

[CdBee]

"as dense as metal, can be vaporized easily but is still a poor conductor"

Granite. There's no technical reason I can imagine that would stop you using a stone warhead on a rocket.

Re:Only works with conductive charges

[gillbates]

But the use of electric armour, which will protect against all shaped-charge warheads including artillery and tank shells, would reduce the threat to zero. [emphasis mine]

Which is BS if I ever heard it:

• Artillery shells explode on impact; it's the gas overpressure wave which destroys the armor. This system would only increase the danger of artillery - a round that would formerly be unable to penetrate the armor could now destroy the vehicle. The explosion would first deform the outer plate to touch the armor; the electricity would then vaporize the vehicle's own armor, and the explosion would continue into the vehicle.
• Anti-Tank rounds like the SABOT penetrate armor so quickly and have so much kinetic energy that the charge would probably not have enough time to vaporize the round before it penetrated the armor; even should it melt the round, the energy alone would force the liquid metal through the armor anyway. (Think about it - if a wall of compressed gas can penetrate armor, wouldn't liquified metal do the same? RPG's fail because they are relatively slow, but SABOT rounds carry no explosive - they rely on the speed of the projectile to provide armor penetration, not the use of a shaped charge).

How many hits can it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the current technique for assaulting an armored vehicle to hit it with multiple RPGs from different sides until destroyed?

Re:How many hits can it take?

[ctid]

If you read the article, it says that they tested it by firing multiple RPG rounds at it. The target suffered only cosmetic damage and was able to leave under its own power.

Re:I just know you'll come and bitchslap this post

[NanoGator]

"...down to -1, Offtopic because you can't handle criticism, michael, but you know what? I just don't care."

Heh you think Michael did it? Doubtful.

A.) You should just email him or the staff directly.

B.) Bitching about it here can only cause other people to bitch, and really the discussion is about the armor. Go through the right channels before making a public stink. This little lesson in life will help you down the road.

"But godammnit, michael, how hard would it have been to actually read the fucking article and realise - "Hey! This is a couple of years old! Maybe this isn't worth posting!" - and this is also a dupe ."

Why is one story pissing you off? I mean, yeesh, it's not like you cancel cable because Will and Grace is on. Lighten up, man.

"By the time you read this my subscription will have been cancelled. I'm fed up, michael. I'm not subsidising this site so you can post this trash."

Why did you even subscribe in the first place? It's not like Slashdot was misrepresented to you. It's not like you paid to have access here. It's not like new content was revealed to you as a result of it. Honestly man, calm down.

I agree with some of the complaints you have about Slashdot, but you threw money at them out of your own stupidity. Retard.

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[Richard_at_work]

Apart from the fact that RGPs took out several Abrams M1A1 tanks during the course of the conflict. It would seem that the M1A1 has a flaw when dealing with close combat situations, its engine compartment isnt as protected as the rest of the system and could be taken out using an RPG.

Links:
Tank destroyed by mysterious weapon
Same story as above
Better story

The latest weapon from the U.S. Air Force

[demachina]

Here is a more interesting new weapon in development by the U.S., courtesy of Raytheon(an ironic name in this case). Its the U.S. military's Active Denial System scheduled to start trials this fall. Its a millimeter wave beam weapon designed for non lethal crowd "control". The beam penetrates just below the your skin and sets off every pain receptor. Volunteers at Raytheon subjected to it described it as "unbearably painful, saying they felt as though their bodies were on fire". It should put an end to any unauthorized demonstrations against the U.S. or any of its allies.

Its an execeptionally good riot control device since it leaves no physical evidence, especially if the antenna is somewhat concealed. No clouds of tear gas, no protesters eyes burning from mace, no batons swinging, no soldiers shooting rubber or lead bullets to stoke sympathy from TV viewers. The protester will just start screaming in pain and running away. Sure to be a big hit in Israel and Iraq.

I'm wondering if they are working on an indoor version since it is a perfect tool for torture, it leaves no marks. The victim wouldn't even know what was happening to them.

It appears I now have a good reason to wear a tin foil hat, or really a full body suit like everyone keeps telling me I should. Its not just a Bush Big Brother Weapon either. I believe it was started by Clinton and is roundly endorsed by John Kerry.

This weapon is perfect for a dictatorship wanting to keep its people in line.

How does it work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I RTA but I still don't understand how passing a current through a warhead is going to instantaneously change its momentum. A "jet of hot copper" traveling at 1000 mph with kinetic energy q is still traveling at 1000 mph in the same direction even if you do increase its total energy by increasing the temperature and phase shifting it from liquid to gas. Also copper is a very good conductor. But the system passes so much current through it that the power dissapated by P=I^2*R will vaporize copper within the microsecond it would take to travel the thickness of the armor?

Re:How does it work?

[flaXen_5]

when thousands of amps flow, anything it flows thru (unless it's a super conductor) is going to heat up, melt, and vaporize in a fraction of a second. so instead of having a narrowly-focused stream of copper traveling at super-sonic speeds, you have a dispursed cloud (heat causes expansion -- hence 'unfocusing' the force) of copper vapor (and whatever the capacitor is made of) with a little unvaporized (or condensing?) liquid copper left over that is harmless to the vehicle's ordinary armor. it's a cleaver device. the reaction (the short circuit that causes the current to flow) starts before the projectile even fully penetrates the insulation between plates. i'm sure it wouldn't stop a heavy round like what tanks fire, but for RPGs it sounds like a great idea.

This sounds like a tandem warhead

[pchown]

More sophisticated anti-tank weapons already carry two explosive charges in the same projectile. The first charge triggers any active defences, the second charge penetrates the tank.

The idea of electric armour is new, but armour has been active for a long time. It isn't just a chunk of metal. Tank armour is designed, oddly, to explode in a small scale, controlled way when hit. This tends to break kinetic energy weapons such as DU penetrators.

Warheads which are based on a shaped charge can ordinarily deliver their explosive force to a very small area. However, an explosion from the tank's armour itself can disrupt this, dispersing the blast harmlessly.

Presumably a tandem round is likely to penetrate the new armour in the same way. However, this is not the threat model it is protecting against. There is a lot of difference between an Iraqi insurgent with an RPG launcher, and a Western marine firing the latest anti-tank missile.

Isn't it curious

[bairy]

Some people are spending $n billion on researching weapons to kill, whilst some other people are spending $n billion on researching gadgets (for want of a better word) to stop those weapons, like this, and that laser that can shoot down missles/guns that was featured on /. a few weeks ago.

And we call ourselves the most intelligent species on the planet

[/cynicism]

Challenger 2 MBT

[reality-bytes]

Conversely, the Challenger 2 MBT is one of the most heavily-armoured tanks in the world, sporting both heavy solid armour and reactive plating.

However, you can apparently stop one with a bucket of sand down the air-intake ;)

I think that we (the UK) could do with, is getting our MBTs to work properly in all conditions as well as providing fancy-pants defence systems.

Re:Challenger 2 MBT

[Gordonjcp]

Cyclone air filters are pretty common on farm machinery, and earth-moving plant. They work so well because big diesel engines have a lot of airflow even at idle (there isn't a throttle) so the air spins round in the filter pan really quickly.

You could get round clogging of paper element filters by having a bypass valve on the outlet of the turbocharger, something like the "dump valve" boy racers have on their Scoobydoo Unimprezivs. Instead of dumping the boost pressure to the atmosphere giving that cheesy "vruuum Tssshh" every time you change gear, dump the boost into the filter, and blow the dust back out the intake. One of my old Citroens used to spit out an amazing cloud of dust if the dump valve opened - it vented into the intake so it bypassed the turbo.

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[wooby]

You're right, the Abrams was not designed for urban combat. The most lightly armored part of the tank is the top. There's even less armor there than on the hull. This makes the tank susceptible to RPGs fired from rooftops.

M1's are also huge; when patrolling roads, they tear up pavement and will not fit through some streets in densely populated areas. They pose a danger to civilian passerby and vehicles.

For day-to-day patrolling, the Army relies mostly HMMWVs. The HMMWV, or "Humvee," can also be "up-armored" with a kit.

This "electric armor" sounds like a fantastic idea, but I have a feeling it will be too heavy to equip a HMMWV. It could probably work wonders for the roofs of M1's though.

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[noewun]

True.

Ever tank in the world has the same "flaw" - in order for the engine to work, air has to get in and exhaust has to get out. This means that the armor around the engine compartment will not be as durable as the armor around the turret and engine compartments.

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[Mycroft_VIII]

They're insurgents/geurrillas if thier primarily natives or allies of the natives. If thier outsiders with the primary goal of creating strife I think agent provacatures would apply.
To me a terrorist is one who uses 'terror' as a political tool. By terror in this context I mean primarily violent acts targeting primarily civilians. I'm up in the air whether political leadership counts or not for this definition.
Anyway, just my two cents.

Mycroft

M1A1 taken out by 'Mystery Projectile'

[TitanBL]

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.

Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.

According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the report's author noted.

The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1½ to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.

As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7 but most likely something new -- and that worries tank drivers.

Here is the full article