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

NICE MOVE EDITORS.

[gl4ss]

"'Electric armour' vaporises anti-tank grenades and shells
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 19/08/2002) "

take a HARD look at that date. the 'initial development' link dates Aug. 22, 2002 PT.

like, wtf???? really?????

sorry for sounding so trollish but REALLY.

ok, at least proves some ways for some poor souls to copypaste stuff from years ago and get modded to the sky.

Wasn't this covered before here?

[ChronoZ]

'Electric armour' vaporises anti-tank grenades and shells By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 19/08/2002)

I wonder if you have to ...

[MikeHunt69]

... polarise the hull plating?

Re:I wonder if you have to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you polarize the hull plating, you need to have a way to reverse the polarity in case they fire a reverse-phase ion cannon. And if you can reverse the polarity, then you can add an alternating field. But if you do that, then you need to be able to modulate the shield harmonics in case they fire a phased photon torpedo at the same frequency. Also, you need a good voice-activated computer so you can yell out "computer, modulate the aft shield polarity using a quantum differential to compensate for the inbound photon torpedo's phase variance" while some guy casually walks up and stuffs a banana in your exhaust pipe.

Using Iraq as an example..

[Tuvai]

The heavily armoured divisions of the US and British armies had little to fear of the iraqi armed forces RPGs, the most "devastating" weapon in their limited arsenal.
However once the initial resistance was swiftly dealt with, the all new threat came from roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and mines. This will make some difference, but most terrorists will strike at the troops outside of their vehicles anyway.

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

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[3263827]

All vehicles have a "flaw" when dealing with close combat situations. The M1A2 is fortunately for US forces, one of the most protected tanks, especially against HEAT charges like the one employed by the RPG. Tank protection is a matter of choosing your battles. You can't provide 360 degree protection. That's why tanks operate with infantry in urban ops. Take away the infantry, and you'll have situations like Grozny where the Chechen rebels massacred entire divisions due to poor tactics on the part of the Russians.

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[demachina]

I know you've had the word terrorist drilled in to your head the Bush administration and the media using it about a 1000 times a day but when someone is attacking occupying soldiers in a war zone they are not "terrorists", they are guerillas or insurgents. Guerilla is probably the word you are looking for:

WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
guerilla
adj : used of independent armed resistance forces; "guerrilla warfare"; "partisan forces" [syn: guerrilla(a), guerilla(a), underground, irregular]
n : a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, irregular, insurgent]

In the early 20th century the fear word the government used to "terrorize" the populace was anarchist. In the 1950's it was communist. Today it is terrorist. In all three cases the words were whipped to death, misused and misapplied. They are the words the U.S. government uses to "terrorize" their population and to tag everyone that isn't on their side.

I would be inclined to say that the Bush administration are as much terrorists as the people they tag with this word, because they are governing by constantly stoking the fears of the American people, are using that fear to stay in power, and are governing by intimidation:

Terrorist \Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.]
One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon)

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[Anonymous Coward]

the real problem with terrorist vs insurgent/guerilla/freedom fighter is that you're not allowed to apply it to the Israel/Palestine situation without being labelled an extremist, a zionist or an anti-semite (depending on the stance you take)

i fucking hate the media.

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..

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

People fighting against invaders are not "terrorists" you fool.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon against civilian populations to achieve political results.

Blowing up tanks is a military engagement, not in any way shape or form a terrorist activity.

Stop watching Fox News and educate yourself.

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..

[Artifakt]

Just to clarify, U. S. light armor isn't HUMVEEs, it's mostly Bradley APCs and the occsional modified M-113 still in the system. The Bradley is treated as both an Infantry vehicle and a Cavalry scout vehicle, so you may see it refered to as an APC (armored personnel carrier) or an IFV (Infantry fighting vehicle), while the old M-113 chassis is still used for some communications and ambulance/field hospital vehicles and possibly still by MP units. You might also include M-88 tank recovery vehicles since they are modified from what was heavy armor in the WWW2 era, but isn't really up to grade now. Arguably, even some artillery systems, i.e. Palladin howitzers, can count as light armor if in a direct fire environment. All of these have tracks, not tires. There's also a few vehicles used by the U. S. Marines which fill roughly simiar roles, but include some amphibious capabilities.

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

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[farmhick]

A murder who robs a bank is still a murder, not 'just a bank robber'.

A terrorist from Syria who went to Iraq in the last few months to kill American and Iraqi military forces, is still a terrorist, not 'just an insurgent'. Or do you say than the man who killed the Iraqi Minister recently is only an insurgent, even though he murdered a civilian member of the Iraqi government?

You probably think the 19 people on the planes were freedom-fighters too, eh?

Re:Using Iraq as an example..

[ZX-3]

Since we are talking about the US definition of terrorism, it might be better to use the official US definition of terrorism. From http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html :

How do you define terrorism? The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d): --The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. --The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country. --The term "terrorist group" means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

Thus, US forces in Iraq are not terrorists, since they are not a subnational group attacking noncombantants. At the same time, the Iraqi guerillas only become terrorists when they regularly attack noncombatants.

Filed: 19/08/2002

[hattig]

I see that Slashdot is finally posting more up to date stuff.

This is cool, just hope you aren't the soldier that shorts this device by accident!

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.

Re:Two Shots?

[NanoGator]

"Alternatively, what if 2-3 shots are fired simultaneously at different locations in an attempt to overload the electrical system?"

Then it takes 9 shots to take out 3 tanks, instead of one per tank. Meanwhile, the tesla-tank can return fire.

Don'tcha think you're trying a bit hard to find the gotcha in it?

Re:Two Shots?

[Have Blue]

Anyway, nobody ever promised this would make tanks absolutely invulnerable to RPGs. If it significantly reduces damage (and casualties) and gives the tank a better chance to return fire, it's a success.

Re:Two Shots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don'tcha think you're trying a bit hard to find the gotcha in it?

Ask him about his plans for cleaning dust off the Mars landers. I'm sure he thinks he has dozens NASA never considered.

Re:Two Shots?

[tji]

> That's like arguing against bullet proof vests with the fact that high-velocity weapons penetrate them.

No, it's a very legitimate question.

They should be looking at what types of attacks this technology is effective against and which it's not. Then, they should be comparing that with battle experiences to see if the technology is good enough to be deployed as-is, or if it needs more development before it is worth using.

Also, they need to account for the adaptability of the enemy. If the "shields" are destroyed by one shot, would the enemy immediately change ambush tactics to fire an initial hit from one location, with a second shooter positioned to fire a second shot?

Re:Two Shots?

[Firethorn]

Here's the rub: getting two shooters positioned is harder than getting one positioned.

It's like bomb detectors, the anti-ballistic missile system, and all other 'armor' systems. You raise the bar. In this case, the enemy can only do half as many attacks against the vehicles if they have a limited weapon supply. What if one of the shooters get hit before they can fire? Ambush failed. It's like RAID-0. One HD fails, data lost. You can place three shooters to help prevent this, but that's taking resources that you'd rather use elsewhere.

Added bonus

[alex_ware]

switch the live and earth and you make it impossible for terrorists to climb on the tank

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! ;-)

Re:Interesting...

[Wes Janson]

The big problem with that idea is threefold. First, when the breach occurs it's going to require a non-trivial amount of time for the system to begin applying current, heating the pellets, and congealing together.

This leads to our second problem: a frigging bomb just went off next to (or within) the plating. The hull, and pellets contained therein, are no longer on their original plane. The pellets that were in the positions now left empty (the hole), are going to be either vaporized or massively displaced. More specifically, many weapons detonate after penetration. The result being an outward blast that creates a bulge in the hull, and distorts the original shape of the hull into a roughly conical form.

Which leads to the third problem: the metal will need to be in place before it cools and solidifies. In our hypothetical scenario, we have a large gap in the hull, a temporarily displaced sea, and ragged edges of now-melting liquid metal. If the pellets could move into place, melt together, then solidify within a tenth of a second or less, the idea might work. And longer than that, and water pressure will act like a machine gun and a grindstone at the same time, moving with enough force to rip away anything that isn't extremely solid and secure.

Ultimately, while an interesting idea it just won't work. If anything it might well weaken the ship, both on the long term and in case of attack. Sorry.

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.

Re:Just like RIAA vs. File traders

[CdBee]

Peer-to-Peer artillery is never gonna catch on

Unless you mean all armoured assault vehicles share targeting information and fire many small projectiles instead of one big one?
Good grief, that would be deadly. Hope the army don't think of it.

Re:Just like RIAA vs. File traders

[Anonymous Coward]

You have just described the Slashdot army.

Re:Just like RIAA vs. File traders

[DeepHurtn!]

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.

Absolutely, which is why arms races are so fucking *dangerous*. There's still lots of talk about the militarization of space, to use a contemporary example -- the only result this will have is the development of more powerful weapons to launch into orbit. When one nation does something like that, it forces every other nation that doesn't want to be routinely threatened to jump in and start their own space program (or whatever) too. Before you know it we'll have a) satellites b) satellites to blow up other people's satellites c)satellites to blow up the satellites that blow up our satellites d) satellites to blow up the launching pads that send the satellites that blow up our satellites into space e) satellites to blow up enemy cities, so they can't manufacture the equipment to build launch pads to launch satellites that blow up our satellites.

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...

[Dachannien]

Depleted uranium dust is only dangerous if inhaled or ingested, and the dust forms particles large and heavy enough that it settles out of the atmosphere quickly. This is just another example of environmentalist propaganda that isn't based on fact.

(A little light reading on the subject)

Re:While this is helpful...

[Richard_at_work]

They have also been classed as a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" by the UN, because they have an effect outside the intended target, but the US still uses them. The UK and most other countries switched to tungsten after the first gulf war.

Re:While this is helpful...

[j. andrew rogers]

places where the US have used DU shells are now contaminated with long-lasting radioactivity, and vehicles attacked with these shells show very high levels of radioactivity.... these things are monsters and unnessesary, I've worked with people trying to stop their use, but there seems to be a deaf ear listening.

The deaf ear may have something to do with you being illiterate on the basic facts of the issue.

First, depleted uranium is "depleted", meaning that the active and interesting isotopes have been largely removed. By comparison, you will discover that many other metals and materials routinely used in military vehicles have comparable isotope activity. Just because it has the word "uranium" in it does not make it automagically evil and scary. The radiation is a non-issue in that it amounts to normal background exposure in a lot of places in the world. You don't think uranium is made by magic elves do you? They pull the undepleted stuff out of ground concentrations.

Second, the amount of DU expended in the desert during the war was around 40 tons. By comparison, the amount of undepleted Uranium ash dumped in the USA alone is measured in the thousands of metric tons every year. And that ignores the thousands of tons of thorium ash which is also dumped. That according to the US government. You whine about some tiny amount of radioisotope depleted uranium out in the desert and then continue to ignore the vast quantities of undepleted metal dumped next to population centers. You either have a knee jerk political agenda or some really screwed up priorities.

Third, there is a very good materials science reason to use DU for the purposes it is used, and there isn't much in the way of substitutes that wouldn't be some combination of insanely expensive and far more nasty to the environment.

Quite frankly, if you look at the other metals and materials used in military equipment, and actually read the MSDS on them, you'll discover that a wee bit of Uranium disappears underneath the noise floor. All the selective outrage is absurd.

Re:While this is helpful...

[0123456]

I guess you don't realise that every 747 on the planet contains thousands of pounds of depleted uranium as balance weights. I believe that's true of many other airliners too, so if you're too scared of depleted uranium to get within a few feet of it I hope you don't plan to fly anywhere soon.

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.

Re:While this is helpful...

[cgenman]

I see you have never lived in a farming community...

And for that matter, do you trust a .mil to tell you the actual environmental impact of a miliatary operation? The same military that dropped tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam? The page doesn't even talk about the impact on the people who live in the area, only that the impact upon soldiers firing the things then leaving will be minimal. Duh. Even that report recommends avoiding depleted uranium sites, and chastising villagers for taking "souviners" of fired bullets.

The report says that depleted uranium gives off roughly 40% of the radiation of regular uranium. 40%. That's still pretty damned radioactive for an area you plan on raising kids in.

Re:While this is helpful...

[IAR80]

How about militias or partisans? Are they terorists as well? Was the french resistance wearing uniforms when fighting against the germans in ww2?

Re:While this is helpful...

[dustmite]

This is slashdot, anything that claims to harm the environment in any way is immediately classified as propaganda.

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

Protected against RPGs?

[Moth7]

Electric armour will never match my Great Sword +4!

I just know you'll come and bitchslap this post...

[James A. S. Joyce]

...down to -1, Offtopic because you can't handle criticism, michael, but you know what? I just don't care. This is the last straw. I used to wonder why all of the trolls would constantly take the piss out of you over all of the other editors. Sometimes you posted blurbs that had egregious spelling errors, blatant plugs for Apple products or just outright filled with false information. I always just put it down to misjudgement and figured that it wasn't so bad - Slashdot's standards are fairly high compared to other sites.

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 . Isn't that what an editor's supposed to do? Check the leads people give them to make sure they're not bullshit ? You get paid to do this, for God's sake, and you're just not taking it seriously. Not at all. And as soon as anyone points it out you bitchslap them to shut them up. Who the hell do you think you are?

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.

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

[deacon]

Just to explain how a shaped charge works:

The liner material has to be very ductile so it will flow from its initial hollow cone shape to form the slug and penetrating jet. The wavefront of explosives detonating behind the cone (explosive is on the pointy side of the cone) forms the slug and jet.

You can demo this for yourself by putting shaving cream between your palms, holding your wrists together, and then claping your hands. The foam will shoot out at a velocity much higher than the speed you push your hands together.

Most very ductile materials are metals, so a non-conductive liner is unlikely.

Some other posts have mentioned discharging the system with the first hit, but this may not be a problem because the the full charge is not necessarily used up, since the current flow will cease when the jet is burned away.. In fact the system might work with two paralell screens, without the need for solid sheets.

The older anti-shaped-charge system is called reactive armor, which means the tank is covered with many explosive sheets, whichever one is hit detonates, thus disrupting the jet when it explodes.

The problem there is that the sheet must be replaced manually after a hit. This electrical system should keep on working.

Re:Only works with conductive charges

[Anonymous Coward]

Wahooo! We're back to throwing rocks at each other. Military technology has finally come full circle :D

Of course there are still problems with the thermal capacity and density of granite when compared to copper, but I feel sure they can be overcome

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

[t_allardyce]

Man someones got an RPG up their ass and its shooting its molten copper!

And you all laughed when Archer said it

[NanoGator]

"Polarize the hull plating!"

Just wait...

[Anonymous Writer]

... "19th Century News Coming Online" (2nd previous story)... there will be even older stories soon.

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.

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.

Re:The latest weapon from the U.S. Air Force

[danaris]

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

Well, not that I'm particularly disagreeing with you, but that's true of most weapons--there are ways to use them for good, and ways to use them for evil.

Personally, I think that this can be a much more humane method of breaking up protests gone violent than tear gas or rubber bullets. Note that this is all assuming that the protestors have gone beyond civil disobedience into violence. So long as it is, indeed, nonlethal, it won't (obviously) kill anyone--which tear gas can do if you inhale too much of it or if you have a nasty reaction to it, and rubber bullets can do if they hit in the wrong places--or even leave scars or bruises. Using this could help keep violence down more, too, as you wouldn't have to send out policemen, who could be shot at (if anyone in the mob had a gun), just turn the devices on. It could also be useful to keep protestors outside a certain area--for instance, keep a buffer zone around the embassy or whatever that if they come inside it, they get a nasty shock.

I can certainly see how it could be dangerous in the hands of a despot, but so can guns and tear gas. If they want to stop protests, they're going to do it, and if they use this rather than "policemen" armed with machine guns, it could save lives. If this device can decrease injuries and deaths in protests, of which there are not huge numbers, but some, it sounds like a good thing in my book.

In the end, it is a tool, whose purpose is only determined by the person using it. It's not even one designed to kill, only to hurt, and therefore keep someone away.

Dan Aris

Re:The latest weapon from the U.S. Air Force

[XSforMe]

...It should put an end to any unauthorized demonstrations against the U.S. or any of its allies.

and later on

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

Can you say I-R-O-N-Y?

Here are some other protective measures

[attackiko]

Link to a page (with even more links).

Re:Field-of-battle electronics

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

IT ISNT

The current only flows when the circuit is closed by the impact of weapon.

The current only flows for an instant until the capacitor is drained.

Otherwise there IS NO elecromagnetic field or 'polarization' present to affect the electronics.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA.

In a recent demonstration of the electric armour for senior Army officers, an APC protected by the new British system survived repeated attacks by rocket-propelled grenades that would normally have destroyed it several times over. Many of the grenades were fired from point-blank range but the only damage to the APC was cosmetic. The vehicle was driven away under its own power.

Re:Soften the vehicle up with small arms fire, may

[Gyorg_Lavode]

If an ak47 is breaching your tank armor, you've got bigger problems.

Re:Soften the vehicle up with small arms fire, may

[swb]

My guess is that they'd make the outer armor thick enough to stop standard infantry calibers, up to .30 cal or so (light machine gun). 12.7mm/.50 cal might cause problems, but so can depleted uranium (valuable for its ultra dense mass, not the residual radioactivity, which is actually a crew/environmnetal liability) and some of the ultravelocity armor-piercing .30 cal sabots they put in .50 cal rounds.

But remember, they want to keep RPGs from immediately destroying or disabling _light_ armored vehicles; either protecting them enough that they can get out and fight back or keep traveling. RPGs don't cause much or any damage to our heavy battle tanks, and those have long carried reactive devices (usually explosives) for stopping missles and rockets.

Secure, _light_ armored vehicles are the real goal here. Light vehicles cost less (more vehicles and/or guns), use less fuel (less support drag, tactical advantage), are usually easier to drive (less training, better force utilization) and easier to maintain. With vehicles like these you can cover more territory with fewer troops. Bigger empire, smaller budget.

It's kind of what we have to look forward to for military conflicts -- long-lasting, low-grade, hostile civilian population, ugh.

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.

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]

Re:Soften the vehicle up with small arms fire, may

[myowntrueself]

"Always believe that you'll be fighting against an enemy who will learn and exploit your weaknesses."

Like wheels or tracks?

I doubt that this sort of system will eve be applied to moving parts.

Go for the wheels or tracks, its pretty obvious.

(and surely applies to more than just light vehicles? I mean, how many RPG shots would it take to make an M1 Abrams slough a track and thereby immobilise it?)

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

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Yeah, those silly tanks and their damn fancy-pants defence systems...

We should just Chobham all up and start again, I say. :-p

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.

That's what I was wondering.

[khasim]

If they make the outer armour thick enough to stop small arms fire, then they're adding significant weight to the vehicle. Particularly the HMMWVs and such. If you add 2,000lbs of armour, you're facing other, structural, problems with the vehicles.

If you use 1/4 of your carrying capacity for armour, then that means that your convoys are going need 25% more vehicles.

Which means 25% more targets and (at least) 25% more breakdowns.

Which is exactly what you do not want in the "long-lasting, low-grade, hostile civilian population," scenario you mentioned. :(

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.

Just think of the practical joke potential!

[craXORjack]

Corporal Capacitor: 'Hey Specialist, where'd the Sarge go?'
Specialist Sparks: 'He just climbed out on the deck to take a leak.'
Corporal Capacitor: (Charging plates) 'Oh really?'

I have no faith in /. peer moderation.

[MortisUmbra]

Absolute incredible tripe posts like this (as of the time I write this) are not modded into oblivion....

Seriously, your post reads like a manual for how to be a completel jackass with absolutely no base in reality....

It sure is good you posted ANYTHING to back up those wonderfull images of allies running over crops, raping wives and daughters and basicly being horrific monsters....I really hate you.

Obligatory Star Trek quote

[smeenz]

As I seem to be the first to say this....

Shields up, Mr Sulu !

against RPG ?

[hagnat]

The Telegraph is reporting that British MoD scientists are now testing a new electric armor to protect light armored vehicles against RPGs.

never though RPG could be so dangerous...

* hagnat throws away his shotgun and hides his D&D books under the bed
* hagnat places several d20 dices as ammo in his drawer

lol

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

Re:M1A1 taken out by 'Mystery Projectile'

[frank249]

The linked article speculates that it might have been a Russian PG-7VR which has a dual warhead but it would not have to be in this case. A dual warhead is designed to pentrate reactive armour(explosive blocks designed to disrupt the jet). The first small charge on an extended probe sets off the reactive armour which allows the main charge to pass through the main armour.

In this case though the M1 does not have reactive armour. It has an advance form of Chobham armour which uses ceramic plates laminated in layers between layers of depleted uranium armour which can defeat shaped charge weapons and kinetic energy rounds. Unfortunately there are a small number of areas not covered by the special armour and this round appears to have found one. See a diagram here. The jet hit the top of the side protective skirt which denotated the warhead as it is designed to do. The jet then penetrated the thin side armour behind the suspension and entered the crew compartment missing the crew but damaging a number of turret controls. Technically it was not a 'mobility kill' as it only knocked out the turret but the crew was unharmed and the tank was able to drive back on its own power. It is worrying that an RPG jet could travel that far after hitting the side skirt but then again the tank is so well designed that any ammo that could have caused a catastrophic explosion was protected by further saftey systems. The worst that could have happened in this case was if one of the crew would have been in the path of the jet. It was in all likelyhood not a mystery projectile but just a regular RPG round whose gunner made a lucky shot to penetrate a vulnarable part of the hull. It is such a rare event that it is not worth worrying much about.

Sure, it might protect against RPGs

[PoignardSanglant]

But what about RTSs, FPSs, and TBSs? They can also do a lot of damage to one's social life.