Slashdot Mirror


Mysterious 'Forcefield' Tested on US Tanks

An anonymous reader writes "Not too long ago General Dynamics announced a successful test of their new Trophy Active Defense System (ADS). The Trophy ADS generates something similar to a force field around one half of a vehicle as a direct reaction to incoming fire. From the article: 'The Threat Detection and Warning subsystem consists of several sensors, including flat-panel radars, placed at strategic locations around the protected vehicle, to provide full hemispherical coverage. Once an incoming threat is detected identified and verified, the Countermeasure Assembly is opened, the countermeasure device is positioned in the direction where it can effectively intercept the threat. Then, it is launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat at a relatively long distance.'"

603 comments

  1. It must be powerful. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Funny

    It took me three tries to get past the "Nothing To See Here" notice.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. Force Field? by rk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Calling this a "force field" is a bit of a misnomer. It looks more like a point defense system for tanks and other armored vehicles. Very cool, but not as cool as a real force field.

    As much as we might like to blame the summary, but the term occurs in the FA, too.

    1. Re:Force Field? by Jerf · · Score: 0

      Very cool, but not as cool as a real force field.

      I disagree, at least to some extent. A sci-fi forcefield covers a large area, and will require an investment of some kind of energy and matter proportional at least proportional to the area of the protection surface. It may even be proportional to volume or worse, depending on the implementation.

      This technology is a linear energy and material investment. I think that's much cooler.

      (I can vaguely imagine a force-field with a linear investment, but I think that adds another level of difficulty on top of the probably already-impossible task of building a force field. "Proportional to area" is the best bet.)

      Also, this thing actually exists in some form. Personally, I consider that a net positive coolness contributor, but I know many here would disagree.

    2. Re:Force Field? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the title of the article is MYSTERIOUS force field. The article describes just how the thing works. If you can describe how it works, it's not a mystery.

      Anyway, I'm sick of seeing this stupid story repeated over and over. How many times have I read this in the past two days? Everybody's calling it a force field too. Weird. It's almost like a company has a new product to sell and sent out a press release which was copied by lazy reporters. But that never happens, right?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Force Field? by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you mis read the grandparent. This tech isn't a force field, it's a Point defense system.

      Basically shooting an RPG with a bullet before it get's to the target. Even with a 9mm round the kinetic energy of the two objects hitting each other would either cause the rpg to explode prematurely or be pushed off course. I think this system is using an explosive type round but the article is unclear on how. being automated with radar, and advanced computers, and really fast tracking means you can shoot one target and move on to the next faster than a person though it could still be overwhelmed.

      It's still cool though. Oh and that plane laden laser system in another sashdot article today is also a point defense system. though at longer range

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Force Field? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Agree. It is also old news as far as less developed countries are concerned. This shit is standard armament on Russian T90 http://www.shipunov.com/eng/bron/drozd.htm and Chinese T98. I am surprised yanks do not have it (I though they did) and I am even more surprised that they have to get it from Israel.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Force Field? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It looks more like a point defense system for tanks and other armored vehicles. Very cool, but not as cool as a real force field.

      Still, you've got to admit that this would be a huge psychological deterant. I mean, if I fired RPGs at a tank, and the RPGs (seemingly without cause) pre-detontated before they ever reached the tank, I'd be looking to get the hell out of there and warn all my friends! There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night. :-)

    6. Re:Force Field? by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      The term "force field" appears in the article (in quotes, I might add), but the word "mysterious" certainly doesn't. In fact, after reading the article (or even the summary, for that matter), there's little sci-fi mystery remaining.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    7. Re:Force Field? by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Make it even simplier for /. folks ;)

      Think Battlestar Galactica NOT Star Trek :)

      Force field here is kinda like free checking, 50% off jewelry sales, or that 2-legged robot that can't stand on 2 legs.....

    8. Re:Force Field? by Carik · · Score: 1

      Yes... but if you read about it on a dozen websites, you'd know exactly how it worked, and possibly be able to find a way to neutralize it. Not much of a mystery if you can get information on what it is from an official press release.

    9. Re:Force Field? by arcanumas · · Score: 5, Funny
      There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night. :-)

      Well i would look it up on the Internet. There is bound to be a post on some obscure forum by some guy named "Tank-H4xor" that gives direction on how to exploit a bug in the system by duct-taping a banana on the missile or a fluffy bunny something :)

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    10. Re:Force Field? by rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, absolutely! This is in line with US military doctrine. Create a force so overwhelming it never needs to fight. This is why we have things like Trophy, Land Warrior, and other superiority systems.

    11. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's really US military doctrine they're stupid. People will fight ANYTHING. Iraq is a great example - we tried to "shock and awe" people into giving up. Guess what - they didn't. And won't, as long as they are determined to fight for their particular cause.

      Never underestimate people - a human being is ALWAYS a dangerous weapon. With, or without, advanced technology.

    12. Re:Force Field? by geniusj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just a guess, but I wonder if you could defeat it by shooting 3 RPGs from 3 different directions at it? Can it act that quickly against all of them?

    13. Re:Force Field? by TTK+Ciar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just a little nit to pick: Drozd has been deployed on T-55 and T-80 family tanks, but T-90 uses the newer ARENA system. Also, using ARENA precludes mounting Explosive Reactive Armor modules, the latest versions of which are useful against APFSDS threats (which Drozd and ARENA are not), so it's not exactly a silver bullet.

      ObPlug: more on various kinds of active defense systems can be found on this page.

      -- TTK

    14. Re:Force Field? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2, Informative
      I don't think this is the same as the reactive armor sported by other countries. That armor is basically used to defeat shaped charge HEAP rounds by using an explosion triggered by the detonation of the round to distrupt the shape of explostion and has little value against purely kinetic rounds like the APFSDS used by most NATO tanks these days. This could actually have some effect against those rounds by diverting them well prior to their contact with the vehicle. In all it is a far more active system, more akin to the point defense systems used on Naval vessels than what is currently used on tanks.

      And if this is does work, I'm pretty sure that much of the tech (replacing radar with sonar, of course) could be repurposed to disrupt supercavitating torpedoes as well, come to think of it. Maybe that's why the Navy hasn't seemed very concerned about Iranian developments along that front?

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    15. Re:Force Field? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      That would be my guess to. The onboard CPUs can only handle so much reatime projectile predictions. And I guessing there are always warheads programmed to follow more erratic trajectories. I still think it would be nicer to use all this money being spent to get those with the hate and the weapons to not hate as much.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    16. Re:Force Field? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Comparing this new system to the crap used on the the T90 is sort of like comparing a modern assault rifle to an old muzzle-loader musket.

    17. Re:Force Field? by lardlad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess I would Improvise an Explosive Device of some sort. Maybe I'd leave it by a roadside. It just seems like our military doesn't quite comprehend what 21st century warfare is all about.

    18. Re:Force Field? by koweja · · Score: 1

      And how would you like to accomplish this? Pay them to think happy happy joy joy feelings?

    19. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night.

      Yeah, and there will always be that one guy who goes "What if we randomized our phase frequency?"

    20. Re:Force Field? by wgnorm · · Score: 5, Informative
      Just a guess, but I wonder if you could defeat it by shooting 3 RPGs from 3 different directions at it? Can it act that quickly against all of them?
      From TFA:

      The system can simultaneously engage several threats, arriving from different directions, is effective on stationary or moving platforms, and is effective against short and long range threats (such as RPGs and ATGM).

      So yes, it can handle that... even while moving.
    21. Re:Force Field? by rbarreira · · Score: 2, Interesting
      From the Wikipedia page:

      Land Warrior's software system is powered by a variant of the Linux operating system and has a modular, open architecture for further improvement. Reliability in recent testing at Fort Benning has been extremely high.


      I would HATE to read this if I was a linux programmer. Is it possible to include notes in software licenses forbiding military uses?
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    22. Re:Force Field? by aevan · · Score: 1

      Just throw your bowler at it as you shoot ;)

    23. Re:Force Field? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess I would Improvise an Explosive Device of some sort.

      IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank. You'd need an actual anti-tank mine to penetrate.

      IEDs have mostly been deployed against Humvees, Supply Trucks, and Police vehicles. As we've been shipping more armored Humvees over, the insurgents have been forced to get more creative with the IEDs to target more vulnerable areas of the vehicle.

    24. Re:Force Field? by metlin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well i would look it up on the Internet. There is bound to be a post on some obscure forum by some guy named "Tank-H4xor" that gives direction on how to exploit a bug in the system by duct-taping a banana on the missile or a fluffy bunny something :)

      I don't think McGuyver would appreciate you calling him that very much. :p

    25. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is that they lost track of the idea that they should not be fighting. The most effective army is the army that isn't used. Particularly when it doesn't fight an equally big centralized adversary. Iraq has gone a long way in getting the shine off. It's not as scary as it used to be. The Romans, inspired by the Spartans, had a doctrine also for this "si vis pacem para bellum". If you want peace "prepare" war. Note the difference between "prepare" and "wage". When the Spartans drunk on their success against the athenians forgot that they were not supposed to wage war to maintain their psychological and tactical advantages, they only taught the Thebans how they could be beaten. All armies have their weaknesses, and in history no army has been succesful agains irregular combattants in the long term (of course you're going to quash any group of irregulars that you meet in any kind of open battle, but they just keep coming, and coming and coming). A large army is expensive to maintain, and keep constantly in battle readiness. The irregulars have lots of volunteers among the opressed populations... and they choose when and where to strike. They don't have a very centralized hierarchy. They can only be defeated by defeating politically the reason they were given birth for. History is full of those lessons, but politicians are not very good at learning their lessons. Of course, in some cases it's because all of their knowledge of history comes from the Simpsons.

    26. Re:Force Field? by MadMorf · · Score: 1

      There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night.

      Easy.

      Overwhelm the system with targets...

      Can it block 6 RPGs coming from 3 different directions?

      I'll bet it can't...

    27. Re:Force Field? by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      No joke. I clicked on the feed thinking it was going to be an actual "force field". Boo. Not a bad article, but I was hoping to get me a force field built into my belt and then have cool knife fights, like in Dune (David Lynch version).

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    28. Re:Force Field? by jschottm · · Score: 1

      Still, you've got to admit that this would be a huge psychological deterant.

      On the other hand, most of these systems basically fire a shotgun in the direction of the incoming RPG. If you can set it up your attack so that the system took out [the defender's own] infantry in the process of defending the vehicle, that would be one hell of a psychological weapon against the defender in the type of situation the U.S. is in right now where the general public hates any loss of its own life, particularly from friendly fire. The desctruction of a tank would be really bad publicity, but having one of your own soldiers shreded by a tank would be even worse. Not to mention the death of any non-US forces that firing weapons like this in an urban environment might cause.

    29. Re:Force Field? by Mixel · · Score: 1

      And those discussions may conclude that Landmines are a good idea. Resulting in less tank crews dying, but more people.

    30. Re:Force Field? by 241comp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess this is off topic but you do realize that the intended audience for the "shock and awe" campaign was the Iraqi military and not foreign insurgents. And that for the most part it did work - in fact, many Iraqi soldiers were so desperate to surrender that they actually had difficulty finding someone to surrender to fast enough. Groups of Iraqi soldiers would surrender to medical and repair personel. Obviously, this plan failed to take into account the insurgency made up of extremists (both local and foreign).

    31. Re:Force Field? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if you could fire several RPGs at once just to have one conclude a successful strike, the system is still doing its job by requiring way more resources to take it down. One guy with one RPG taking a tank down is one thing, but having to coordinate half a dozen guys with related weaponry to fire simultaneously is much more difficult to do.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    32. Re:Force Field? by FuzzyMan45 · · Score: 1

      Pay them for happy happy joy joy feelings? Try just sending them the Don't Whiz on the Electric Fence game.

    33. Re:Force Field? by mi · · Score: 4, Funny
      I would HATE to read this if I was a linux programmer. Is it possible to include notes in software licenses forbiding military uses?
      Such limitations would make your software less free. This is fine, of course -- I disallow use of my software by anyone in a posession of a Che Guevarra T-shirt, for example -- but it will not be part of Linux.
      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    34. Re:Force Field? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Carpet bomb with "Agent Jung?".. some kind of aerosolized prozac?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    35. Re:Force Field? by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      I had a friend who was in a tank in Iraq. This wouldn't really matter much against RPG's. They would routinely come back from combat and find black marks on their tank where RPG's had hit, and they hadn't even noticed.

      It's a freaking TANK. It's got armor that's FEET thick. A rocket propelled GRENADE isn't going to hurt a tank. You might as well be tossing cherry bombs at it.

      It's the humvees, helicopters, and other troop transports that are vulnerable to RPG's.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    36. Re:Force Field? by alcmaeon · · Score: 1
      "Still, you've got to admit that this would be a huge psychological deterant."

      I don't know, man, I think any Abrams or Apache or F-16 is pretty fucking psychologically deterring (at least to me), but that hasn't stopped a bunch of Iraquis from blowing the shit out of millions of dollars of fine American hardware using nothing more than some old Soviet RPG's and AK 47's from 30-50 years ago.

    37. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, it's no different than if you work in a mine, and some of the metal that you produce is used in a military application. In fact, the last car that you took to the junk yard will have it's metal recycled, and some of that may end up going into a war machine. Think about that next time you haul your old clunker to the junk yard.

    38. Re:Force Field? by hawk · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's possible--but it would also mean that the license couldn't get recognised as open under the common open source guidelines.

      hawk, who intends someday to include the phrase, "This is free software. You may use it for any purpose, including the extermination of endangered species, the violent overthrow of your government, or planning a nuclear attack on Australia." :)

    39. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> Just a guess, but I wonder if you could defeat it by shooting 3 RPGs from 3 different directions at it? Can it act that quickly against all of them?

      The testing for that would be the best indicator. Too bad the insurgents will fail in attempting to defeat this defense system, their weapon aim sucks BIG time!

    40. Re:Force Field? by pete-classic · · Score: 0

      How would you enforce it? Would you want that provision to apply to rebels trying to overthrow a dictatorship?

      -Peter

    41. Re:Force Field? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Can it block 6 RPGs coming from 3 different directions?

      According to the article: Yes.

      The system can simultaneously engage several threats, arriving from different directions, is effective on stationary or moving platforms, and is effective against short and long range threats (such as RPGs and ATGM).


      Of course, there's got to be a breaking point. Or at least, the possibility of lucky shots. But 6+ RPGs letting loose on a single tank is a lot of firepower to be using. Especially given the tank's inner defenses (such as Uranium supports and reactive armor). What's going to happen is that 90% of your forces are going to get shredded by that tank before you manage to disable or destroy it. Not exactly a good tradeoff.

      I'll bet it can't...

      * MadMorf has been fragged by UberTank
    42. Re:Force Field? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The author of TFA obviously has no idea what a force field is. ScuttleMonkey should have known better, though.

    43. Re:Force Field? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Maybe it can handle three at a time, but that's when you shoot 20 or so at it. At some point the system's resources will be saturated and overloaded and stuff will get through. Then again, this isn't likely to be 100% effective even against lone threats, so you'll still get the occasional golden BB.

      Yeah, it's point defense, not shields. A shield system would be more like that high-arc energization that's designed to disrupt the copper penetrator of an RPG.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    44. Re:Force Field? by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      Especially if the rocket exhaust leaves a trail back to the firer's location. You can be certain that the armored vehicle crew (and their pals) will be highly motivated to drop some hot lead (or HE, or DU, whatever's handy) on that location right away.

      This is a big advance for armored vehicles.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    45. Re:Force Field? by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night. :-)

      erm, this does nothing for landmines and other stationary explosives. That being said, it would be an awesome thing to add to a helicopter though.

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    46. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Is the system intelligent enough to figure out that the rpg was fired over the heads of friendly troops and not to detonate where it will do more damage than it would hitting a fully armored tank?

    47. Re:Force Field? by rlbond86 · · Score: 1

      A sci-fi forcefield covers a large area, and will require an investment of some kind of energy and matter proportional at least proportional to the area of the protection surface. It may even be proportional to volume or worse, depending on the implementation.

      Unless you have sensors that detect projectiles and only activate small sections of the force field whenever needed.

    48. Re:Force Field? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not all programmers are peacenik hippies, you know. Even Linux ones.

      I know of several Linux programmers that would probably slaver over the opportunity to program a giant killing machine. (Although perhaps only if it walked and shot lasers and was 50 feet tall. They might not be down with programming an uncool killing machine. I'll have to ask.)

      On a more serious note, do you really think that IBM, HP, Sun, and all the rest of the companies that have paid into and supported this Linux thing would continue to do so if there was such a 'no military use' clause? If you think so, then you have no idea how much of many of those companies revenues come from government contracts, particularly defense ones. Do you think the NSA would help to secure it? I bet even NASA wouldn't touch it. (Most of their contractors who do the majority of the work wouldn't be able to, since a lot of them do a ton of military work on the side.)

      And what is "military use" anyway? Is running a logistics or inventory management system 'military use,' if the inventory being managed is bombs and bullets? What if it's just MREs? What if it's a payroll system for military personnel? How about civilian contractors? Could you use it to run a firewall--if that firewall was in a missile silo?

      Anyone who wanted to make a commercial software product and even had the dimmest hopes of ever selling it to government wouldn't be able to use any code under such a license.
      Not to mention the public-image damage you'd do by associating Linux with yet another political philosophy; as if Free Software isn't controversial enough to sell to management, you want to make sure that there's absolutely no chance that it's taken seriously?

      It would be the best thing in the world for BSD, though...

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    49. Re:Force Field? by sgant · · Score: 2, Funny

      How are you going to stop the military from using your open-source software? Who's going to stop them? They're the fricken military man! They're the ones with the guns and the tanks and the flamethrowers.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    50. Re:Force Field? by jackalope · · Score: 1

      Chances are you won't make it back to your friends to have that discussion. The vehicle probably has some type of quick response targetting system that determines the point of origin of the projectile and then fills that point of origin will anti-personnel projectiles from some other weapon mounted on the vehicle.

    51. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "failed to take into account the insurgency made up of extremists"

      ROFL. Is that what you call the citizens of Iraq who fight the oppresion of a foreign invader? If Iraq had invaded the U.S. would you be an "extremist"?

    52. Re:Force Field? by spudchucker · · Score: 1

      This is a total blatant misnomer. Wasted my time because I expected to read about some energy based defense system.

    53. Re:Force Field? by rwven · · Score: 1

      Uh...

      Maybe you would hate it...but i would love it.

    54. Re:Force Field? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0

      Does reactive armour hit incoming missiles at a distance? No.

      You haven't really got a clue what you're talking about, have you?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    55. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That depends. Are the 'rebels' a foreign superpowers military that is overthrowing the dictator under the guise of motives that turn out to be completely fraudulent and more likely than not just going to exploit your national resources and establish a puppet government?

    56. Re:Force Field? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably you could, but that's a significant gain in itself. You've just tripled the work that it takes to destroy the target; actually more than tripled, since firing three anti-tank weapons simultaneously from three different directions isn't exactly simple. You have to have some way of coordinating the attack, and you'd have to fire them at almost exactly the same time -- I assume the response time of the point defense system is quite fast, so if any of the weapons were lagging it would give the system an opportunity to destroy them. That necessitates not only firing them simulatenously but also having each launcher approximately the same distance from the target.

      That said, I'm not sure that this system is really in touch with current threats. Most large-vehicle losses that I've seen on TV anyway don't seem to have come from RPGs, they've come from remote-detonated buried explosives. All the point defenses in the world aren't going to do anything to defeat those.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    57. Re:Force Field? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2

      One of the FSF's software freedoms is the freedom to use for any purpose. Just as the peacenik and the warrior use feet and inches, so too they use Linux.

    58. Re:Force Field? by Jerf · · Score: 1

      "Unless unless unless". Since force fields are fictional, you can impute to them any properties you want. I was using a standard "average" science fiction forcefield, and if they work like that, across hundreds of episodes of Trek and a number of other series, they've never mentioned it.

      Not surprising, really. Trek et al tend to have a lot of "sufficiently advanced technologies" a.k.a. "magic", but in terms of understanding real technology, they've pretty uniformly struck out since the days of the Original Series.

    59. Re:Force Field? by ScottLindner · · Score: 1

      "And the title of the article is MYSTERIOUS force field. The article describes just how the thing works. If you can describe how it works, it's not a mystery."

      What if you don't understand the description? :)

      --
      Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
    60. Re:Force Field? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      RPGs and AK-47s aren't doing anything to tanks. It's old Soviet artillery shells and the millions of tons of military explosives that they contain that are.

      There isn't enough explosive in an RPG warhead to punch through a main battle tank's armor; but it's fairly trivial to bury enough in the dirt to blow it sky high and detonate when the tank drives over it.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    61. Re:Force Field? by Moderatbastard · · Score: 2, Funny
      A sci-fi forcefield covers a large area, and will require an investment of some kind of energy and matter proportional at least proportional to the area of the protection surface.
      Wrong. A sci-fi force field will not exist. Because "fi" is short for fiction.

      Seems that Pretentious * Mathobabble + 5 figure ID = mod up.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    62. Re:Force Field? by Jerf · · Score: 1

      No, I understood perfectly.

      Now re-read my post and try to see what I'm getting at.

      A point defense system is way more energy- and material-efficient than a (fictional) area-based system. It's "harder" to set up in the sense it takes much more sensors and intelligence, but then again, it's "easier" in that it can actually be built whereas FTL seems more likely to be possible than sci-fi style force fields... and given my opinions on the likelihood of FTL ("don't hold your breath"), that's a pretty damning condemnation.

    63. Re:Force Field? by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 2, Informative

      IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank

      Not really true. True for the REALLY unsophisticated IEDs, but they have IEDs that nothing we have can defeat. DoD is urgently working on this now, but the amount of high explosives (and shape charges) they are using in close proximity even an M1A1 cannot withstand.

      example
      example
      example

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    64. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairly obscure reference, but I was thinking the same thing.

    65. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually cutting the US defense budget and routing the billions pumped into military research into legitimate non-military motivated research grants should do the trick. Or if you want to get really crazy you could just cut that money from the budget altogether, add government provided healthcare (since that doesn't mean privatized healthcare can't exist for those that can afford it), and stop taxing citizens that make less than 6 figures.

      Fsck, if we are doing crazy financials that would make sense you could set a reasonable minimum tax rate for corporations. That way no matter how many deduction loopholes they jump through they still have to pay say 20% like citizens. Then we can use the proceeds to supplement the income of the average american to something closer to six figures. ;)

    66. Re:Force Field? by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This kind of system seems like a perfect use for the electronically fired caseless bullet system that an australian developed a decade ago called metal storm. It can fire up to 1 million rounds a minute, sufficient to make a cloud that would basically be impossible for the incoming round to fly through. The problem I have with such a system is that it necessitates active radar use, which just makes you a big target for radar guided weapons.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    67. Re:Force Field? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heck, think of it the next time you take that Mountain Dew can back for your 5-cent deposit, or put that Campbells Soup can in the bin next to the trash can. War machines use a lot of steel and aluminum, you know. Even if yours doesn't go into it, it just means that some steel or aluminum, somewhere, is available to be used in some form more evil than a soda can.

      The only solution? Don't throw anything away! Especially tinfoil. Fight the man!

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    68. Re:Force Field? by DarkSarin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Circumstances my friend, circumstances.

      If the US had a bloody dictator who had decided that she didn't like white males with curly blond hair and was committing genocide against them, I would fully support any 'invader' that decided to liberate those like me.

      I would be one of those welcoming them--although I would have likely sought a friendlier country first (if possible).

      If, on the other hand, it was the current gov't of the US being invaded by someone like Saddam Hussein they would find that I was the one taking potshots at them and lobbing home-made napalm cocktails in glass bottles (molotov, too, just to be certain).

      My point is that your comparison is not exactly analogous. Regardless of the validity of many of the stated reasons for invading Iraq (or lack of validity, depending of POV), I don't think that anyone can reasonably deny that Hussein was a bloody butcher of his own people. I remember the news reports of what his sons had been doing. They learned that somewhere, and he certainly could have stopped them. I don't know that going in was the 'correct' solution, but I suspect that any action or non-action taken with regards to Iraq would have led to severe problems. At least something decisive was done, which is a sight more than certain other presidents.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    69. Re:Force Field? by Himring · · Score: 1

      Do forgive OP, but I cannot believe this got moded insightful. I myself have made a couple of other comments in this thread, but they do not deserve much of ranking, but they -- and comments by others -- surely deserve more ranking than this. The OP made the following "insightful" points:

      1. This defensive system would cause psychological reactions: yea, it's war.
      2. Then, a description of the events that would take place to cause this reaction is given: fire round at tank, round blows up, get scared and tell friends!
      3. Then, a very brief point is made that the enemy would have discussions about #2 above.

      I'm not just trying to be a troll here, but how on earth is this insightful and then, on top of that, a ranking of 5?...

      I love /. for the threads, but examples like this show the flaws in the admin system....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    70. Re:Force Field? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of course it's possible. It's also possible for them to use your software anyway, since they're never going to redistribute it to external parties (except other governments, and only once it's obsolete.) It's further possible that you need an education in reality. War will occur with or without you. This is a system that protects lives - albeit so that those people can go and kill someone else... Everything has both peaceful and violent applications, even breathing is a tool for war in that it keeps your soldiers alive. In a really stupid sense, of course, but I'm being pedantic. However, the only hope for the future is education and open access to information - and the only hope for that is technology. At the point when we can implant computers and everyone can be a part of an untracable mesh network, what will fascist governments (like China, or the US) do to control people? Nothing, they'll be fucked. What's the best way to advance technology? Develop it and give it away. Want to promote peace? Develop the technology and give it away without restrictions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re:Force Field? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At some point the system's resources will be saturated and overloaded and stuff will get through.

      I believe that statement is true for all things ever invented. But if it takes a coordinated attack of 20 RPGs to score a single hit on a tank (noting that even a direct hit, though damaging, is likely not disabling), then the system is more than sufficient to perform it's purpose. Tanks go in groups, and their ability to return fire on clusters of 20 RPGers would leave them with more than enough tactical advantage to make the system worth while (even if the 20 number was a low as 5). Nothing is 100%, and some is better than none.

    72. Re:Force Field? by c_forq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is that what you call the citizens of Iraq who fight the oppresion[sic] of a foreign invader?

      You know that is only happening in 3 (arguably 4) provinces, right? (arguably because the force in one of province it is foreign insurgents by a vast majority fighting the US) Most of the "rebelling" is done by foreign Shiites, who are hoping to create and theocratic government in Iraq.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    73. Re:Force Field? by ginotech · · Score: 1

      like an automatic cannon? i doubt that would go over well with infantry.

    74. Re:Force Field? by supersocialist · · Score: 1

      Great links on the page in your sig. That Tower Toppler is a hell of a lot nicer than a Castelian .nes rom.

    75. Re:Force Field? by Jerf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Didn't get to the last line of my post, did you?

      Snotty and hasty. I see why you start out at 0. I'll cop to being snotty sometimes, but I try to be careful about it.

    76. Re:Force Field? by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1
      Is the system intelligent enough to figure out that the rpg was fired over the heads of friendly troops and not to detonate where it will do more damage than it would hitting a fully armored tank?

      Just idly speculating, but if the folks who designed this did it right, the system will consult the IVIS system to look for friendlies in the path of the return trajectory and take that into account for the firing solution.

      That said, I have no idea if it actually does this =P

      $.02++

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    77. Re:Force Field? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Example 1: A bomb the size of an entire truck blew the tread off the tank. The crew was unharmed.

      Example 2: Not enough information. Was he inside the tank? Manning the gunnery position? Walking along side it? Inside the tank, but got nailed by something heavy inside? We don't know. The blurb doesn't say.

      Example 3: Where's the beef? All I see is some camera work on a bomb. I don't see the claimed tank ambush at all.

    78. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you click his link dimwit? Same question to the other dimwits slaming grandparent with "it's just reactive armour".

    79. Re:Force Field? by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      Actually this system is designed for warfare in the field and not in urban combat. I suspect the effective range from the source of the RPG is 50 meters or so.

      Defense Update understands that Trophy is design to form a "beam" of fragments, which will intercept any incoming HEAT threat, including RPG rockets at a range of 10 - 30 meters from the protected platform.

      I assume this means the effective range of the interceptor projectile(s).

      If you launch a RPG which has a velocity of 210m/s at 15m that gives you 71ms before the RPG hits the target. But that gives the device 24 ms before the RPG has surpassed the minimum range of 10m. I have my doubts that the device can calculate the appropriate trajectory and shoot the interceptor projectile(s) in that time.

      15 meters is around 50 feet, which isn't that far away but it's not that close either. That's about 3 Humvee lengths.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    80. Re:Force Field? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Thanks! Feel free to help these projects by spreading the word! :)

    81. Re:Force Field? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you can manage to get 20 guys around a tank to fire their RPGs at precisely the same time, from precisely the same distance, or even more impossibly get them all to fire them at the proper times when they are at different distances (this is pretty much mandatory if they are to have cover and be protected from machine gun fire from the tank) then I think tanks are the least of your worries. You're ready to rule the world!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    82. Re:Force Field? by onion_joe · · Score: 1

      I'd call it a Phalanx for Tanxs...

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
    83. Re:Force Field? by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Requiring 6x more shooters is easy? BTW, the article says it can handle multiple incoming projectiles...of course there's a limit but still.

    84. Re:Force Field? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's "harder" to set up in the sense it takes much more sensors and intelligence, but then again, it's "easier" in that it can actually be built whereas FTL seems more likely to be possible than sci-fi style force fields...

      I'm not sure what gives you that impression. We already have the technology to make large quantities of cold plasma and run assorted currents through it. This is the basis of force field technology. The only missing item is the magnetic bottling necessary to hold it in place, which might not even be necessary if you could accurately model what the plasma will do when you charge it. Just as the point defense problem has turned out to be [at least somewhat] solvable with time, this too will pass. I'd say that force fields are orders of magnitude more likely than FTL.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    85. Re:Force Field? by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Funny
      > There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night. :-)


      And they'd all end with, "Get closer than 10 meters before you fire."


      "Ten meters? We're shooting from rooftops and through doorways. We're already working that close."


      "Good, then. And keep cranking out those IEDs."

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    86. Re:Force Field? by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      Example 1: End of day, tank destroyed by IED. Never meant to claim all the crew will be killed in every attack. Just that even the most armoured tanks can be destroyed by IEDs.

      Example 2: Here is the full page of Sept 05 casualties. See # 17, 18, 19. Agreed all casualty info is pretty vauge, but having the entire tank crew of an M1A1 killed "when an IED detonated near his M1A1 Abrams tank during patrol operations" should at least help get across the point that even M1A1s can be taken out by IEDs.

      Example 3: Not sure... I downloaded it and it showed the attack.... Not sure what when wrong. Anyway, it doesn't show the aftermath of the attack but shows what they are up agaist as it does show the explosion and what at least seems to be tons of tank pieces tossed into the air.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    87. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. I guess if people would actually READ the goddamn articles there would be half as many posts on Slashdot.

    88. Re:Force Field? by onion_joe · · Score: 1

      I would first locate the sensors on the armored vehicle and take them out with small arms fire. The system can't possibly respond to small arms threats, thats what physical armor is for. Once the sensors in a given arc were taken out, it would be short order to take out the vehicle. Solution to this dilema? Harden the sensors (given that they wern't armored in the first place.) Would this be hard to do with the "flat panel radar" and others from TFA?

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
    89. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is in line with US military doctrine. Create a force so overwhelming it never needs to fight.
      Sure. Works really well for Russians in Checheny--they have overwhelming force, no concerns about civilians and still take heavy hits.
    90. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not just trying to be a troll here, but how on earth is this insightful and then, on top of that, a ranking of 5?...

      Because you need to study more about war? Psychological effects are what's known in military circles as a "force multipler". By unnerving your opponent, you're making your own troops more effective. Making your own troops more effective increases morale. (Which just happens to be another force multiplier.) And the more effective your forces are, the more effective the threat of war is at deterring opponents.
    91. Re:Force Field? by pete-classic · · Score: 0

      Is that to say that you would want an exception for legitimate popular rebellion?

      Anything to say about enforcement?

      -Peter

    92. Re:Force Field? by Himring · · Score: 1

      Your reply is far more insightful than the OP. Seriously. And, concur on needing to study more -- always need more knowledge....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    93. Re:Force Field? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I disallow use of my software by anyone in a posession of a Che Guevarra T-shirt, for example

      I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but what if they just wear it ironically?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    94. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A sci-fi force field will not exist. Because "fi" is short for fiction.

      Excuse me but what is fiction today may be reality tomorrow.

    95. Re:Force Field? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Example 1: At the end of the day, the tank was damaged by an IED. There's a big difference.

      Example 2: The loss of an entire tank crew is interesting, but still not enough info.

      Example 3: All I see in the video is a bunch of guys standing over what appears to be a sawed off warhead, then a camera cut to an overhead angle just before the video ends. *shrug*

      Anyway, it doesn't show the aftermath of the attack but shows what they are up agaist as it does show the explosion and what at least seems to be tons of tank pieces tossed into the air.

      We need to see the aftermath. Those pieces could be from the bomb, ablated chunks of armor, or from nearby objects or debris. While I could see a powerful IED possibly flipping a tank, I have a hard time believing that a tank capable of withstanding multiple hits from 120mm depleted uranium slugs is going to break apart from an improvised explosive. (M1A1 Armor)

    96. Re:Force Field? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I'm with the angry brigade on this one - anyone wearing or otherwise displaying Che's image in an "ironic" manner deserves death.

      Of course I think the same about anyone using Ernesto's image in a serious fashion.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    97. Re:Force Field? by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      ROFL my buddies over there say that its about 80% foreigners that get captured or killed during engagements. But what do they know... Maybe you should write them a letter letting them know that they are wrong, as you must have a superior vantage point living in Decatur, IL. Sarah.

    98. Re:Force Field? by Wellington+Grey · · Score: 1

      There is bound to be a post on some obscure forum by some guy named "Tank-H4xor" that gives direction on how to exploit a bug in the system by duct-taping a banana on the missile or a fluffy bunny something :)

      Or you could just throw rocks at it until it runs out of projectiles. Nice and cost effective too, as the going rate for rocks is $0 and I imagine this system costs quite a bit more.

      -Grey

    99. Re:Force Field? by Mondor · · Score: 1

      Nothing surprising about Israel. They, for example, buy the Russian "Black Shark" helicopter and change electronics there.

      And regarding that protection system, it is deadly efficient for a tank and just deadly for supporting infantry. Because it fires whatever you want but not bullets. I heard that American copy of Russian protection system is firing steel balls, while Russian system fires shrapnel. Not a big deal, I guess American engineers think that kids of Teheran loves steel balls.

      I wonder if it will be used in Iran. USA will save some armor but how many lives of supporting infantry will be lost, bearing in mind they refused to wear that new heavy body armor?

    100. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are you going to stop the military from using your open-source software? Who's going to stop them? They're the fricken military man! They're the ones with the guns and the tanks and the flamethrowers.

      Yeah, but we have lawyers.

    101. Re:Force Field? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      The freedom fighters carrying out triple bombings against mosques of their own people? Oh wait, most of them are foreign terrorists. Sorry about that.

    102. Re:Force Field? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      3? I think *several* usually means more than a few ;p

    103. Re:Force Field? by SupremeTaco · · Score: 1

      Yup, you're right.

      Until someone figures out that all they need to do is stand in a crowd, and say, throw a rock, or even a RPG at the tank. Instant Crowd Vaporization, and we'd be blamed, of course!

      Now I'm sure somoeone has thought of this scenario, and since I haven't read the article (I'm at work, so my time is not all mine), but that's the problem with automatic weapons, defensive or not. They're automatic. While that is a huge benefit in and of itself, some smart assailant will figure out how to activate this system against civilians. That seem to be how wars are fought these days anyhow. . . .

      --
      You have a constitutionally protected right to be wrong, and I the right to ignore you.
    104. Re:Force Field? by Falshrmjgr · · Score: 1

      It also makes it pretty hazardous to the infantry near the tanks ;)

      --
      "I wasn't using my civil rights anyway...."
    105. Re:Force Field? by charlesnw · · Score: 1

      That brings a whole new meaning to flame wars doesn't it :)

      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
    106. Re:Force Field? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank. You'd need an actual anti-tank mine to penetrate.
      An Improvised Explosive Device (IED) doesn't have to be an anti-personnel mine.

      In Vietnam, the enemy sometimes rigged unexploded airforce ordinance (200~500lb bombs) into a mine to blow up both tanks and people. How's that for improvisation?

      The people in Iraq are using whatever they can get their hands on, including RPG rounds (a compact shaped charge) specifically designed to penetrate tank armor.

      IED != Anti-Personnel
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    107. Re:Force Field? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Your reply is far more insightful than the OP. Seriously.

      Apparently I'm more insightful than myself. *sigh*

      And, concur on needing to study more -- always need more knowledge....

      There you go. No need for the "this is not insightful" baloney. You didn't understand the context. That's fine. But it's not the fault of Slashdot -or- the moderation system.

    108. Re:Force Field? by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the Hammer's Slammers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer's_Slammers tanks which used 3cm power guns for artillery defense. Now all we need to do is setup a tank with the AI used in the DARPA challenge to navigate the battle field. In no time at all we could have a fully functional BOLO http://users.stargate.net/~whkeith/htm/bolo.htm. But then we need to be real careful not to create a BERSERKER http://www.berserker.com/about_berserkers.htm.

    109. Re:Force Field? by charlesnw · · Score: 1

      You evidently have never seen the monarch processor in action. The speed and agility of the technology is second to none.

      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
    110. Re:Force Field? by Himring · · Score: 1

      There you go. No need for the "this is not insightful" baloney. You didn't understand the context. That's fine. But it's not the fault of Slashdot -or- the moderation system.

      And, now, we are at a disagreement. However, I bore of this thread, so I bid you adieu....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    111. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 0

      According to who? The US military?

    112. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if this thing ever accidentally misses and damages surrounding objects/beings?

    113. Re:Force Field? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Uh, they've taken out several M1's and several APC's with IED's in Iraq. If you bury a 500+ pound bomb the tank is going to be royally screwed no matter what.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    114. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 0

      Assuming you mean military personal, you are aware that their communications with you are monitored? You are also aware that their news is censored and even altered to include political propoganda that "boosts moral"?

      According to actual studies done by neutral organizations 100,000 Iraqi civilians died in the first 18 months of occupation. 80,000 of them were killed by US Troops; the largest foreign insurgent element in Iraq.

      Read more here:

    115. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There isn't enough explosive in an RPG warhead to punch through a main battle tank's armor [..]
      Ever heard of shaped charges? That's what they use in RPGs for some time now, and why tanks have reactive armour, if they didn't an SC RPG would go like a hot knife through butter.
    116. Re:Force Field? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Since they are killing there own people, yes, they are extremists.

      If they stopped, we would finish getting the government operating and then leave.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    117. Re:Force Field? by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      Just a guess, but I wonder if you could defeat it by shooting 3 RPGs from 3 different directions at it? Can it act that quickly against all of them?

      Wether or not it could (it sounds like it can), you increased the difficulty of destroying the vehicle and tripled the manpower and firepower costs to fight it.

    118. Re:Force Field? by fumblebruschi · · Score: 1

      My company just landed a DoD contract--one technical section of the US Army is going to use our debugging software. We've been thinking about including default screen savers that say "Torture is bad."

    119. Re:Force Field? by Greatmoose · · Score: 0

      An example of this would be in Super Dimensional Fortress: Macross. Instead of wasting energy to have a field that enveloped the ship, they devised a roving "point defense shield", made up of three controllable discs of energy. It was pretty cool. Looked like three spolights playing over the surface of the SDF. Just a geek FYI.

      --
      Clearly I forgot to equip my +5 Codpiece of Karma.
    120. Re:Force Field? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      what no links? of course not, cause your talking out of your ass.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    121. Re:Force Field? by Moofie · · Score: 2

      I wonder if the designers of the system thought that it might be a good idea to exclude targets moving at a thrown-rock sort of velocity?

      Astonishing notion, that.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    122. Re:Force Field? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      BBC, aljazeera, wikipedia, and many, many other sites.

      Your irrational emotion of the situation is clouding your judgement.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    123. Re:Force Field? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What part of "Free Software" was unclear to you?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    124. Re:Force Field? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that'd work. We'll just have the UN have a Department of Designating Legitimate Popular Rebellions. What an elegant solution!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    125. Re:Force Field? by CKW · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the survivability of the M1 tanks and their crews, however 120mm depleted uranium slugs are completely different beasts. There are numerous examples of Bradley's getting hit by *multiple* 120mm M1 rounds in the first gulf war, and everyone or almost everyone getting out alive. The DU slugs form a thin pencil jet of molten stuff - if you're not directly in it's path inside the vehicle, you'll survive with burns.

      http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii /du_ii_tabh.htm

      So I wouldn't make that statment that "because it can survive this, it can survive IED's". They're entirely different beasts.

      That being said, it doesn't take much to take a tank out of a battle and put it's crew outside the vehicle vulnerable to a second attack or even small arms fire. Throw the track off, the tank has to sit tight and wait for help/battle to die, or they get out to fix it and you can hit them again.

      There are three different things here that we're all probably on agreement on in specific, but some of us don't care about situation one while others do.

        - Can the tank and it's crew continue to fight
        - Does the tank or it's surviving crew have to withdraw from battle
        - How severe are the injuries
        - How many crewmen die

      Personally, I only care about the latter two. The former two would be important if we ever got involved in a BIG war, one where we have to kill 10 enemy tanks to each of our own lost to win (aka China).

      > they have IEDs that nothing we have can defeat

      You can always build one of something that we can't defeat. So that statement by itself is *useless*.

      Can they build enough of them to make us quit or walk away, or not fight to begin with. Right now the answer is no. In 95 percent of engagements, the tank crews walk away unharmed. We don't care about the tanks themselves. They can't even build enough big enough IEDs to kill enough up-armoured Humvee crew members to make us quit after 3-4 years straight of this.

      I don't care if once this year they managed to build a 1 TON truck bomb that can force a tank crew to abandon it's tank. Talk to me when they're detonating 10 of those a week.

    126. Re:Force Field? by glas_gow · · Score: 1
      There would be a lot of "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night.

      Until, at some point during the "night" the term "improvised explosive device" entered into the conversation.

      This so called force-field is another example of billion-dollar weapon development completely ignoring the current asymmetric battlefield. Conventional head-on attacks against tanks are a thing of WWII.

    127. Re:Force Field? by thebowery · · Score: 1

      I'm reading this and thinking that you've got just 2 tanks equipped with this system. Some dude fires an rpg at tank no.1, this reactive system then attacks the threat to counter it so tank no.2 goes "oh shit! taking fire" and reacts and then destroys the first tanks attempt to disable the attack.... if you had a column of like, *lots* of tanks all you have to do is fire 1 rpg and you end up with a very messy ending.

      --
      "It's better to regret something you have done, than to regret something you haven't done" - Orbital
    128. Re:Force Field? by radish · · Score: 1

      anyone wearing or otherwise displaying Che's image in an "ironic" manner deserves death

      Dude. It's a t-shirt. Get over it.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    129. Re:Force Field? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1
      Yeah, it's just an anti-missile system like those seen in Mechwarrior, or like the phalanx anti-cruise missile system the US Navy uses.

      The only difference it that it appears to use a single explosive projectile to defeat the incoming munitions rather than the "wall of lead" approach the phalanx system uses.

      They've mounted a mini Patriot on a tank.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    130. Re:Force Field? by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

      Remeber the paladin laser defense system in C&C Generals? :)

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    131. Re:Force Field? by srussell · · Score: 1
      Incidentally, the first place I encountered point defense systems was in the Sci-Fi "Bolo" series by Keith Laumer. The story I remember in particular was about a Bolo sitting on a (the?) moon, shooting down tactical nukes as they came over the horizon. Eventually, the radiation from the nukes -- even at distance -- started heating up the Bolo, and its reaction times slowed so that the nukes got closer, and closer... I don't remember the name of the story, or when it first appeared, but it must have been a couple of decades ago, because I think I first read it in the mid-80's. Mr. Laumer's first Bolo book was published in 1976.

      --- SER

    132. Re:Force Field? by charlesnw · · Score: 1

      The vehicles don't. However the defense systems/hardware around them do. Its called PCP. Projectile Conception Point.

      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
    133. Re:Force Field? by portforward · · Score: 1

      I assume that a regular hand-thrown grenade would move similarly to a rock.

    134. Re:Force Field? by ezberry · · Score: 1

      but then it would probably also miss grenades that were thrown at it.

    135. Re:Force Field? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      A regular hand-thrown grenade is no threat to a tank.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    136. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, absolutely! This is in line with US military doctrine. Create a force so overwhelming it never needs to fight. This is why we have things like Trophy, Land Warrior, and other superiority systems."

      Has anyone ever told you that you are a gullible fool ? I'd bet you are too young to remember Viet Nam, and Arc Light raids, and Agent Orange, etc.
      We had superiority, but they KICKED OUR ASS, because those people were fighting for their OWN COUNTRY. If this sounds familiar to what's happening now
      in Iraq, that's because it IS.

      The REAL reason the US wants such "superiority" is so it can control any country it wants to.

      And the EXACT reason that North Korea and some other "rogue states" want nukes is so they can say "no, I do not want to lie down and let you rape me".

      I don't blame the countries who want nukes one bit, because no one with balls wants some power-mad psycho ( e.g. Shrub ) forcing demands
      on them.

      BTW, I am American, and I am one of a growing number of Americans who know that the Bush administration is a bunch of liars and crooks.
      If you live outside the US, FYI : not all Americans are in favor of what the US is now doing.

    137. Re:Force Field? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and of course, for every minute of use you have to carry a million rounds. I would imagine that ways a pound(american kilo) or two!

      There is nothing you can correct in the above post that I don't already know.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    138. Re:Force Field? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Well, even sans the 'automatically attack other people' problem, the idea of an auto-attack system is goofy unless you have a lot of ammo.

      Otherwise the other side is just going to hurtle some rocks at you, or, hell, aim a firehose at you. And eventually invent a dirt catapult, where soldiers can just load up with a shovel, it squeezes tennis-ball size clods of it together, and hurtles them repeatedly three hundred feet towards the tank. Two electromagnets, one to smash the ball and the other to pull back a spring, and then release and repeat. Have a grate so large rocks can't get in that you dump out manually. You could run it off a car battery, or whatever portable power the military uses.

      Let the other side waste their ammo shooting down something that costs .003 cents worth of electricity to shoot at them. And, unlike a traditional mortar system, it would be very hard to detect the origin, because of the lack of an explosion at the firing.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    139. Re:Force Field? by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

      I saw this video a few days ago, and was also surprised that it was called a force field. But I was wondering what exactly would happen if 10 RPGs arrived within range at the same time. What about 100, 1000?

      If that system can simultaneously stop all 1000 RPGs if they all enter within range at the same time, I can live with it being called a force field.

    140. Re:Force Field? by Shihar · · Score: 1

      If the US had a dictator and a foriegn government kicked him over and tried to set up a democracy then get the fuck out, I can absolutely promise you that my response would not be to go suicide bomb blacks, Jews, or Christians. It would be one thing if the insurgents were just trying to fight American forces. The issue is that they are blowing up their fellow citizens indiscrimently. They are not even limiting their targets to security forces of their government. They are hitting purely civilian targets with the intention of killing clearly innocent people.

      I might become a "terrorist" if my country was invaded, but I sure as shit would not resort to belowing up my fellow citizens whole sale. These is not an insurgent war. This is a religious civil war that the US made possible by kicking over a strong man. We have taken sides in this war and so we are targets.

      Now, I am not making a judgement on if the US should be there or not, but to declare this simply an insurgent war utterly ignores the reality of the targets they are picking. They are not fighting like an occupied nation. They are are fighting like they are in the middle of a religious civil war that a foriegn power just so happens to of stuck its nose in.

      To be honest, I would merrily in favor of giving them a 1 year notice and telling them to get their shit together because we are getting out. Then drawing back simply defend the Iraqi borders to keep outside parties from entering Iraq, and letting them deal with their own shit.

    141. Re:Force Field? by wiremind · · Score: 1

      >A regular hand-thrown grenade is no threat to a tank.

      really? hmm. i didnt know that. cool.

    142. Re:Force Field? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if, for a true Star Trek-like force field, if you could have something like a sustainable high-energy laser spread into a wide arc (or several wide-ish linear lasers) fired from the top of the tank into either the ground (bummer for the ground) or some sort of mirror that can bounce it upwards or even back into itself (perhaps feedback-driven to keep a reaction going).

      Ideally, the tank would have a series of laser towers with a wide spread mounted on its top such that they could fire down the length of the tank towards the front where the receiver or reflector would be. Whenever radar picks up an incoming, it predicts near impact time and fires for a full second, hopefully vaporizing whatever was incoming (rather than just exploding it which might also work but runs the risk of destroying the "shield" generators).

    143. Re:Force Field? by SEAL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could blow the tread off. So it's not a direct threat to the crew or the tank's weaponry, but losing mobility is not a good idea most of the time.

    144. Re:Force Field? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would they be rebelling if they wanted to create a theocracy?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    145. Re:Force Field? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If I wanted to blow the tread off a tank, I wouldn't be throwing grenades, I'd be trying to stick 'em in the treads.

      That's a hard throw.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    146. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I would be a member of our uniformed military fighting an invading army. If some actual extremists were to intervene in the conflict, by say bombing catholic churches or setting up IEDs at police academies to kill kids about to become cops, I'd use all my time off duty to hunt them down and beat the living hell out of them.

    147. Re:Force Field? by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 1
      "how can fight something like that?" discussions going on that night.
      I can think of several ways off the top of my head. 1) Semi- / Pseudo-Random flight pattern. Sure, it's going more or less in a line from whatever shot it to the tank, but it can bob and weave a hell of a lot - enough to throw off even a very advanced targeting system - on the way there. It's not like every tank is going to have a supercomputer installed in it somewhere for aiming, and a satellite / radio / IR / whatever system that relays to a big computer 'back at the base' would have too much lag to be effective. 2) The thing only covers one hemisphere of the tank. Design rockets that fly past the target, turn around, and whack it in the ass. Shoot another rocket at the front simultaneously, so it can't just swivel back and forth. 3) Splitting projectiles. A single rocket or whatever that splits when fired, or firing several projectiles at once. 4) Spoofing. Put small explosives on the outside of the rocket which, a second or so after it is fired, begin to fire one at a time. Or pressurized capsules that are opened / ruptured / whatever. Load each one with a bunch of iron dust. Anything to get the defense system to shoot at air.
      All of these ideas could be implemented very cheaply and with little tech. This is has lots of cool factor, but in the end it simply won't work, and I didn't even get into subjects such as mines, extremely slow-moving targets, etc.
      --
      Unpleasantries.
    148. Re:Force Field? by willy_me · · Score: 1
      These is not an insurgent war. This is a religious civil war that the US made possible by kicking over a strong man.

      No, it is not a religious war. Wars are never about religion, religion is just a tool used to motivate people to fight. The insurgents are simply getting the people worked up so they will revolt. The more fighting the better as far as they are concerned - remember, it all gets blamed on the current leadership. Once the current leadership has been sufficiently crippled, they will offer the people an alternative. They will offer the people security and the people will accept. This would be the start of their dark ages....

      To be honest, I would merrily in favor of giving them a 1 year notice and telling them to get their shit together because we are getting out. Then drawing back simply defend the Iraqi borders to keep outside parties from entering Iraq, and letting them deal with their own shit.

      This is exactly what the insurgents want. Their peace won't last. There will be violence and a lot of death. In the end, Iraq would be far worse off then when Hussein was in power. The US really messed this country up - they owe it to the Iraqi people to maintain security until the elected government can hold it's own. If not, it'll be the Taliban all over again.

      People are like sheep and can be easily manipulated. I think the States was ignorant of the fact that for a Democracy to work, you need an educated population that both understands and appreciates Democracy. You need a population that is a little less like sheep. If instead of prosecuting Hussein, the States left him in power with a new mandate - a mandate to educate, provide certain human rights, and eventually (~10years) transfer all power to a democratically elected officials - much of this violence could have been avoided. With US troops on the ground, ensuring Hussein lives up to his end of the bargain would have been easy. Reform without all the death..

    149. Re:Force Field? by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Its not a force field and its not particularly mysterious. It is a radar system and automated shotgun, basically. When the radar detects an object of the right size and velocity coming towards the tank, it quickly aims and fires a shotgun at the missle/rocket propelled grenade. The shotgun is supposed to destroy/detonate the projectile before it reaches the tank. This system has been in use since the 1970s on US battleships. As for mysterious, it isn't particularly, except for the details, like who makes the components, and what exactly its range is. There are several problems with this system. For one, it can only stop slower projectiles, so it is limited to crude missles and rocket propelled grenades, no shells or other artillery. Also, if you happen to be in a crowded area when the system is triggered, there is a good chance that 1000 rounds of amunition are going to be sprayed out into the crowd as the gun trys to hit the incoming projectile, all in 1/10 of a second.

    150. Re:Force Field? by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      "Land Warrior's software system is powered by a variant of the Linux operating system and has a modular, open architecture for further improvement. Reliability in recent testing at Fort Benning has been extremely high."

      Well, that explains so much...

    151. Re:Force Field? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, basically just a smart, ranged version of the reactive armor our tanks already possess.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    152. Re:Force Field? by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      True, but the Zeus system mentioned in the ABL article yesterday would do quite nicely. Granted, you'd still have to find the devices, but once they were found they could be taken down with Zeus while the Point defense system protects from RPG's. Not too many more threats to contend with at that point.

    153. Re:Force Field? by mollymoo · · Score: 1
      Well, even sans the 'automatically attack other people' problem, the idea of an auto-attack system is goofy unless you have a lot of ammo.

      Otherwise the other side is just going to hurtle some rocks at you, or, hell, aim a firehose at you.

      What makes you think the system can't tell the difference between a rock, a firehose and an RPG?

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    154. Re:Force Field? by Penguinshit · · Score: 2, Insightful


      BZZZZZT

      Only ~2% of the insurgents are found to be foreigners. And the majority of the insurgents are minority-group Sunnis who are trying to maintain a power presence in a government now dominated by the majority-group Shi'ites.

      Sorry to burst your rant-bubble, but a few facts are in order here.

    155. Re:Force Field? by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/chen ey.htm">How about a little history lesson?

      It was Saddam that kept these groups apart in the first place. It's quite reminiscent of the Balkans.

    156. Re:Force Field? by skeeball · · Score: 2, Interesting
      From Wikipedia:
      "However, on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which may have been combined with other explosives to increase its effect. This marked the first time deaths resulted from a hostile-fire assault on the M1 tank.

      On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged and its driver killed from shrapnel wounds when an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three M109A6 155 mm shells with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg detonated next to the tank. The other three crew members were able to escape, a testament to the armor of the M1A2."

      Not the same incidents as above but illustrates the amount of explosives needed for such IEDs. Again none of these reports indicate whether the hatches were open or closed.
    157. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bodybags coming from Iraq should tell you, that people go underground, lay bombs, fill vehicles with explosives, etc... No forcefield bullshit will stop this or scare anyone in a asymetric war - if at all.

      The taxes could be spent much, much better.

    158. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about use a mine or IED? It can't engage stationary/hidden weapons. Alternately, snipe the guys when they get out of the tank. Killing people ain't rocket science.

    159. Re:Force Field? by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Care to back up that 2% figure, or where you playing a game of "lets pull numbers out of my ass, because my ass is filled to the brim with facts!"?

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    160. Re:Force Field? by bjohnson · · Score: 2, Informative

      for that matter, neither is an RPG, at least none in the field today.

      RPG's are only effective against more lightly armored vehicles, such as trucks, Humvees and some parts of an APC.

    161. Re:Force Field? by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Because the US won't let them have one, and as soon as they get the US out they can easily destabilized the central government and give all the power to the priests (or warlords, in most cases they are probably both).

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    162. Re:Force Field? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 2, Funny

      re:"Killing people ain't rocket science."

      Unless - you know - you use a rocket to kill someone....

    163. Re:Force Field? by dajak · · Score: 1

      The issue is that they are blowing up their fellow citizens indiscrimently. They are not even limiting their targets to security forces of their government. They are hitting purely civilian targets with the intention of killing clearly innocent people.

      The civil war doesn't disqualify them as a resistance movement. Fellow citizens considered traitors are often targeted by resistance movements, even the more respectable European ones in WWII.

    164. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like your "majority"? You didn't quote any facts, you didn't give any sources. All you did was say "majority." Well, that MUST be right, because it's you, and we can trust you to tell us the truth, as it is.

    165. Re:Force Field? by 3mpire · · Score: 0

      How about a 500 lb artillery shell buried under the street? Those that are threatened by RPGs aren't tanks but thin skinned Humvees and the Vietnam-era trucks. Still cool, but it doesnt sound very practical.

    166. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Washington Post in Nov.

      "The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated at between 4 and 10 percent of all guerrillas."

      "Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.

    167. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, are either of you people going to provide links or are you content with useless ad hominems?

    168. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I prefer to let you do your own research. I only do that for pay. I will give you a hint though, I've given links to some of this information in other posts within this thread. Are you so lazy that you really can't google for yourself? Or you do genuinely feel it is a sane practice to assume that all statements that run contrary to what you wish to believe are lies without even the slightest effort to ascertain their merit?

      As for the censorship of web browsing and news, anyone who reads slashdot was privledged to see these stories within the past couple weeks. Hell, the news piped into soldiers in military controlled facilities is monitored and filtered during peacetime. In fact, sometimes potential recruits have to put up in a hotel to make scheduled times for physicals and ASVAB exams. Because you are a citizen and not military personel they advise you that the phones are monitored and the television is censored.

      Apparently, somebody with authority reached the conclusion that the troops perform better if they aren't aware of negative sentiments. In the view of the military it is really irrelevant whether what they are telling the troops is true or not so long as it makes the troops believe they are doing something positive.

    169. Re:Force Field? by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this thing ever accidentally misses and damages surrounding objects/beings?

      If it misses, won't the RPG/missile do a lot of damage to surrounding objects anyway, when it hits the tank and explodes? The only difference is that the explosion would be 10-30 meters further along the missile's path. Well, that and the additional explosion of the tank's fuel and ammunition.

    170. Re:Force Field? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Holy PR moves Batman!

      My fellow war supporters, here's the situation - all of the reasons we gave for invading Iraq before the war turned out to be hogwash. Whether it was due to lying, incompetence, or (most likely) over-enthusiasm and spin by certain parties best left unmentioned, Iraq posed no signifigant threat to the US in any way. So how do we salvage our dignity? We have to make the war look like a humanitarian effort.

      First - The image of the enemy - we have to make Saddam look as evil as possible. He can't be just another petty dictator, like so many others that we aren't fighting, he has to be Hitler. So give all the grusome details about the evil he's done, but don't put it in perspective to other places, or he won't stand out like we need him to.

      Second - The image of ourselves - we have to make it look like the choice was between waging war and doing nothing - people will always go for a hands-on bad solution over a hands-off good solution. So the fairly effective inspectors and embargos should be dismissed as peacenick-hippie daydreams, and only then can a long, destabalizing war be seen as good. (Especially after our promises of a fast, painless war.)

      Remember the idea we're trying to plant - something had to be done, nobody else had any better ideas, and by golly, we did something. And damn the consquences.

    171. Re:Force Field? by A10n · · Score: 1

      Easy,

      Attack the tank under ground or at a very low altitude (one or two feet off of the ground) or if you can find an angle that the interceptor can't shoot at (90 Degree angle)

      Underground sounds hard and impossible, but honestly that is the only part of the tank that is now unprotected.

      Someone want to invent missles that dig through the ground? LOL!

    172. Re:Force Field? by yoprst · · Score: 1

      in history no army has been succesful agains irregular combattants in the long term
      That's one fine piece of BS. Irregular combatants are no problem for any army that is ready to commit war crimes. Genocide is the best, but concentration camps are good enough as well.

    173. Re:Force Field? by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      I have a better solution.

      1 - No govt healthcare, but regulation of insurance companies. This is better. Competition, with limits. Executive pay limits, mandatory coverage for those who are working, etc.

      2 - Tax everyone the same. Flat tax. Those who are at a reasonable poverty line will recieve their taxes back in the form of food coupons. Everyone is equal, everyone pays the same rate. This creates incentives for those with little money to work harder and gain more money. Its ludicrous to punish those who work harder by more taxes.

      3 - Cut out subsidies, corporate tax breaks, state-driven corporate tax relief. Make corporations all pay the same tax rate. Allow reasonable deductions just as you would a citizen. Punish heavily those who commit tax or financial fraud.

      4 - Promote small business loans, small business community incentives, and small business government assistance (not money, but help DEALING with the government regulations -- ie employment tax issues, healthcare issues, employer requirements, etc)

      5 - Cut the defense budget, and put the rest into completely reforming schools through optional (but significant) federal incentives. So school townships that dont want to change, or that are working and have money, dont have to change, but those who are poor, change to work better. Hire teachers with real degress from real universities, and pay them free-market wages (you know, like, $60k for teaching, instead of 32k).

      While you are at it, lets clean up a few more things...

      1 - Campaign Finance Reform -- No Donations From Anyone. Equal government money to all candidates with a set number of signatures. This is all they get. Deal with it.

      2 - Enact a constitutional amendment that prevents the federal governments from going into debt for longer than 12 months except in wartime.

      Shit thats just a start.... Ive got more.

    174. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to nitpick either, but those Russkie defence systems are useless against most US weapon systems that rely on the kinetic penetrator concept (though they MIGHT snap the rod of a TOW missile, the latter being the cheapest weapon of choice here).

    175. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring the fact that US Troops have been responsible for 80% of the Iraqi deaths (or had been at the last count, about 18 months in). In other words, of the 100,000 Iraqi Civs who are dead, we killed 80,000 of them.

      There may be foreign insurgents killing their own people, but US Troops claim responsibility for most of the dead Iraqis.

    176. Re:Force Field? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Great. Let them waste time throwing rocks. In the meantime the troops now know where the enemy is and can send an appropriate response. Either way, tank is undamaged and crew remains safe, while you can't say the same about the enemy.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    177. Re:Force Field? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Is this kind of like a 'needle gun' from the Dorsai series of books?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    178. Re:Force Field? by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Informative


      Here you go..

      So.. of 13000 to 17000 insurgents they've identified, some 500 are foreigners.

      Let's see.. 500/17000 = .029 or 3% and 500/13000 = .038 or 4%.

      Kiss my fact-filled ass.

    179. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the 100,000 dead, +/- 92,000. Meanwhile, sources that do not have a 92% margin of error report around 30,000 dead.

    180. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All armies have their weaknesses, and in history no army has been succesful agains irregular combattants in the long term (of course you're going to quash any group of irregulars that you meet in any kind of open battle, but they just keep coming, and coming and coming).

      British in Malaya, US in the Philippines, Venezuela, Peru...
    181. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you please care to cite a battle in Vietnam where the US got its ass kicked?

      Would you please care to cite a battle in Iraq where the US got its ass kicked?

      Wait a sec... You're right! They are similar! The US has lost no battles in either theater! We're DOOOOOOOOOMED!
    182. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "1 - No govt healthcare, but regulation of insurance companies. This is better. Competition, with limits. Executive pay limits, mandatory coverage for those who are working, etc."

      This does not guarantee that every US citizen can have comprehensive healthcare regardless of their means or employment.

      "2 - Tax everyone the same. Flat tax. Those who are at a reasonable poverty line will recieve their taxes back in the form of food coupons. Everyone is equal, everyone pays the same rate. This creates incentives for those with little money to work harder and gain more money. Its ludicrous to punish those who work harder by more taxes."

      This does not resolve the problem of almost all the economic resources in the nation pooling at the top. That needs to be prevented. The rest of your post rests on the work ethic fallacy. Hard work is not a formula for success and it never has been. In reality it is the poorest who must work the hardest to survive. Not everyone can be successful. For every business there must be employees and an owner. Therefore there will always be a gap and a lower finacial class. The ideal is to make the gap as small as possible.

      "Those who are at a reasonable poverty line will recieve their taxes back in the form of food coupons."

      This of course is obviously ridiculous. First someone need not be impoverished to get a tax break. Middle class families are the goal and therefore they should recieve the tax break. The top 5% have FAR more wealth than the other 95% combined. But the completely ridiculous part is the implication that these people should be policed on how they can spend their money by only giving them food coupons. Perhaps they want to put that money toward repairing their vehicle, or buying medicine for themselves or their child (since you have put us back into a situation where nobody has healthcare).

      "3 - Cut out subsidies, corporate tax breaks, state-driven corporate tax relief. Make corporations all pay the same tax rate. Allow reasonable deductions just as you would a citizen. Punish heavily those who commit tax or financial fraud."

      There is nothing concrete in this point. It does not address the problem that my suggestion solves. Corporations will always play tricks with taxes. The only way to assure that corporations pay taxes is to have a minimum rate.

      "4 - Promote small business loans, small business community incentives, and small business government assistance (not money, but help DEALING with the government regulations -- ie employment tax issues, healthcare issues, employer requirements, etc)"

      Yes we got it. You fall in the top 20% who pay the lion share of the taxes. Unfortunately the lion share you pay is not in proportion to the income you have.

      "5 - Cut the defense budget, and put the rest into completely reforming schools through optional (but significant) federal incentives. So school townships that dont want to change, or that are working and have money, dont have to change, but those who are poor, change to work better. Hire teachers with real degress from real universities, and pay them free-market wages (you know, like, $60k for teaching, instead of 32k)."

      Not the worst idea I have heard nor the best. I can not speak for other areas of school spending but I have seen numerous schools that have entire labs filled with overpowered pc that have LCD displays (in every case on a desk or table that would have accomadated a CRT equally well).

      "1 - Campaign Finance Reform -- No Donations From Anyone. Equal government money to all candidates with a set number of signatures. This is all they get. Deal with it."

      Agreed, and lets abolish the parties while we are at it. It certainly would not hurt to go back to voting for people instead of corrupt political organizations.

      Hell as long as we are going on to reforms. We should not forget to abolish the current social security scheme. Of course it would need to be replaced with a new entity for disability (retirement should be privatized. The

    183. Re:Force Field? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that is why the Philippines is now the 51st state, England rules Malaya, and Venezuela isn't currently arming up its soldiers to resist a US invasion. Shaddap. As the the GP AC, LOG IN AND KOLLECT YOUR KARMA. We need more intelligent, well thought out postings like that one.

    184. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "I would be a member of our uniformed military fighting an invading army."

      You seem to have missed the part where the uniformed military already lost. Our nation has already been conquered.

      "If some actual extremists were to intervene in the conflict, by say bombing catholic churches or setting up IEDs at police academies to kill kids about to become cops, I'd use all my time off duty to hunt them down and beat the living hell out of them."

      They are becoming the police force of the new regime (the kids part is just an appeal to emotion and neither true nor relevant). Personally I would see nothing wrong with killing the traitors who support the invaders along with the invaders themselves. Any extremists of the variety you refer to would have to wait for my attention if 80% of the civilians dying were dying at the hands of the invaders and most of the rest were dying at the hands of death squads formed from the traitor police for the invaders assembled.

    185. Re:Force Field? by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      I use SI to measure my flower power, thank you very much!

      --
      Fnord.
    186. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the radar tracking the incoming material, the next step is to calculate the launch point and direct some fire there. The military has been researching this step also.

    187. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "It would be one thing if the insurgents were just trying to fight American forces. The issue is that they are blowing up their fellow citizens indiscrimently. They are not even limiting their targets to security forces of their government. They are hitting purely civilian targets with the intention of killing clearly innocent people."

      Add the numbers up. The best I can do is 18 months in because i can't find the statistics either way after that. At that point 100,000 iraqi civilians had died, 80% of them were killed by US Forces directly or indirectly (indirect being collateral damage). That leaves 20,000.

      We also know that there are reports of thousands dying at the hands of death squads composed of the US trained security forces. We claim that we suspect this is true (maybe it is all the reports of corpses still in cuffs) but that we are not supporting the activity and things are too chaotic to try to take action. I don't have a number for death squad killings because there simply are no valid numbers available, but it is believed by Iraqi officials to be in the thousands. Lets call if half of the unaccounted for space. That leaves 10,000 or 10% of the dead Iraqis.

      How many of those are part of the US puppet government (nobody really believes that our government invades one strategic target after another to "spread freedom" I hope) and its security force. These individuals can all be safely considered traitors to natives who want a free Iraq. Lets call that half again.

      This leaves 5%, 5% of the Iraqis that have died as a result of the Iraqi invasion, to have died as a result of "terrorists". It is a fairly safe bet that many of those are not war related at all, they are criminal elements taking advantage of the fact that authorities now assume foul play is terrorist related instead of starting looking for people with a grudge or who were owed money by the deceased.

    188. Re:Force Field? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      In fact, the last car that you took to the junk yard will have it's metal recycled, and some of that may end up going into a war machine.

      Around the time the original pressed-frame Honda 50 came out, an interviewer somewhat waggishly asked Sochiro Honda if the rather fragile-looking motorbike was indeed made from recycled beer cans. "No, it isn't," he replied, "It's made from recycled B-29's".

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    189. Re:Force Field? by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Have you ever enlisted? Nope, and speaking as someone who has, I know you're wrong.

    190. Re:Force Field? by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      This does not guarantee that every US citizen can have comprehensive healthcare regardless of their means or employment.

      There should be no comprehensive healthcare that is mandatory for US Citizens. That is silly. It should be comprehensive for minors, but after that, it should be a financial choice. Tax and Spend policies do not work. Hence why Britain and EU are starting to reform their healthcare policies. The problem with comprehensive healthcare for everyone is that those who can afford to pay still wont, and this dilutes the system. The free system should be for those who need it, not everyone. The regulation of insurance companies will make it easier and more possible for those non-minors who WANT insurance to have it. Heavy regulation on profits and spending, and no denial of coverage will allow everyone to have coverage -- IF they want it.

      This does not resolve the problem of almost all the economic resources in the nation pooling at the top.

      Yes, actually it does. But slowly. Very. It does not do it overnight. What it DOES do is re-introduce the concept of social mobility. See Below.

      The rest of your post rests on the work ethic fallacy. Hard work is not a formula for success and it never has been.

      You dilude yourself. Hard work has, until recently, always been the formula for success. Since cavemen. It is the more natural order. Perverse tax systems and incorrectly designed welfare systems have caused this to disappear.

      More over, the US has more social and economic mobility than any european country. In both directions. It seems that you would prefer that instead of basing incentives on work ethic, that we base incentives on born-into conditions. This is wrong, and introduces many problems into society. Social and economic mobility is a good thing.

      In referencing #3, There is nothing concrete in this point. It does not address the problem that my suggestion solves. Corporations will always play tricks with taxes. The only way to assure that corporations pay taxes is to have a minimum rate.

      Actually, my solution introduces accountability and fairness among businesses of all sizes. Your solution simply punishes businesses for being businesses. This is absurd. It is not the small business that play the tax foolishness game, but rather the large ones. They are also the same companies that get the most tax breaks from cities and states. This should stop. Small businesses provide real economic growth, not large businesses.

      Yes we got it. You fall in the top 20% who pay the lion share of the taxes. Unfortunately the lion share you pay is not in proportion to the income you have.

      Incorrect. My income places me at the low end of middle class currently. But I am working to move beyond that. I work 80 hours a week. It is not easy.

      In what world is it logical to punish someone for more work? The tax problems I speak of not only punish middle class who are nearing upper middle class, but also those in poverty who are nearly out of poverty. As soon as they cross a certain line in the sand, their tax rate jumps. So making $9999 (example purposes only) actually results in more REAL income than $10000, if the line is at 10000. This is stupid. If the rate is the same, those in poverty will always work to improve their situation, without fear of being trapped at a "tax wall".

      Not the worst idea I have heard nor the best. I can not speak for other areas of school spending but I have seen numerous schools that have entire labs filled with overpowered pc that have LCD displays (in every case on a desk or table that would have accomadated a CRT equally well).

      I'm not sure how this related to the overall discussion, but I have seen this as well. So what? Education has, and always will be, a local issue. Especially in the USA. But the federal grants allow those school corps that want to change, the opportunity. The three main problems with average inner city school systems is lack of funds, lack of qu

    191. Re:Force Field? by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Actually, the rebels are religous extremists that are busy killing each other. There's also quite a few foreign fighters such as the fair haired, fair skinned Syrian that nicked my little brother in the ear with a rifle bullet. But how could my little brother contradict your superior knowledge? After he was only fucking THERE while you were sitting behind your computer. Not to mention all of these "freedom fighters" that are so hopped up on drugs that they don't feel getting shot. Or all of the ones that confessed they were fighting for the money paid to them.

    192. Re:Force Field? by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      The CNN I watched and the Voice of the BBC I listened to while in the Marine Corps for 8 years were uncensored. Stop talking about what you know nothing about. Stick to bitching about /.

    193. Re:Force Field? by griffjon · · Score: 1

      At least they know it won't get rooted by someone putting a CD on (I hear Wagner works well), and then the damned thing turns around and starts attacking friendlies...

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    194. Re:Force Field? by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      Great thats just another way for DICE/EA to unbalance BF2 even more.

      but to comment on your comment, these people who are firing the RPGs would blow themselves up over promise of 72 virgins. . . I don't think having their RPG explode before it hits the tank would deter them.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    195. Re:Force Field? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Bah, I doubt it can even handle a Saving Private Ryanesque sticky bomb.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    196. Re:Force Field? by cciRRus · · Score: 1
      One guy with one RPG taking a tank down is one thing, but having to coordinate half a dozen guys with related weaponry to fire simultaneously is much more difficult to do.
      Why can't the attackers coordinate through their signal sets?

      "Guys, ready to fire! On a count of 3!"

      "1......... 2.......... 3!"

      You must have played Counter-Strike too much. There is no need to press "U" and enter your message to your real soldiers.
      --
      w00t
    197. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yes I have. And speaking as who DID enlist, I know you either have a lousy memory or are talking out your arse.

    198. Re:Force Field? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I really, really want to believe this. However, I got an email from MoveOn.com today which quoted Bush in the NYT as saying we are preparing for war in Iran.

      What's worse, he refused to take the "nuclear option" off the table -- which means that he's telling Iran, "We're planning to nuke you. What's your response going to be?"

      What would yours be? Defense, perhaps? They're 5 years away from a nuclear plan. Does this sabre-rattling seem to slow them down, or might they step up efforts in order to have a deterrent?

      It boggles the mind that one individual can throw around our military-industrial complex with such ease. I thought that was the whole reason we had 3 separate rings of government.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    199. Re:Force Field? by initialE · · Score: 1

      This is not a point defense system. A real point defense system would constitute of tiny glowing bubbles that you position around the outer hull by using your trackball, like what they deployed on the SDF-1 Macross

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    200. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no comparing already-deployed crap to recently-tested crap.

    201. Re:Force Field? by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Nope. Throwing a single grenade would not blow off the tracks of a Leopard or the T-62. You need more power than that. OF course if it were an armoured carrier, then its a different story.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    202. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a very poor sense of history yourself, so I'm not sure you're the right guy to draw lessons from. Just because a dictum is written in Latin, that doesn't mean the Romans lived by it. (Semper ubi sub-ubi.) The Romans fought wars nearly every year. They didn't prepare for the purpose of reserving force. In fact, they drew from the population, organized very effective modular phlanx and kicked the crap out of many many peoples. Even when they lost, the would regroup and attack again. Eventually overcoming all obstacles to empire.

      While we're at it... The Spartans beat the Atheneans in the Peloponnesian war. Thebes was an ally of Sparta.

    203. Re:Force Field? by OneMoreLie · · Score: 1

      Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
      Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
      Peasant 2: ...A witch!
      Peasants : Burn her! Burn her!

    204. Re:Force Field? by Bobsledboy · · Score: 1

      Someone want to invent missles that dig through the ground? LOL!

      What do you think an antitank landmine is?

    205. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something is in a fiction story dosn't mean it can't exist in the real world....Idiot

    206. Re:Force Field? by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Cute but wrong numbers. First off, the 100,000 number is flat out wrong. Even less then objective sources put the number at no more 38,000 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). Official numbers put them even lower. Of those 38,000, the actual number that were civilians is unknown, but 80% is clearly an massive overshoot. I don't think we even managed pull off 80% civilian casualties when we firebombed cities during World War II.

      As for death squads, those are not US security. If you think a bunch of pasty ass white guys or black guys from the US are running around Iraq undetected killing off civilians, you are simply delusional. We kind of stick out a little. Even if we manage to blend in, the second anyone opens their mouth it is pretty clear they don't speak the regional accent of Arabic. Further, even if we could operate covert death squads, they wouldn't be hunting down random civilians. People disappearing in the night HURTS the US. We want the damn place to be a merrily little economic power house like Japan. Economic growth and people vanishing at night are pretty mutually exclusive. It would be a pretty retarded move to work against our own interests.

      There are some credible reports of death squads in Iraq though. These death squads are generally militia (either Sunni or Shiite). There are even some reports of Iraqi army units acting as death squads.

      How many of those are part of the US puppet government (nobody really believes that our government invades one strategic target after another to "spread freedom" I hope) and its security force. These individuals can all be safely considered traitors to natives who want a free Iraq.

      As for who is getting hurt in the suicide attacks, do some fucking research before opening your ignorant mouth. Go to google news and type in "iraq mosque bombing". Unless all Shiites (women and children) are "traitors" because they are paying in a Shiite mosque, it is pretty clear that you have an ethnic/religious conflict going on.

    207. Re:Force Field? by pakar · · Score: 1

      Damn, i thought they had managed to create some real first-gen forcefield.
      Why i thought that they had done that is that i watched a show on discovery a while ago where there where some goverment funded researcher that did research into plasma where they where talking about using it for some larger application in the future..

    208. Re:Force Field? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      Who's killing their own people? The big religious faction, the smaller religious faction, the ethnic minority, the people that just want the US to leave, forigners that want to hurt the US, the political party that used to run things, or the new groups trying to take power?

      Or do you think they're all the same?

    209. Re:Force Field? by Shihar · · Score: 1

      They are not targeting "traitors". When you ram a truck bomb into a packed Shiite mosque, you just got kicked out of the 'resistance fighter' category and now are simply an extremist Sunni Arab fascist. It is one thing to attack a police station or even a government building filled with civilians. Both of those things could be argued to fall under 'resistance' operations even if civilians are the targets. When you load up a truck with explosives and hit a mosque of the religion that you are not during worship hours, you are now simply a religious fascist that has it in his head that the other guys are so wrong that they need to be completely purged, women, children, and all. The fact that these are religious fascist willing to blow themselves up to purge the other side just makes them all the worse.

      At least a fucking Nazi has some sense of self preservation and isn't inclined to drive a truck bomb in a synagogue. These people that ram truck bombs into mosques are the lowest of the low. Personally, I hope that the same thing that happened to all of histories other genocidal fascist happens to these fuckers... I hope they get wiped so completely that their grand kids will be mortified by any other position then pacifism.

    210. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "As for death squads, those are not US security. If you think a bunch of pasty ass white guys or black guys from the US are running around Iraq undetected killing off civilians, you are simply delusional."

      Last I checked the US trained security forces in Iraq are composed of Iraqis.

      "If you think a bunch of pasty ass white guys or black guys from the US are running around Iraq undetected killing off civilians, you are simply delusional."

      Apparently the seattle times is delusional as well. This was front page news in Europe; didn't really hit the radar here.

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/ 2002876683_civilians20.html

      "Go to google news and type in "iraq mosque bombing". Unless all Shiites (women and children) are "traitors" because they are paying in a Shiite mosque, it is pretty clear that you have an ethnic/religious conflict going on."

      Establishing that there is a religious conflict does not establish that the majority of deaths and violence in Iraq are the direct result of that conflict. It certainly does not make the actions of the United States moral.

      Regarding the differences in death tolls. "Official" sources obviously are propoganda mills. Your other source is counting reported deaths, the source I quoted is using the data available to calculate ALL the deaths, not merely counting those that make the newspaper headlines. This is explained in the article I linked.

      Regardless, I have grown bored with the discussion. *tips his hat*

    211. Re:Force Field? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      bombing catholic churches

      If things started as they are now, you're probably right. On the other hand if IRA style groups had been fighting each other for years, you'd probably be too distracted by the new guys with tanks, martial law, and strict cerfews to really care.

      IEDs at police academies

      Right - Nazis have taken over the US, killed people you know, and are imposing their own style of govenment on us - and Americans who are joining the police force to enforce the Nazi-supported legal system aren't legitimate targets. Sure.

    212. Re:Force Field? by Shihar · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what the insurgents want. Their peace won't last. There will be violence and a lot of death. In the end, Iraq would be far worse off then when Hussein was in power. The US really messed this country up - they owe it to the Iraqi people to maintain security until the elected government can hold it's own. If not, it'll be the Taliban all over again.

      The problem right now is the Iraqi political process. It is in a word, fucked. They were elected into power months ago yet still have not formed a government while they watch their nation slowly crumble. They need to get their shit in gear and start functioning as an elected government. One of the best ways to spurn them on might be to simply tell them that we are going to leave.

      Think about it. You have these people who have joined the government and entered into the democratic process. Some of these people joined for noble reasons. Others (many) are simply looking to scoop up power. They are okay to watch their country burn while they bicker over who gets to hold the reins of power. If the US simply gave them a date and told them that we are leaving one way or the other, it might very well kick their ass into gear. These people KNOW that they keep on living because the US is there to protect them. Threaten to take away our protection and suddenly their lives are really on the line. If the government collapses and they descend into civil war, the current heads of government are going to be the first people killed.

      If you really wanted to spur them on, tell them that they have 1 year to get their shit together. As for the civilians we endanger, offer them US citizenship (and some other options for anyone willing to volunteer taking a few immigrants) and a small pile of startup cash for anyone who wants out. Even if the entire country decided to pick up and move (which they wouldn't), the US could easily absorb them without flinching.

      We screwed the pooch when we went in. We fucked it up hardcore. We didn't have the resolve as a nation to spend the money and commit the troops to occupy and rebuild the nation properly. We wanted a 3 day war, a few months of occupation, and a shining Japan in the Middle East after a couple of years. We also didn't want to foot the bill or fight in a manner that might result in the loss of US soldiers.

      If we REALLY wanted to win and had the resolve, we should have gone in like Iraq was an occupied 51st state. That would have meant minimizing civilian casualties even at the expense of the lives of soldiers. It would have meant some serious spending to rebuild that nation and a comprehensive program to get it back on its feet.

      It is a day late now and we are a dollar short now. If we think we can't win and don't have the resolves to win, the best thing to do is apologize for mucking shit up, get our friends out, and tell them that if they manage to win the civil war and get their shit together they will get some sweet trading perks and warm feelings.

    213. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that anyone can reasonably deny that Hussein was a bloody butcher of his own people. I remember the news reports of what his sons had been doing.

      I don't think that anyone can reasonably deny that George W Bush is a bloody butcher of his own people. I often read the news reports of what his CIA and FBI are doing US people.

    214. Re:Force Field? by Flower · · Score: 1

      So basically a platoon's worth of terrorists have to reveal their position to hit a single tank allowing whatever support the tank has with it to then retaliate. That there is called a target rich enVIronment.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    215. Re:Force Field? by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      Just a guess, but I wonder if you could defeat it by shooting 3 RPGs from 3 different directions at it? Can it act that quickly against all of them?

      What, like 3 DVDs all coming in from different angles: Diablo II from the front, DOOM 3 from the rear and a sneak attack from The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion over the top?

    216. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a David Lynch thing. Those are in the book too.

    217. Re:Force Field? by rempelos · · Score: 1

      Actually cutting the US defense budget and routing the billions... Maybe the US like to call it a "defense" budget but it has nothing to do with defense. It should be an offense budget since this is their strategy in foreign politics. Most of those inventions are used to invade other countries or defend the friendly/cooperative regimes in the other side of the planet. The later is even more of an offensive strategy since meddling with other countries' affairs creates more foreign enemies and results in more excuses to invade an other country. If the US weren't so dominant over the world they wouldn't have so many enemies and could do with a smaller "defense" budget.

    218. Re:Force Field? by akozakie · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is different from reactive armor, but parent wasn't speaking about reactive armor at all. Drozd and Arena are active defense systems, intercepting the rounds before they reach the target. And they are already deployed, while this is still being tested. So, nothing new really. Maybe some gradual improvement, but not a breakthrough.

    219. Re:Force Field? by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, the reactive armor systems in use now do not detonate when shot with rifle rounds. They might go off from a very lucky hand grenade throw, but hand grenades are not much of a threat to most tanks other than in the treads. They need a pretty large amount of force impact to set them going and exploding. This thinking was intentional. The people designing this system, which is a radar targeting reactive system (launches a scattering type projectile likely to shear the incoming round apart in anticipation of where it is aimed) probably also had similar thoughts, and it would likely not activate from simple gunshot rounds (not enough mass), rocks (to low of velocity), beach balls, or a hand grenade (though it might potentially fire if one detonated at the right distance in the air from it). It probably will detonate for mortar fire, RPGs, and large shells aimed at it -- which is what you want.

      Radar allows you to do several things, you can tell the mass, velocity of the object, and given a little bit of time predict with a fair degree of certainty the path. From looking at the pictures of it, if you are close enough to fire an RPG at this system, you are likely close enough to fire your rifle at it with some accuracy. It may potentially be vulnerable to small arms fire directed at the radar placements. It may be possible to damage those, and then hit it with your RPG rounds. However, these vehicles are likely equipped with active armor as well. So you may still end up not doing a lot of damage to the vehicle.

      Radar wont do a damn thing against IED's placed on the ground, anti-tank mines, and tank traps that are simply digging the kind of holes in the ground at the right spacing to get the tank stuck in the mud per se. It will make the tank a lot safer place to be against rockets that explode above the tank, RPG rounds, mortars, and tank fired rounds.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    220. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Get closer than 10 meters before you fire"
       
      That'd be funny, cos the rocket motor ignites at 10 meters as does the impact fuse, so the thing's more likely to end up bouncing off the tank, then going off after the 5 second timing fuse expires...

    221. Re:Force Field? by instarx · · Score: 1

      Still, you've got to admit that this would be a huge psychological deterant. I mean, if I fired RPGs at a tank, and the RPGs (seemingly without cause) pre-detontated before they ever reached the tank, I'd be looking to get the hell out of there and warn all my friends!

      It hasn't been much of a deterent. Have you seen pictures of vehicles in Iraq with a metal grid surrounding the vehicle? They look a lot like 360 degree cow-catchers. That is an RPG shield. The RPG hits the metal grid and pre-detonates a foot way from the vehicles' conventional armor. It is very effective but clearly hasn't caused much running away by the insurgents.

    222. Re:Force Field? by Half+a+dent · · Score: 1

      An RPG is unlikely to take a modern tank down (unless it gets an exceptionally lucky hit), although it could imobilize it if it makes the tank shed a track. But against lightly armoured or soft targets such as trucks, humvees, etc they can be very nasty. This is why the RPG is ideally suited for insurgency hit and run style use rather than a modern battlefield stand up fight where tanks are more numerous.

      If this tech can be "scaled down" to work with less protected vehicles then it will really save lives.

    223. Re:Force Field? by Half+a+dent · · Score: 1

      "No, it is not a religious war. Wars are never about religion, religion is just a tool used to motivate people to fight."

      We are looking at this from a western perspective where church and state are seperate and where our whole society is not based on religion (laws, dress codes, etc). Western leaders may have used religion as a motivating factor in past wars to cover true motives but to many Islamic people religion is the ONLY factor in whatever they do.

    224. Re:Force Field? by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with the superior army that never fights is that peacetime military politics insure that it won't stay superior for long...militaries rapidly lose their battlefield effectiveness during peacetime, as politicians whittle away at their training budgets, contracters fudge tests on unproven weapons and yes men overrun the higher ranks.

      The US managed to temporarily reverse this trend in the post Vietnam environment because those who served there had reached the upper echelons, and were resolved not to be repeat that failure. A new emphasis on training, an all volunteer army and a ton of money pumped into it during the Reagan era produced the very capable military machine that cleaned the Iraqi's clock during the first Gulf War.

      Now watch the inevitable decline as the current administration repeats the mistakes of Kennedy and Johnson, by employing their war machine in morale-sapping police actions, buying expensive weapons built for a nonexistent cold war and chipping away at the more intangible areas of the budget (like training, pay and VA benefits) that are essential for maintaining an effective fighting force.

    225. Re:Force Field? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      By "take down", that also includes disabling it in some way. The main being that the tank can no longer function. And one RPG can easily do that.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    226. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! It's got an AT field! Evangelion Anime Reference, had to be said...

    227. Re:Force Field? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'm not totally sure who you're rebutting, but OK! I think you're pretty much right.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    228. Re:Force Field? by nappingcracker · · Score: 1

      Create a force so overwhelming it never needs to fight.

      Right! This totally works, look at the peaceful world that Hiram Stevens Maxim wrought!
       
      (he invented a weapon that he believed was so terrible that no one would want to fight...the machine gun)

      --
      |plastic....or gasoline?|
    229. Re:Force Field? by rk · · Score: 1

      I'm going to reply to your message, but it's really addressed to everyone who replied to me.

      I was very specifically avoiding politics in my message, because I knew it would open a can of worms that I really didn't want to go into. I went so far as to have a paragraph that was basically, "on the other hand, if you leave a big toy like that laying around, someday someone's gonna want to play with it.", but my focus was on general war doctrine vis a vis technology. For the record, I oppose action against Iran, I opposed the war in Iraq from the start, and I opposed our military operations in Yugoslavia.

      I neglected to take into account that on slashdot, the politics can of worms is pretty much self-opening these days.

    230. Re:Force Field? by somersault · · Score: 1

      well if a missile is being fired towards the tank, then whoever is in the path is very likely going to get hurt anyway. People should not stand around tanks in a war..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    231. Re:Force Field? by alienmole · · Score: 1

      That should be "Torture is bad, mmmkay?"

    232. Re:Force Field? by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      Holy PR moves Batman!

      Your first statement directly negates the entirety of your post.

      Consider this. Could it be, just maybe, that it's purely PR that is telling us that the 'reasons we went to war in Iraq are false'? I think so. The MSM has had a hardon for Bush ever since he was a Texas Governor. This has been proven. Also consider that we are *not* privy to everything that the NSA and DIA have in their dossiers. Shit, we aren't privy to anything but what GWB *wants* to declassify to try to cover his arse.

      But you know the funny frickin' part? A) Yes, Iraq was seeking Uranium in Niger... since 1996, and as recently as 2001. Christopher Hitchens just reiterated this once again, the facts that I have known since 2002. Anyone who paid any attention at all during the run up to the war knows that. It was common knowledge in the UN. But of course, the MSM won't tell you that.

      B) The whole trailer bit? Oh yeah... that's fully wrong too. And I know this, because the story that the media is spinning right now, is NOT ABOUT THE SAME TRAILERS WE WERE STATING WERE MANUFACTURING WMD's. I have photographs saved at home of the original trailers, and the file footage and reporting they are doing today are NOT THE SAME ONES! Not even close. But again... let's make up more stuff to shoot ourselves in the dick. They've been pulling this shit since Korea, and like they are going to stop now. Truth in journalism...HAH! The original ones were dual use for processing chemicals. Not making hydrogen. The ones they are reporting on now were filled with sand. The original evidence brought before the UN, they were not, and were capable of creating Sarin, I believe. I'd have to go back and dig out all my stuff.

      C) Those lovely WMDs that the Russians moved... I can go on and on and on. But they are somewhere in the world. They just don't disappear. Why is everyone forgetting about the labs we found in Southern Iraq that had just been emptied, and the Russian ships off the coast booking it to the Indian Ocean? And just what WERE Russian Special Forces doing with trucks in the desert heading North to Syria? The documentation is all out there gang... you just have to dig.

      Now all of that being said, it doesn't mean we didn't handle the whole thing like amateurs. They did! Donnie should be at least reprimanded if not asked to step down. We didn't plan, we didn't prepare, and we sure as hell didn't know what we were getting into. Personally, I think GWB can't tell the difference between Iran and Iraq. And this has cost us in so many ways, it's not even funny. Just how on EARTH are we going to be able to garner support to stop that crazy mofo over in Iran?? We don't have any clout. Bush cried wolf. And he's dirtier than I can even think. But he is still Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, therefore I support the efforts because they are out there on the front lines fighting the great fight. A fight that could very well mean our survival as a country... or worse. I'm angrier at the Bush Administration than ever, but not more than I ever was at the Clintoons for selling us out to the Chinese. I have begun to start to accept that the country doesn't belong to the people anymore, but to the frickin' elitest upperclass that thinks they know what's best when they can't even SPELL C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N. Because they don't have any.

      Just my 2pence.

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
    233. Re:Force Field? by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      Cheers, Comrade!

    234. Re:Force Field? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Screw giving them US citizenship. The French were dumb enough to do that when they got out of Algiers. Look what that's got them.

    235. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Get an A-10 Avenger Cannon and mount it on a jeep. Tank sashimi. Good luck reacting to a gatling gun's Depleted Uranium AP rounds.

    236. Re:Force Field? by kikta · · Score: 1

      Hell, the news piped into soldiers in military controlled facilities is monitored and filtered during peacetime. In fact, sometimes potential recruits have to put up in a hotel to make scheduled times for physicals and ASVAB exams. Because you are a citizen and not military personel they advise you that the phones are monitored and the television is censored.



      This is utter bullshit. I got all the same cable channels that you do. I got them when I was enlisted in the barracks and I could watch whatever the hell I wanted. I also had a normal Internet connection (again from Comcast). No one monitored shit. I know because I was comm then and I'm a comm officer now. If you think we have the resources to play big brother in garrison, you're wrong. Do outgoing emails get monitored when you are deployed? Of course, because INFOSEC is a huge and valid concern.

      The reason you get put up in a hotel room is so they can get your ass on a bus at zero-dark-thirty to head over to the MEPS. They don't advise you about anything to do monitoring because there isn't any. Who would even monitor you? The recruiters? Yeah, four guys working out of a strip mall can monitor the TV and phones of twenty random assholes waiting to get their physicals. Get real. Or maybe you think the staff at the HoJo does it?

      Maybe your recruiter lied to you or something. I neither know or care. What I do know and care about is that you are wrong.
    237. Re:Force Field? by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      nice flame--keep it up.

      FWIW, I stand by my statements

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    238. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So.. of 13000 to 17000 insurgents they've identified, some 500 are foreigners.

      Let's see.. 500/17000 = .029 or 3% and 500/13000 = .038 or 4%.

      Kiss my fact-filled ass.


      From the article you linked:

      The senior military official told CNN the bulk of the insurgency is made up of 12,000 to 15,000 Arab Sunni followers of Saddam's party. The Baath Party was overthrown by a U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

      Of those, the source said 5,000 to 7,000 are considered "committed" fighters, with the rest considered "fence-sitters," criminals or "facilitators" who contribute material support or sanctuary to the guerrillas.

      ..

      The official, who is familiar with the region, said about 500 other fighters have come from other countries to battle the U.S.-led forces in Iraq, while another group of fewer than 1,000 are believed to be followers of Jordanian-born Islamic terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.


      500/8000 (6.25%) to 500/6000 (8.33%)


      but the article isn't clear on the follwers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi which tend to be from afganistan or pakistan. So these numbers may be more accurate.


      500/7000 (7.14%) to 500/5000 (10.0%)


      In either case it aint no 2%.. Make sure the facts you put in your ass are correct, smooch! smooch!

    239. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Check out the caption from the photo on their website.


      1200 rounds per minute is nothing to sneeze at but it aint no million.

    240. Re:Force Field? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more of an auto-fire RPG or one with some sort of MIRV system, but yes, this indeed raises the barrier for successful prosecution of war.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    241. Re:Force Field? by TTK+Ciar · · Score: 1

      not to nitpick either, but those Russkie defence systems are useless against most US weapon systems that rely on the kinetic penetrator concept (though they MIGHT snap the rod of a TOW missile, the latter being the cheapest weapon of choice here).

      If you're going to nitpick, you might want to know what you're talking about, first :-)

      The earliest generations of Eexplosive Reactive Armor (ERA) were not effective against Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot weapons (APFSDS, KE weapons, aka long-rod penetrators), but later generations of Soviet ERA were (and are) quite effective against KE weapons. Kontakt-5 "Heavy ERA", for instance, utilizes a hinged flyplate which snaps off the front the penetrator and induces significant yaw (tumble) in the remainder. This loss of length reduces the KE penetrator's ability to defeat the passive armor underneath the ERA (hypervelocity long-rod penetration is proportional to rod length, see Anderson's and Odermatt's publications. It is common practice in penetration studies to normalize penetration figures to P/L (the ratio of penetration depth to penetrator rod length)). Kontakt-5 was first fielded in 1985, so ERA that protects against KE weapons has been with us for a while.

      The most modern APFSDS use a segmented rod which minimizes the impact of this kind of ERA, but ERA has advanced in the meantime too. The very latest design, the ukranian Nozh ERA uses linear shaped charges to cut the penetrator, potentially in multiple locations down its length, and also induces yaw.

      Also, the TOW missile uses a shaped charge to achieve penetration, and is not a KE penetrator. It has no "rod" (unless you're talking about the spur for the detonation probe, which sticks way out in front so that the shaped charge can detonate an optimal distance from the target). TOW missiles are vulnerable to Drozd, ARENA, and all of the various flavors of ERA used today, qv:

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/tow.htm

      -- TTK

    242. Re:Force Field? by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      Learn to read.

      Up to 17,000 insurgents; of that number roughly 500 are foreigners (non-Iraqis). The other numbers in the article were merely a breakdown on the supposed motivations of the insurgents.

      My statement still stands.

      And you should learn to read (or how to do a better job of dissembling).

    243. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the specifics of a PARTICULAR IMPLEMENTATION of the tech.

      The ORIGINAL proof of concept fired 16,660 ROUNDS PER SECOND.

      Do you research.

    244. Re:Force Field? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      Hey, now! No reason to be making assumptions there!

      Even toughest Texan knows that shooting yourself in the foot ain't macho, it's stupid. But later on tellin' the ladies you got shot in combat, that's genius.

    245. Re:Force Field? by A10n · · Score: 1

      well

      they have technology and tanks with ball/chains that dig into the ground and scoop up or explode mines before a tank drives in the area.

      Anti tank land mines is old school buddy. They have had mine diggers since WWII... where have you been?

      Also one tank shoots out a projectile that lands onto the sand/ground and attached to it is a explosive line. The line explodes which causes all nearby landmines to detonate as well...

      C'mon :) keep up to date.

    246. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That is the specifics of a PARTICULAR IMPLEMENTATION of the tech. The ORIGINAL proof of concept fired 16,660 ROUNDS PER SECOND. Do you research.

      I'm not the one removing the word "theoretical" from the million round per minute reference and putting "The ORIGINAL proof of concept". The company declared that such a gun was "possible" back in 2003.

      The Australian company Metal Storm is one of the leading developers of such weapons, designing a 36-barrel volley gun capable of a theoretical firing rate of more than a million rounds per minute.

      And note that it achieves this monstrous figure through multiple barrels. It's impressive technology, but I go by what they have done and not by suppossed facts from an AC who doesn't provide references. Go to their site and find the reference to 1M/min rate of fire. Display your elite skills and prove me wrong. I've done my research, you do yours.

      put up or shut up.

    247. Re:Force Field? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I'd really hope it's not something as indiscriminate as Metal Storm. You wouldn't want a million rounds being fired from tanks halfway back in the column. The guys in the following tanks would be a mite irritated when they're horrifically killed by friendly fire.

    248. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Maybe the US like to call it a "defense" budget but it has nothing to do with defense. It should be an offense budget since this is their strategy in foreign politics. Most of those inventions are used to invade other countries or defend the friendly/cooperative regimes in the other side of the planet."

      Actually the majority of the research funding used by the defense department goes toward research that could have defense applications in the future. Since most of the defense budget is spent on research then that means most of the defense budget goes to funding things that do not have a practical defense application. The result is that almost all funding for research/invention that does not have a clear commercial application comes from the defense department. One example is the network that grew to become the present day internet. The internet would not exist without U.S. Defense research spending, spending that did not yield a useful result for the military at all but instead brought on an information age that will reduce the need for war in the future by increasing communication.

      Obviously non-commercially viable science is important, most commercially viable science wouldn't exist without the non-viable research that yielded its foundation. So I propose to simply stop calling this research 'defense' in the first place.

      "Most of those inventions are used to invade other countries or defend the friendly/cooperative regimes in the other side of the planet. The later is even more of an offensive strategy since meddling with other countries' affairs creates more foreign enemies and results in more excuses to invade an other country. If the US weren't so dominant over the world they wouldn't have so many enemies and could do with a smaller "defense" budget."

      Agreed. Although as previously stated most defense funded research does not lead to war machines of any kind. Another example of this is the hundreds of millions that the defense department has pumped into fusion research. I certainly agree that the US should not be dabbling into the affairs of the other nations on Earth.

      However, as a USian I do feel it to be to our advantage to continue to maintain a military force at least large enough to face little challenge from any other nation/multi-national force. The golden rule is nice and all, but lets be honest; the man with the guns simply takes the gold.

    249. Re:Force Field? by rempelos · · Score: 1

      One example is the network that grew to become the present day internet. The internet would not exist without U.S. Defense research spending, spending that did not yield a useful result for the military at all but instead brought on an information age that will reduce the need for war in the future by increasing communication.

      This is an example of a real defense program. But what kind of defense is a stealth bomber that is capable of flying half the perimetre of earth to release them?

      However, as a USian I do feel it to be to our advantage to continue to maintain a military force at least large enough to face little challenge from any other nation/multi-national force. The golden rule is nice and all, but lets be honest; the man with the guns simply takes the gold.

      With this kind of thinking don't expect people to like you, the man with the guns is the bad one and other people are justified to try to harm him. It is like saying that a neighbor of yours is trespassing your property because he has enough wealth and power to not care about the law enforcement. How would you feel if this neighbor had your house surounded by canons aiming it, and the moment you touch the kitchen knife shoot the place to hell because you are a propable threat to him

      At this time, the US goverment is paying hundreds of thousands of soldiers that are fighting somewhere in the other side of the planet. This is certainly not a defense budget, it is more of a "We have the guns and we take the black gold".

    250. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see why you start out at 0.
      Hmm. Looks like you'll be getting firsthand knowledge of that soon. 70% overrated, LOL!
    251. Re:Force Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ask the replicator to create a melon and transport it up your ass then, 'dromer.

    252. Re:Force Field? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "This is an example of a real defense program. But what kind of defense is a stealth bomber that is capable of flying half the perimetre of earth to release them?"

      Actually the internet really isn't something that should have been funded by the MILITARY at all. It isn't really war research, offense or defense.

      "But what kind of defense is a stealth bomber that is capable of flying half the perimetre of earth to release them?"

      The kind that assures that every other nation that does not have a stealth bomber that is capable of flying undetected half way around the earth and dropping bombs does not take your gold. Weapons in themselves are neither offensive nor defensive. Weapons do not kill people, they are tools that PEOPLE use to kill people. Ideally NOBODY would have any weapons, the world is not ideal and there are bad (bad defined as those with conflicting interests since it lacks innate definition) guys with weapons. So long as the world is not ideal and there are theats and potential threats with weapons, the next best solution is for the good guys (good defined as those who share interests) to be strong enough that the bad guys are afraid of retaliation. I am not saying that the US Military/Gov/Corporate owners have restricted themselves to the ideal way to use weapons in this imperfect world; just that there is a legitimate reason for everyone to have weapons (govs and civs for that matter) and someone must develop those weapons.

      "With this kind of thinking don't expect people to like you, the man with the guns is the bad one and other people are justified to try to harm him. It is like saying that a neighbor of yours is trespassing your property because he has enough wealth and power to not care about the law enforcement."

      Nonesense, only the man who uses force and loses is known as the bad guy. History shows the victor to be the good guy. Unless of course the current guy with all the guns spreads propoganda that a previous victor's known ideals conflicts with, then he miraculously becomes a bad guy who .

      As for your example, you need to look a little more closely. You don't really believe that there is some innate correct 'owner' of property do you? If the man with the cannons was law enforcement coming and using their guns to confiscate your property because you broke their rules would you have the same view? Law enforcement is by definition the application of force to make others follow the rules of those who possess the power to apply force. By what right do they apply it? Simple, by right of the fact that nobody is strong enough to say otherwise.

      Even a government 'by the people' is only a trick to keep the powerless in line while those with the force coax their gold from them 'gently' by passing laws. These laws generally help to insure that the those with the most gold will continue to possess the greatest force (or control of its use) and to continue to gently take the gold from the middle and lower classes.

      Welcome to the real world. On every level the one with the force takes the gold and if he is wise uses it to gain more force. Even in the workplace, the business owners possess force that they use to enforce labor requirements, this allows them to essentially rob their employees of the gold they would have gotten without these requirements. They do this to the extent their force with allow. Employees form unions to develop counter-force to attempt to take more gold for themselves.

      The entire world on every level is nothing more than a power struggle. In the real world the self-less who live by ideals instead of wishing for them are just the ones that are being taken advantage of by the non-idealists. So go, work your 60 hr workweek on salary and be exploited the major stockholders who believe in the real world and base their actions upon it.

    253. Re:Force Field? by rempelos · · Score: 1

      Actually the internet really isn't something that should have been funded by the MILITARY at all. It isn't really war research, offense or defense.

      But it was a defense program. it was a research on how to keep the communications alive when a part of the network is destroyed by the enemy.

      Weapons do not kill people, they are tools that PEOPLE use to kill people.
      So long as the world is not ideal and there are theats and potential threats with weapons, the next best solution is for the good guys (good defined as those who share interests) to be strong enough that the bad guys are afraid of retaliation.

      Stealth bombers can't actually be used for defense except for scaring the others for retaliation. You can have a gun to keep others from harming you, but firing the gun without being in real threat is just what makes you the bad guy.

      Nonesense, only the man who uses force and loses is known as the bad guy. History shows the victor to be the good guy. Unless of course the current guy with all the guns spreads propoganda that a previous victor's known ideals conflicts with, then he miraculously becomes a bad guy who

      Some of the great victors in history are taged as slayers, arrogants and looters. You really don't believe that history will make G. Bush a good guy? History is much more objective than you thing.

      As for your example, you need to look a little more closely. You don't really believe that there is some innate correct 'owner' of property do you? If the man with the cannons was law enforcement coming and using their guns to confiscate your property because you broke their rules would you have the same view? Law enforcement is by definition the application of force to make others follow the rules of those who possess the power to apply force. By what right do they apply it? Simple, by right of the fact that nobody is strong enough to say otherwise.

      I tried to resemple the way the US is acting (or the way it is trying to justify its actions, the real reason is the oil and world dominance), your example is an other case which doesn't resemple the same situtation. You still didn't say if you believe that the case in my example is fair.

      Even a government 'by the people' is only a trick to keep the powerless in line while those with the force coax their gold from them 'gently' by passing laws. These laws generally help to insure that the those with the most gold will continue to possess the greatest force (or control of its use) and to continue to gently take the gold from the middle and lower classes.

      Welcome to the real world. On every level the one with the force takes the gold and if he is wise uses it to gain more force. Even in the workplace, the business owners possess force that they use to enforce labor requirements, this allows them to essentially rob their employees of the gold they would have gotten without these requirements. They do this to the extent their force with allow. Employees form unions to develop counter-force to attempt to take more gold for themselves.

      So what exactly are you trying to say, that exploitation of the weaks is right? that everybody must accept it? That this is right and nothing can be done to change it? You are so full of shit my friend.

      The entire world on every level is nothing more than a power struggle. In the real world the self-less who live by ideals instead of wishing for them are just the ones that are being taken advantage of by the non-idealists. So go, work your 60 hr workweek on salary and be exploited the major stockholders who believe in the real world and base their actions upon it.

      You are the one that is being exploited, you are the one that accepts the injustice, you are the one who pays taxes (in money and in blood) for your goverment to attack other nations and make the oil industry richer. After the wars in afganistan and iraq, is the price of gasoline lower? Are you feeling safer?

      I really don't want iran to have nukes, but I also don't believe that the US gov is the good guy. And that's because history has shown otherwise

  3. Reactive Armor by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Informative
    Hmm, sounds similar to reactive armor. I wonder if it has the same weaknesses?

    1. Re:Reactive Armor by Zediker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its not realy similar at all to reactive armor... Its more like a miniature Phalanx system that uses a shotgun instead of a gattling gun. That still doesnt take away its cool factor though.

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    2. Re:Reactive Armor by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      In the first Gulf war, Saddam Hussein's forces tried to defend against missiles by firing into the air and creating a "wall of steel." I suppose this is more precise?

    3. Re:Reactive Armor by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like the Russian Arena APS to me then.

    4. Re:Reactive Armor by Himring · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My first thought on reading the blurb was RA. Nothing new about that. I've not read the FA though, so maybe this is simply a new-and-improved.

      In other news, new jets 'mysteriously' go upwards into the air instead of taking off from a runway!!!

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    5. Re:Reactive Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose this is more precise?

      Tremendously. It's even aimed.

    6. Re:Reactive Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not reactive armor at all. Because it's not armor - it's an hybrid mechanical/electronic countermeasure. Armor protects you if and when you get hit, indeed. The one being mentioned doesn't make you take a hit.

      It sounds very similar to the Russian Arena-E active protection system. Read here for more details: http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.h tm

    7. Re:Reactive Armor by timeOday · · Score: 1

      It certainly does. I wonder if General Dynamics will honor the Russian patents :)

    8. Re:Reactive Armor by Himring · · Score: 1

      Totally ad hoc here (I'm working), but RA isn't armor either. It's on top of what would traditionally be armor. It is a series of plates with explosives underneath channeled outward. When, say, an AT round hits it, it sends a reverse charge in the opposite direction negating, to an extent, the force of the round. In theory, it sounds the same (although, this new stuff sounds better as nothing gets near the tank).

      To counter RA, AT rounds were then made to carry two stages in the round. The first round would trigger the RA and then the second round would pound on through the first detonation.

      In any event, not arguing this isn't new. Am arguing that it isn't entirely something unheard of.... Of course, it sounds more like a tradional phalinx system used by naval vessels for decades....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    9. Re:Reactive Armor by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      It certainly does. I wonder if General Dynamics will honor the Russian patents :)

      Nah, they'll probably just download them from www.AllOfPatent.com.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    10. Re:Reactive Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is like a minature phalanx system; I should know, I have seen something similar on russian T-80U MBT. The Russian system is called Arena. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_(active_counter measures_system) Also, it is not a new idea. The Russians are using the Drozd system since the 70's. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozd Also check out the following link about the TROPHY Active Protection System, which must refer to the original Israeli system on whom the US system is based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TROPHY_Active_Protect ion_System

  4. How is that a "force field"? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Then, it is launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat at a relatively long distance.
    Strange ...

    Ballistic - relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving under their own momentum and the force of gravity; "ballistic missile"

    So....... if I keep my enemies at bay by throwing rocks at them, I am protected by a "force field"?
    1. Re:How is that a "force field"? by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      yes, you are. The force that is keeping them away is the weight of the rocks you're throwing reacting against their skulls. The force needn't be invisible nor mysterious.

      Or, you could use this non-newtonian definition of force: "a person or thing exerting power or influence", which would pretty much fit any defense system.

    2. Re:How is that a "force field"? by 955301 · · Score: 4, Funny


      I agree somewhat - they're describing a phalanx CIWS for a tank. They'll only be in the clear when they burst a plasma sphere around the vehicle at the moment the projectile intersects with the sphere's location. Till then, they're just matching incoming fire. Maybe we can call this type of system something different, such as a Matched Incoming Line of Fire, or MILF.

      Personally, I'd like to have a MILF in my car.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    3. Re:How is that a "force field"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA says "force field", not "forcefield". The difference is that one is a target protected by use of force, the other is the sci-fi vaporware

    4. Re:How is that a "force field"? by oPless · · Score: 1

      Personaly I'd like /your/ MILF in my car ;-)

  5. Not quite a "forcefield" by Nos. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I read that correctly, its not really a forcefield as we think of it. Its more like a bunch of sensors, that when they detect a threat, shoot something in the way of the threat so the decoy is hit instead of the tank. Its like chaff or any other decoy.

    1. Re:Not quite a "forcefield" by slackmaster2000 · · Score: 1

      Except that decoys are designed to fool the threat into striking the decoy and not the intended target.

      This involves targeting the threat and destroying it actively.

      Anyhow, I wonder how accurate the system is in determining what constitutes a threat? From the owners manual: "Approach your new Cybertank 2000 slowly. Allow Cybertank 2000 to become comfortable with your presence. Do not make any sudden movements near Cybertank 2000. Do not make Cybertank 2000 angry. If Cybertank 2000 calls its defense system a forcefield, do not be argumentative."

    2. Re:Not quite a "forcefield" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sounds exactly like the hood-mounted guns on James Bond's Aston Martin in the recent Bond movie where he was fighting the bald Korean guy in Iceland.

  6. ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehension. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful


    ...and the anonymous contributor of the story doesn't fare so well, either.

    From TFA:

    The Trophy active protection system creates something equivalent to a hemispheric "force field" around the protected vehicle.

    And from the summary:
    The Trophy ADS generates something similar to a force field around one half of a vehicle as a direct reaction to incoming fire.
    (Nice attempt at paraphrasing, but while the word 'hemispheric' may translate literally to the phrase 'one half of a vehicle', the real meaning is obfuscated. But at least the submitter isn't actaully calling the Trophy active protection system a 'force field' per se...)

    And finally from the title:
    Hardware: Mysterious 'Forcefield' Tested on US Tanks
    Well done, ScuttleMonkey...you've effectively sensationalized the story into something it patently isn't. You must be auditioning for a position on Fox News.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  7. Force field my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where do they find these idiots who watch too much Star Trek?

    This system detects incoming projectiles and launches a projectile to try and counter it.

    Very useful, but hardly a force field.

    Idiots.

    1. Re:Force field my ass by cyber0ne · · Score: 1

      Where do they find these idiots who watch too much Star Trek?

      The problem is that they don't watch enough Star Trek. Any fan would know the difference between this thing and a "force field."

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
  8. Anyone else remember a somewhat similiar system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, similar in that it was a shield of sorts.

    I believe it worked via a copper membrane or a membrane of some conductive metal. When shrapnel or metal projectiles hit this membrane an electrical charge was triggered and the projectile was mostly vaporized.

    Of course, this is my memory talking here.

  9. Not really by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reactive armour is basically another layer of material on the outside of the vehicle. If I read TFA right, the Trophy system sends a stream of projectiles to intercept incoming threats at ranges of 10-30 metres. It's more attacking the incoming weapon ahead of time than waiting for the weapon to hit but trying to disrupt its effects when it does (though the basic principle - try to get it to explode early - is the same).

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Not really by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Reactive armour is basically another layer of material on the outside of the vehicle.
      Well, yes, but that material is explosive, with just enough armor on it to prevent it from being set off by bullets.

      (though the basic principle - try to get it to explode early - is the same).
      That's not the principle behind reactive armor. The most effective anti-tank approach besides penetrator rounds (which take a big damn gun) is HEAT, which directs all the explosive blast into a small area, so it can punch through the armor. Reactive armor explodes outward, against it, which scatters the blast.

  10. Not exactly. by khasim · · Score: 1

    In the article, the threat is destroyed before it hits the tank.

    With reactive armour, the threat is destroyed by the outer layer of reactive armour before it can penetrate the real (non-reactive) armour.

  11. Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by Renraku · · Score: 1, Troll

    How long before this device opens and something launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory directly into someone's chest because of a system error?

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Well, TFA mentions minimal collateral damage. How close to zero that is, and under what circumstances it's greater, is left as an exercise to the read (provided they have sufficient security clearance, presumably)...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by vertinox · · Score: 1

      How long before this device opens and something launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory directly into someone's chest because of a system error?

      AFAIK, the US military has never lost a civil suit in a combat situation due to technical or human error.

      You know... Every time we drop a bomb on the wrong house or kill someone with friendly fire... It never goes to a civil suit (albeit Court Marhshall and dishonorable discharge)

      There have been state side lawsuits I do believe for loss of life, limb, and property but even then they have been few and far between. I doubt they turn this technology on and ride around in US streets for shits and giggles.

      Still... If this tech went ballistic on the streets of Bagdad and killed an American soldier or Iraqi civilian I bet a civil case would see the light of day in the US court.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Ten minutes.

      (Results 1 - 10 of about 10,500,000 for us friendly fire deaths iraq.)

    4. Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      If you are thinking that it is possible to sue the Department of Defense in civilian court like any random citizen, you should check out the definition of sovereign immunity.

    5. Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by prurientknave · · Score: 1

      This is an action news bulletin: Insurgents have discovered how to cause multiple friendly fire fatalities by flashing the reactive armor sensors with a green laser pointer. More at 10pm

    6. Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Probably not as likely as a soldier accidentally shooting non-combatants because he thinks they might be launching a rocket.

    7. Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by Xichekolas · · Score: 1

      You assume that the US Military can be sued... I will laugh when some football game gets massacred because Private Doofus threw a tight spiral at the tank...

      --

      Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...

      54

    8. Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It never goes to a civil suit (albeit Court Marhshall and dishonorable discharge)

      And it doesn't even end in a court marshall unless there's reason to believe that somebody acted deliberatly or extremely negligently to hit the wrong target.

      Being one house off can be chalked up to 'inaccuracy', hitting a wedding 'bad intelligence', nailing a friendly convoy 'bad communication', etc. Basically, unless somebody knew it was a wedding, or should have obviously known it was a wedding and not a terrorist camp, they're still in the clear.

      Combat is a time where you have extremely limited time to make decisions that are life and death for you, your comrades, your enemies, and any non-combatants in the area. Mistakes happen and they cost lives. If you think it's bad today, you should check out any major conflict before to see how truly bad it was during WWII, where it took whole squadrons of planes for one factory. In Korea/Vietnam pasting entire acres of territory was routine. We're still paying out over agent orange, and even if they knew the effects back then they would have likely still used it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  12. This is NOT a mysterious forcefield!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    More like a patriotic ether if you want to get technical.

    1. Re:This is NOT a mysterious forcefield!!!! by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

      Patriotic ether or just a version of the patriot missile system that actually works?

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  13. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    You're merciless. But fair and balanced, I think.

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  14. really a force field? by mdmarkus · · Score: 1

    With the "launching automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat", it sounds more like this.

  15. A "force field" made of... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Near as I can tell from reading the article, it's made of lasers? Or what?

  16. Re:Good news by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    The examples in TFA all seem to talk about big armour like tanks and APCs. AIUI, the major (though obviously not only) threat from RPGs in places like Iraq is to Hummers and such, and the big problem is that even up-armoured versions of these light vehicles are far from immune to a good RPG shot. If this system really is as effective as the article makes out, and really will be ready within a couple of years, I wonder whether its first use will be on light vehicles like the next generation Hummer replacement, rather than on the M1A2 and friends.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  17. Bad news, General by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

    The public... they've adapted!

  18. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by pl1ght · · Score: 1

    You sir, are the king of all conspiracy theorists. I at least find it an entertaining read.

  19. Direct Video Link by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Informative
    Direct Video Link of the thing in action.

    As you can see from the video, calling it a "forcefield" is nothing but an attempt to get free publicity. This thing is in reality a point defense system that uses radar to sense incoming projectiles and shoots out the equivelant of chaff to destroy the projectiles before it hits the vehicle.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Direct Video Link by racermd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Chaff does little to prevent ballistic projectiles from actually reaching their target. The purpose of chaff is, instead, to confuse radar receivers by overwhelming them with an abundance of reflected radar energy. It's like shining a bright light at a camera so it can't see anything through the glare.

      This system, it appears, is a point-defense system. It's not unlike the Navy's CIWS (pronounced Sea-Wiz) defense guns. That system fires thousands of rounds per minute at an incoming ballistic target and essentially wears the casing down until it self-destructs at a safe distance from the ship. Employing such a system on a ground-based vehicle seems to be the next logical step.

      However, it's definitely not a forcefield.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    2. Re:Direct Video Link by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      As you can see from the video, calling it a "forcefield" is nothing but an attempt to get free publicity.

      News Flash! Foxnews (actually US cable news in general) being sensationalistic and borderline lying to get a more impressive story! Film at 11.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    3. Re:Direct Video Link by scottnews · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

      CWIS is a very cool thing. It can fire 3000 or 4500 20mm rounds of depleted uranium per min. There is a land based version as well, but different from the article's system.

    4. Re:Direct Video Link by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Wow, a relatively unbiased story from FOX - they didn't mention terrorists once!

  20. Man oh man by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a sad day for Slashdot when something that could be done by a trained bat operating a tennis ball launcher is labeled as "mysterious" and vividly lauded. This is no more a forcefield than a fishing net is a cybernetic bio-containment unit. Another case of wishful PR thinking.

    Now, if they had actually trained bats, then we're on to something.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Man oh man by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1
      Now, if they had actually trained bats, then we're on to something.
      Sort of like this?
    2. Re:Man oh man by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 3, Funny
    3. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...bats with frickin' lasers...

    4. Re:Man oh man by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      Saw a show about that on the history channel this winter.

          Their were other projects than this useing animals to destroy enemy targets that showed promise but ended up not being put into service.

          A bird in a bomb was another. The idea was a pigeon placed inside a directional bomb with a wire attached to it's head would (after having been trained of course) peck at a screen showing the target which would steer the bomb to it's target and blow the target up with the pigeon of course.

          The bat bomb was slated to be used against Japan but was dropped (pardon the pun) after the first successful test of the Abomb. So it's a might have been weapon as was the pigeon bomb which was dropped (again pardon the pun) in favor of radio controled bombs.

          Given the cost of producing modern weapon systems designed to do these things i think we may have been better off with the living kind. But then their the animal rights groups and the fuss they'ed raise yada yada so i guess were sitting on expensive dead ones that don't always work like they should and cost large ammounts in maintance instead.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    5. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bats are rarely as effective as monkeys. MONKEYS! MONKEYS! MONKEYS!

    6. Re:Man oh man by CthulhuDreamer · · Score: 1

      "A bird in a bomb was another. The idea was a pigeon placed inside a directional bomb with a wire attached to it's head would (after having been trained of course) peck at a screen showing the target which would steer the bomb to it's target and blow the target up with the pigeon of course."

      The Coast Guard tried this system in Project Sea Hunt in 1977, using pigeons to search for orange life vests in the water. It actually worked quite well until one of the helicopters crashed and funding was pulled from the program.

    7. Re:Man oh man by Wellington+Grey · · Score: 1

      Now, if they had actually trained bats, then we're on to something.

      They did in World War II.

      -Grey

    8. Re:Man oh man by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I think it's amazing that the military is starting to build "Star Trek" technology into tanks!

      Next thing you know they'll equip tanks with mysterious Tractor Beam technology to lock onto and tow vehicles!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Man oh man by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

      Maybe they DO have a trained bat in there, but have replaced the tennis ball launcher with a chain gun that fires explosive rounds! All of a sudden..."mysterious" makes sense. They don't know how the bat does it :)

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  21. Completely inappropriate use of the forcefield by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry, force fields are fields made of energy that can repel matter. Anyone watching one episode of Star Trek understands this.

    Call it protective field or simply coutermeasure device, but don't bastardize the concept of force field to sensationalize this story.

    You get all us Trekkie geeks excited over nothing.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  22. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You must be auditioning for a position on Fox News. I beleive you mispelled the word "Faux".

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  23. Re:Good news by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    Although this does nothing to deter or stop IEDs or landmines, this is only effective against projectile type weapons...

  24. Uncanny by JCAB · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is _exactly_ like the shield systems used by warships in the game Independence War.

    --
    Salutaciones, JCAB
  25. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  26. Re:Anyone else remember a somewhat similiar system by casualsax3 · · Score: 1
    I definitely remember this as well - much closer to a force field than this system.

    Here's a brief article I was able to find about it:

    http://www.engadget.com/2004/06/14/force-field-for -tanks/

  27. Not even slightly. by temojen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Defense Update understands that Trophy is design to form a "beam" of fragments, which will intercept any incoming...

    Translation: It's a machine gun. Probably 5.56mm NATO standard, as it's just big enough and the ammo is cheap.

    Basically the same as a scaled down Phalanx.

    Reactive armour has no electronic control, it's just a sheet of explosives sandwiched between two layers of steel held off of the vehicle hull. When a HEAT shell detonates on the surface, the explosive sheet also detonates, disrupting the jet.

    1. Re:Not even slightly. by MyNameIsEarl · · Score: 1

      Translation: It's a machine gun. Probably 5.56mm NATO standard, as it's just big enough and the ammo is cheap. Since when does the military care about cheap? It is probably a non standard round that comes from the same company that provides the government with 10,000 dollar hammers and 20,000 toliet seats.

    2. Re:Not even slightly. by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Redundant

      With all this talk of "HEAT" and "jets" you are obviously too informed to be a part of this conversation.

      I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

      -Peter

    3. Re:Not even slightly. by peacefinder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd bet that it's based on a Metal Storm gun of some sort. You could call them "machine guns" but they have no moving parts and a rate of fire a couple orders of magnitude higher than modern gatling cannons. See also their Wikipedia entry.

      (I don't have any insider information; I'm just thinking the technologies are a really great fit.)

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  28. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The "populist xenophobia" was brought to us by rightwingers like Pat Robertson chanting repetitive mantras about demonic arabs, and O'Reilly telling FOX viewers that the bleeding heart liberals who are against profiling arabs are antiamerican and want Americans to die.

    The problem was created entirely by the Politics of Fear tactic Bush was employing, and 100% of the blame for the UAE port deal failure falls on Bush and those who rode in on his coattails.

  29. RTOS I wonder? by tinkertim · · Score: 1

    When I see something like this of course my brain starts to pick apart how it may work and what went into it. TFA didn't mention much about what was controlling it .. however this is my guess:

    LynxOS

    Damn I wish I got paid to make stuff like that. Anyone find any other info giving more detail as to exactly what went into that system? This would be an invaluable safety system on vehicles, if nothing less just shielding the driver from the initial crash.

    1. Re:RTOS I wonder? by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      "if nothing less just shielding the driver from the initial crash."

      True...but what about the driver of the vehicle you are crashing into? It would pretty well suck for him. Also if both vehicles has this it might actually make car wrecks worse all around.

      --
      what?
    2. Re:RTOS I wonder? by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      >>
      True...but what about the driver of the vehicle you are crashing into? It would pretty well suck for him. Also if both vehicles has this it might actually make car wrecks worse all around.

      I was thinking about the reinforcing Volvo does in the door panels for side impact protection. Something that crumpled a bit but didn't pierce is what I had in mind. I thought about the effect on the other vehicle.

      My idea would be to simply shield the driver / passenger by reinforcing the crumple zones. That should not have any more effect on the other vehicle than the existing reinforcing does, but I'm not an engineer.

  30. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    Is it surprising that a small percentage of Arabs eventually decided to react to violence with more violence?

    Eventually? You mean to tell me that part of the world hasn't been violent for over a thousand years? Don't take this the wrong way but I think you need to brush up on history a bit.

  31. reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by BoredWolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This seems like an awful lot of computing and wasted material just to shoot down a projectile at long distance. Who is to say that the projectile would even hit its target? We've had ERA for a while... Let the projectile come to you. If defense contractors and the armed services had to spend their own money instead of yours and mine, we wouldn't be doing any of this crazy stuff. It's only a good product if it's inexpensive and does what it is supposed to.

    --
    "Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by CarnivoreMan · · Score: 1

      I wouldnt count on any defense device against incoming projectiles being very inexpensive. I think its awsome to develop and refine stuff like this. The early versions of everything are usually overpriced and have issues.

    2. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by BoredWolf · · Score: 1

      I think this boils-down to the issue of cost vs effectiveness. It may be a great and novel technology that we're developing, but sometimes it's a lot cheaper to just let the vehicle be destroyed (not that I think we should sacrifice our soldiers). If we could prevent all deaths (not injuries) of soldiers by equipping them with a suit that costs $10 million, (and with 2,000 dead in Iraq) that would cost $20 billion. At what point does it become absurd to protect a target? (Excluding the intangibles of human worth)

      --
      "Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
    3. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who's to say the projectile will hit? Well, the computer for one. It doesn't bother shooting down projectiles which it knows won't hit the vehicle.

      And reactive armnour is rather limited in it's appliation.

      You can call it a waste of money if you want, but losing the vehicle and the personnel inside it is a LOT more expensive.

    4. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you RYOFA! From the wiki link:
      "A further complication to the use of ERA is the inherent danger to anybody near the tank when a plate detonates. Although ERA plates are intended only to bulge following detonation, the combined energy of the ERA explosive, coupled with the kinetic or explosive energy of the projectile, will frequently explosively fragment the plate. The explosion of an ERA plate creates a significant amount of shrapnel, and bystanders are in grave danger of serious or fatal injury. As a result, ERA cannot be used on vehicles deployed as combined arms with infantry."

      If I had money I would pour it into this companies stock. This is precisely the kind of thing the army (if it works or not) will buy up in bulk for the new U.S. role as the world's police. Can't be driving through the streets of Tehran and having your own soldiers blown up for walking next to a tank or APC now can we?

    5. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by E-Lad · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're forgetting that reactive armor is a one-shot deal. Once the armor panel is used to counter the impact of a projectile, it's done. The vehicle is then vulnerable in that area until the spent reactive armor is replaced.

      This new system makes it so that there is no impact. It's inherently reusable, so long the magazine of whatever launches the counter-projectile is large enough in capacity and/or can be safely reloaded by the vehicle crew. The only achilies heel that I can see is the damage or destruction of a radar panel... but I imagine those photos of test vehicle in TFA aren't of what the config will look like in production.

      This is money well-spent, not reinventing the wheel.

    6. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by jschottm · · Score: 1

      The computer is supposed to determine if the projectile is actually a threat or not before shooting at it. Additionally, reactive armour is generally only effective on the front and rear of heavy tanks. This could theoretically defend the sides as well as lighter vehicles. It's still not a stinking force field though.

    7. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by flaming-opus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhh, excuse me.
      Which part of "keep the guys in the tank from dying" don't you like? The US uses 70 ton tanks, the most sophisticated in the world, and they can be pretty well blown up by a guy with a 50 pound rocket on his shoulder. There are quite a few companies in the US, and in russia, who will sell you rockets with multiple shaped charges, that will pretty easily defeat reactive armor.

      The real trick to a system like this, is target identification. It's not always helpful if the tank's armor starts trying to take out some unlucky pigeon, or radio flyer. When they first started putting this sort of things on ships, they wiped out a lot of porpuses, shot the tops off some waves, etc.

    8. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      If they really have made a practical vehicle point-defense system, that's huge. Not so much for tanks, but for armored personnel carriers. (Warning: huge oversimplifications ahead.)

      With a tank, the defensive goal is to survive long enough to shoot back and kill your attacker. Any amount of armor you need to pile on to do this is possibly okay, so long as you can still move and shoot.

      With an APC, the defensive goal is to protect the troops in transit to their mission. That means the vehicle has to be able to carry a useful load of troops, which necessitates the vehicle be fairly bulky, which means the armor must cover more area, which means armor equivalent to a tank would be much heavier. Too heavy, for a variety of reasons. Therefore, armor on APCs is much lighter, and therefore less protective, than it is on tanks.

      APC armor, even reactive armor, cannot be very protective against a warhead meant to kill a heavier tank. An APC faced by a bunch of guys with a few anti-tank rockets and some good hiding spots is in for serious trouble.

      With this system, though, the APC might survive an attack long enough to dismount the troopers. That's a big deal... big enough to make it worth a big expense.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    9. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sob*

      No, the yanktank isn't the most advanced in the world ...

    10. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by arbiterxero · · Score: 0

      Uhhhh, you're not excused, the US tanks may take SECOND in the world but the best are from Israel. Note the first few lines on the article, BASED ON A DESIGN USED IN ISRAEL. Second best, if that.

    11. Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      I usually hear British or German these days, but they're all pretty close.

  32. Where are my mod points? by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Best AC political comment ever.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  33. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And left-wingers like Lou Dobbs that prey on the left and the right's belief that we can build political and physical walls to protect us from terrorism and globalism.

    The Arab port deal was just the kind of foreign entanglements we need these days, and Dubya's continued incompetence combined special interests and xenophobes on the left and the right shot it down.

  34. phalanx? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    TFA sounds a lot like the early descriptions of the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System for defense of ships against low-flying antiship missiles like the infamous Exocet. I recall the Phalanx being described around the time of the Falklands War as throwing up a "wall" of bullets in front of an incoming missile through its extremely high rate of fire (up to 75 rounds per second). The widget in TFA may do much the same with a "force field" of fragments from the explosion of a shaped charge.

    That is, I surmise "force field" is a metaphor here. Marketspeak, to forcefully (as it were) convey the impression of how the device works.

    1. Re:phalanx? by dajak · · Score: 1

      TFA sounds a lot like the early descriptions of the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System for defense of ships against low-flying antiship missiles like the infamous Exocet. I recall the Phalanx being described around the time of the Falklands War as throwing up a "wall" of bullets in front of an incoming missile through its extremely high rate of fire (up to 75 rounds per second). The widget in TFA may do much the same with a "force field" of fragments from the explosion of a shaped charge.

      The Dutch Goalkeeper is much better than the Phalanx, and a better reference for a modern CIWS. It has more firepower, tracks up to 18 targets simultaneously instead of one, and is fitted on the HMS Illustrious and HMS Invincible. The Chinese have copied it.

  35. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
    um you sir dont actually know what the hell conspiracy means.

    This is actually all fact, our history in the middle east in the last 40 years has been terrible. The fact that our two biggest enemies of the region (Iraq and Iran) both use US military hardware against us as well as Osama is a very capable tactician in the way US forces move their troops is a testament to this since we TRAINED Bin Laden and gave him stinger missiles during the Soviet Afghan war.

    Even worse is the fact that both Bush and his right hand man Cheney have hands in the company who through its many subsidiaries is largely gaining from this war in defense contracts, rebuilding contracts, and security contracts.

    Haliburton

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  36. Re:Good news by plalonde2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hate to remind you, but the majority of casualties in Iraq is to Iraqi citizens, largely due to the total absence of security and stability in their country. Casualties in tanks are few in Iraq.

  37. Re:Good news by rk · · Score: 1

    The ideal of these systems is to reduce the passive armor content of armored vehicles so that things like main battle tanks could be made lighter and therefore A) easier to deploy in quantity by airlift and B) faster and longer-ranged.

    If they could put such systems on HMMWVs, that would certainly be a plus. Humvees weren't really designed to be APCs (though uparmor kits are available), though, as we've found out much to our dismay. Even with the armor kits, they would still be vulnerable to roadside bombs.

  38. Weakness? by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 1


    From the article: The system can simultaneously engage several threats,
    arriving from different directions...


    Let's hope the bad guys don't shoot two RPG's from the same direction at the
    same time!

    For some reason, I'm getting this image in my head of 2 of our tanks
    side-by-side, automatically shooting each other with their 'force field'
    because they are in an infinite loop of sorts. Hmmm... automated friendly
    fire... that's new!

    1. Re:Weakness? by hebie · · Score: 1

      Ways to cheat the system
      1. eccentric projectiled missiles ... lazy missiles, distorted tail fin designs
      2. high angled projectiles.. coming vertically down at the tank and fast...

    2. Re:Weakness? by hebie · · Score: 1

      And of course, your Plain and simple IEDS and mines

    3. Re:Weakness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, the tracking system acquires targets moving at high speeds. I suspect they mean a speed considerably higher than then the speed of an average tank. We're talking speeds to make things fly here, especially without a real impressive lift surface. Besides, if you watch the video you can see the protectile being fired isn't a real heavy duty weapon. I don't imagine the fragment burst from one of these Trophy kits is enough to penetrate the heavy tank armor. After all, most ballistic weapons aren't heavily armored themselves, it would soften their blow and shorten their effective range.

      If they fire two from the same direction at the same time, the 'beam' of fragments could very well drop both warheads. If the threats are close enough to each other to be detected as one entity (yet still far enough not to kill each other, mind you) it's probably going to hit both of them with the one 'blast cone' from the Trophy kit. It actually sounds pretty effective. A long shot from a force field, but still an impressive step in ballastic defense.

  39. Phalanx by JDSalinger · · Score: 1

    What is the difference between this and the Phalanx system used on U.S. Naval Ships? The Phalanx defense system, currently employed on U.S. Warships, shoots down enemy air projectiles that are heading towards the ship. The Phalanx uses radar to detect incoming missiles and shoots them out of the sky by unleashing an insane amount of bullets in direction of the target. Pictures and info here.. -C

    1. Re:Phalanx by devilsbrigade · · Score: 1

      The difference is the Pahalanx system does unleash an insane amout of flak at the incoming threats. This system doesn't need to do that to achieve a kill, it fires once and destroys the threat. This makes it a much more efficient defensive device for tanks and bradleys, where you don't have the space for the ammo, and the platforma for the many many guns needed to protect a ship.

    2. Re:Phalanx by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess it's the fact that it's mounted on a tank or APC.

          Other than that essentually nothing.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    3. Re:Phalanx by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      Smaller, lower power requirements, probably doesn't use a "vulcan"-style gatling gun.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    4. Re:Phalanx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, sounds like it, only with a small calliber and a very high dispersion.
      Still not as cool as the goalkeeper.. (Phalanx's Gau8 Big Brother )
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_(CIWS)

  40. let me get this straight by milamber3 · · Score: 1

    So this thing is a "force field" against projectiles like my umbrella is a force field against rain?

    Won't the key to defeating this be to use weapons that are faster than its reaction speed?

    1. Re:let me get this straight by pbaehr · · Score: 1

      Not unless your umbrella constantly deploys millions of tiny projectiles to intercept the rain before it hits you.

    2. Re:let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a real conversation piece, but the recoil during anything other than light showers is just awful.

    3. Re:let me get this straight by Gerhardius · · Score: 1

      Overwhelming the defences with multiple targets would be a better idea. Chaff, decoys, multiple penetrators from a single projectile and myriad other deceptions are available. Possible counter measures available are similar to those used in ICBMs and SLBMs to counter the threat of ABMs.

      Traditionally, tanks used increased armour as their passive defence and mobility as an active defence, but those times are changing. An armoured vehicle that is the target of enemy fire may even begin to react automatically when an enemy laser ranging laser is detected by popping smoke and moving the vehicle away from the threat.

    4. Re:let me get this straight by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What a great idea, a hat that radiates heat vaporizing the water as it approaches.
      Hmmm I see a beanie, a inverted hair drier, and a trip the the patent office in my future!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  41. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by Cheapy · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, for someone who wants to be an editor, it probably isn't the best to berrate the editors.

    --
    Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
  42. Iranian Uranium by SoVeryTired · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Iran announces that it has successfully enriched uranium, and shortly afterward the U.S military announces that it has laser cannons and force-fields. Coincidence?

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    1. Re:Iranian Uranium by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RTFA

          It's not a real forcefield and laser cannon.

          It's a detection system that launches solid ballistic projectiles at incomming weapons like missles and RPG's.

          It's not a forcefield by any means but they are saying that it will provide forcefield like protection by destroying most weapon attacks before they hit the vehicle so in that way they say it's like a forcefield.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    2. Re:Iranian Uranium by spacefiddle · · Score: 1

      well, every now and then we get the sabre-rattling right. If someone clearly implies "gee, we happen to have the #1 requirement for nukes now," the best response is "gee, we happen to be better than ever at nullifying ballistics." i don't often get to be proud of our propaganda machine lately, let me enjoy it :P

  43. Armour Technologies by DG · · Score: 2, Informative

    This system is a point defence system, similar in concept to the system deployed on the French LeClerc tank, and sort of a scaled-down, simplified version of a naval point defence like Phalanx.

    But you aren't all that mistaken by comparing it to reactive armour, as the functionality of reactive armour is getting more complex all the time. A new-generation Russian reactive armour uses a sequence of outward-facing, linear shaped charges inside the reactive armour "brick", all tied together with a common detonator. If one of the charges is initiated by a long-rod penetrator or via a HEAT jet, all the charges initiate simultaniously, producing a series of "blades" that shoot out of the brick, and either section the rod/jet (as it very rarely hits dead-on) or cause it to yaw to the point where penetration is greatly reduced.

    Or going in the other direction, there are new "bulging" armours that use metal plates separated by blocks of rubber. When a penetrator hits, the plates bulge, forcing the penetrator to continuously cut through the plates as they are forced into the side of the rod/jet. If you get lucky, the side force on the rod may become so great as to yaw or snap the penetrator.

    Reactive armour doesn't really have any weaknesses. It's lighter per mm/RHA equivelent protection than a steel block, it can be serviced/replaced in the field, and if new technologies are invented, you just replace the bricks with the new stuff. Yes, if you take two hits to the same brick space, the protection is weaker on the second hit... but that's true of any armour.

    Early reactive armour tended to be somewhat less than friendly to local infantry, but anything made in the last decade or so has largely solved that problem. If you are close enough to a hit to be damaged by the effects of a reactive armour initiation, the splash of the hit itself was likely to be injurous anyway.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Armour Technologies by S3D · · Score: 1
      Reactive armour doesn't really have any weaknesses.
      It does. Especially advanced 360 degree active defence sysetms, like in TFA and russian Arena. The problem is infantry. Modern combat is mostly urban combat, and in urban enviroment tanks often moving in the middle of freindly infantry. Which wouldn't appreciate being showered by anty-missile projectiles.
    2. Re:Armour Technologies by DG · · Score: 1

      As I mentioned, this "weakness" has been largely solved with modern systems of reactive armour.

      And.. uhhh.... these point-defence systems work by blowing fragments towards incoming missiles. That's the same problem....

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    3. Re:Armour Technologies by S3D · · Score: 1

      It was "solved" by reducing dangerous area to 20-30 meteres. You don't have often 20 meters in urban combat.

  44. Which one is it? by 955301 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it "half of the vehicle" or a "hemisphere of protection"? If it's a hemisphere, I don't expect that they run the protection throught the ground, and if so, that would give full coverable of the vehicle. If it's half, then it's not a hemisphere, because only a quarter of a sphere will protect half of it.

    Maybe this is why people don't like hanging out with me.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    1. Re:Which one is it? by sxltrex · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's the top half.

    2. Re:Which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tests have shown that this sytem protects from RPGs coming from below the tank through the ground. SUCCESS, send more $$ to General Dynamics please.

    3. Re:Which one is it? by geobeck · · Score: 2, Funny
      I don't expect that they run the protection throught the ground...

      But how else will it protect against an attack by the Mole People?!

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    4. Re:Which one is it? by Rolan · · Score: 1

      Half a sphere from the bottom up.... Since you wouldn't genereally find a rocket coming from below.

      --
      - AMW
    5. Re:Which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Half a sphere from the bottom up.... Since you wouldn't genereally find a rocket coming from below.

      It's not as though our vehicles in Iraq are largely being blown up from below; oh, wait...

    6. Re:Which one is it? by 2short · · Score: 1


      Depending where you mount it on the vehicle, it's that area of space (without going through the vehicle) that can be shot at by a radar guided shotgun. Because that's what it is. Oh, sorry, a *mysterious* radar-guided shotgun.

    7. Re:Which one is it? by Rolan · · Score: 1
      It's not as though our vehicles in Iraq are largely being blown up from below; oh, wait...

      And other than trolling your point is? Besides the fact that you're wrong, the system doesn't deal with non-moving threats, which is what the IEDs in Iraq are. It would also do nothing for mines, or a person walking up to the tank and droping a grenade in the hatch. It's meant to deal with RPGs, Artillery, Rockets, etc.

      Going back to the fact that you're wrong... Most of the vehicles damaged or destroyed in Iraq are by IEDs placed beside the road, so the vehicles are being hit from the front, back, or sides, not from beneath. That's why they're generally refered to as "roadside bombs."

      --
      - AMW
    8. Re:Which one is it? by 955301 · · Score: 1

      Okay, so your "half a sphere from the bottom up"... is it protecting all of the vehicle or just half of it. That's my point. A quarter of a sphere protects half of the vehicle, not a hemisphere. The text contradicts itself.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    9. Re:Which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The left side only.

    10. Re:Which one is it? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      We all voted, and decided that it was your smell that was most offensive... sorry.

    11. Re:Which one is it? by Rolan · · Score: 1
      Okay, so your "half a sphere from the bottom up"... is it protecting all of the vehicle or just half of it. That's my point. A quarter of a sphere protects half of the vehicle, not a hemisphere. The text contradicts itself.

      Obviously, if it is protecting from "the bottom up" it is not protecting from "the bottom down"; so it is protecting half the vehicle, the top half, not the bottom half. The text is not contadictory.

      --
      - AMW
  45. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

    I think he's just upset because someone else used "Monkey" in their handle.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  46. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by Tork · · Score: 0

    Holy jesus christ are you misinformed - Bush PUT FORTH the UAE port deal, but it was shot down by a Chuck Schumer (D)-lead bipartisan backlash in the Congress.

    And to the dude who wants to mod the AC up... wow, where are MY mod points to flag you as "-1, Idiot Idealogue".

  47. not a force field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Misnomer indeed; this is not a "force field." A force field is an area of space in which an object experiences a force. This is more like a ballistic defense system. I'm disappointed, I was hoping for Star Trek :)

  48. Obligatory Family Guy reference: by rdwald · · Score: 4, Funny

    That isn't a force field at all! It just shoots you!

    1. Re:Obligatory Family Guy reference: by somejeff · · Score: 1

      Why didn't anyone tell me he had one of those... things? - The Joker

    2. Re:Obligatory Family Guy reference: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey everybody, that tank is a big fat phoney!

  49. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by erkokite · · Score: 2, Informative

    Odd that you should mention Fox News. It was originally fox news that called it a force field. See here

  50. Haven't We Seen This Before? by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    "Once an incoming threat is detected identified and verified, the Countermeasure Assembly is opened, the countermeasure device is positioned in the direction where it can effectively intercept the threat. Then, it is launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat at a relatively long distance."

    Like in a Looney Tunes cartoon?

    --
    What?
  51. short shelf life, anyone? by nowhere.elysium · · Score: 1

    it's gonna be precisely bugger all use against railguns, so i give this a workable life of, say, five years? if it can honestly track *and destroy* a projectile moving at approximately 3500 m/s (the desired speed, according to wikipedia), then i will happily eat each and every aol CD that comes through my door, for the rest of my days. i say it'll be useless before long. before you mod me a troll, or off-topic, or whatever, DARPA actually managed to make a working railgun, and they are funding a continual effort to generate a more solid design. it only failed to see regular use because the magnetic rails suffered heavy damage every time it was fired.

    --
    http://xkcd.com/313/
    1. Re:short shelf life, anyone? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yah, the smallest succesfull railgun so far was mounted on a battleship. Generaly speaking, tanks don't have to worry about being engaged by ships. Also, even if that weren't the case, I'm thinking Al Qaeda might have a tough time purchasing a battleship and a railgun.

      RPG's are a threat because they're small, they're mobile, they're cheap, and they're everywhere. None of that is true for railguns today, and probably none of that will be true even 60 years from now.

      In other words, you may as well be arguing that this system is useles because it can't stop lightsabers.

    2. Re:short shelf life, anyone? by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

      Given that the threat they are designed to work against people still using WWII technology...I don't think the US is going to be going up against anyone sporting vehicle-mounted railguns any time soon.

      A friend of mine made a railgun too...it's not that hard. Of course, he only fired it once without blowing all the caps out.

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
    3. Re:short shelf life, anyone? by nowhere.elysium · · Score: 1

      go google the word 'railgun'. you'll notice that most of the first set of site that come up are not affiliated with the military, or even research labs. they're random guys, with too much time. don't forget that 1) al-qaeda has intellignet people on its side too, and 2) you're not only gonna be fighting against afghan rebels that hide out in caves, based upon america's track record of treading on people's toes. and also, one of the recent successful designs of a railgun is only around four metres long. plenty small enough to be vehicle mounted. more likely set up in a building though. i know it's a moot point, but most slashdotters are good at them, so i figured i'd try my hand at it. i'm sure if i'd made a comment about how it was useless against lightsabers it's be modded as +3 funny.

      --
      http://xkcd.com/313/
    4. Re:short shelf life, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to what Quake II may have taught you (and, admittedly, much to my personal dismay) man-portable railguns are nothing special--they're like a bad rifle. Even once you get up to small-vehicle-size there's no advantage over traditional methods (well, in a long-term standoff I suppose it's good that you only need supplementary power and projectiles rather than propellant as well...). You really need to start hitting fixed-emplacement and naval-scale to be achieving weaponized railguns that do their job better than the old-fashioned methods.

    5. Re:short shelf life, anyone? by nowhere.elysium · · Score: 1

      i never suggested that they'd be a replacement for the m16 or the sa80; i was actually hinting at the possibility of a static placement, or possibly a vehicle-mounted option.

      --
      http://xkcd.com/313/
    6. Re:short shelf life, anyone? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      RPG's are a threat because they're small, they're mobile, they're cheap, and they're everywhere.

      And Russia, our "friends" in the war on terror, is more than happy to keep pumping them out as fast as they can, selling them to whomever will will buy them. I'm guessing that they've even probably sold more than a few to their Checnyan anti-allies...

    7. Re:short shelf life, anyone? by c6gunner · · Score: 1
      you'll notice that most of the first set of site that come up are not affiliated with the military, or even research labs. they're random guys, with too much time. don't forget that 1) al-qaeda has intellignet people on its side too
      The majority of these aren't even hitting 600fps. They're still large, AND they're slow as all fuck. A 230fps railgun isn't going to do much to a tank. On the bright side, the gunner will be too busy laughing to bother firing back. Maybe if you distract them enbough with your railgun, you can get up close and drop a granade in the hatch.
      2) you're not only gonna be fighting against afghan rebels that hide out in caves, based upon america's track record of treading on people's toes.
      Treading on....yah. Let's not go there.

      Which country exactly do you envision developing usable railguns before the US does? And do you envision said country going to war with the US?

      What are the posibilities? China? Maybe? That's about the only one I can think of, and even that one's pretty unlikely. It's certainly not going to be Lower-East-Tungstinasia.
      and also, one of the recent successful designs of a railgun is only around four metres long. plenty small enough to be vehicle mounted. more likely set up in a building though.
      Possible. But once again, not a threat now, and not a likely threat for several decades at least. So just because maybe in 2050 we may be facing railgun equiped terrorists, we shouldn't bother with active armour today? Nonsense. By that logic we shouldn't be giving our soldiers any armour either.
  52. feels more like... by fak3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a 'Star Wars' implementation for vehicles. Not that it wouldn't be a interesting idea, but the 'glowing forcefield' ala grabbing the Quake that I envisioned is more intriqueing.

  53. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by trb · · Score: 1
    Nice attempt at paraphrasing, but while the word 'hemispheric' may translate literally to the phrase 'one half of a vehicle', the real meaning is obfuscated.
    Hemispheric does not mean half a vehicle, it means half a sphere. The hemispheric field, in this case, refers to the half a sphere above the ground (containing the vehicle), rather than the hemisphere below ground.
  54. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    Troll, but I'll bite. The Arabs in Iraq are busy killing each other and doing a great job at it.

  55. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I beleive you mispelled the word "Faux". And I believe you've been mispronouncing it.

  56. Mysterious? Perhaps to non-readers... by pjkundert · · Score: 2, Funny
    A mysterious force-field, consisting of... (wait for it!) ... a radar-triggered cannon firing a bunch of fragments (that would be "pebbles", for the non-technical reader) in the general direction of incoming explosive ordnance. Ordnance hits pebbles. Ka-Boom!

    Dude; you gotta learn to read, before submitting articles with "Man Bites Dog" headlines...

    --
    -- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
  57. Old News by MD_Willington · · Score: 1

    Tested already in late February... "A few weeks back, Trophy, an Israeli active protection set-up, went through its first tests on an American Stryker vehicle. It's already being used to protect Israeli tanks against rocket-propelled grenades. [In a] Feb. 28 test... two inert RPGs were fired simultaneously; one would hit the Stryker while the other was intentionally aimed for a near miss... Trophy was able to track the trajectory, discriminate among the two parallel targets, and determine which one would actually hit the Stryker before selectively unleashing its lethal countermeasures. The actual method used to destroy the targets is classified." http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002230.html

  58. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

    Two problems with that statement:


    1. I don't want to be an editor. I never have wanted to be an editor in the past, and I don't see that opinion changing anytime in the foreseeable future.
    2. If someone did in fact want to be an editor, pointing out the shortcomings of the existing editors would be a valid and effective tactic toward demonstrating their own editorial skills.


    Other than those two points, your statement is correct.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  59. Not new by Clsid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Russians were far ahead in this field. This "mysterious forcefield" is nothing more than the US version of the Russian Arena system fitted in T-90 tanks since 1995. There are even videos on the web showing some fire tests which are truly impressive. If you find them you can see anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) get destroyed or thrown out of course by this special cannon matched to a radar system. When activated it creates a field of protection around the tank where anything approaching the tank at certain speeds of enough size gets an automatic response from the system. They also have an electro-optical jammer system called Shtora-1 which is far more interesting in my opinion than this active protection system.

    1. Re:Not new by sien · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this comment. That's useful info.

    2. Re:Not new by AfricanImpi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's merely the latest development of an idea that's been punted around for quite a few years now. I would hesitate to call Trophy "nothing more than the US version of the Russian Arena system", since by all accounts Trophy is decidedly more effective and less harmful to dismounted infantry, and besides it's Israeli, not American.

      Incidentally, the US, Israel and Russia are not the only ones working on this tech. South Africa's Avitronics (now owned by SAAB) has been working on a similar system for a few years, which is also reputed to be very effective.

      Called the LEDS, or Land Electronic Defence System, it consists of laser and radar missile approach warning sensors linked in to a number of countermeasures aboard the vehicle turret. Options include multi-spectral smoke, active signature decoys, or a hard-kill option similar to that seen in the Israeli system.

      The hard-kill countermeasure involves the relatively small Mongoose 1 projective, which destroys the incoming warhead purely through kinetic energy. The mathematics behind this are predictably phenomenally complex, but evidently doable by reasonably-priced processing power small enough to fit into a combat vehicle.

      As for response time, it certainly is incredibly fast. I was able to view a non-armed working demonstrator once, and was encouraged to take a photo of the system's sensors with my camera's flash on. By the time I had released the button, the system control panel had already identified the direction of the 'threat', swivelled the Mongoose launcher to face me, and subsequently dismissed it as a false alarm. Very quick indeed.

      Of course, there will always be a danger to dismounted infantry from this system. However, this system in particular is specifically designed to be as safe to dismounted infantry as possible (hence the use of pure kinetic energy for destruction rather than a proximity detonation), and it could be argued that dismounted infantry are already vulnerable to RPGs and ATGMs that impact on the side of armoured vehicles anyway.

      It's technology like this that will ensure the tank remains an integral part of the world's militaries for decades to come. Rumours of its demise are always greatly exaggerated.

  60. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People expressing dissant in a country that allows it, to support a country that doesn't support dissant. How cute. I forget that the world had no wars until the US decided to intervine and start them all... and how peaceful the Middle East was prior to 9/11, which was the Americans fault anyway.

  61. JUNK. that's not a forcefield by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    THIS is a forcefield!

    Either way, both concepts are relatively old; I'm surprised the articles are only showing up now on slashdot.

  62. ...The same way they fight convoys of jeeps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With roadside IEDs and mines, obviously.

  63. Obvious PR bullshit by gm98052 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's a small chance I could be wrong (I've been wrong twice before), but when you've been around as long as I have and you've seen so much crap hyped by companies wanting another round of financing you learn to watch for obvious clues that things don't smell right. In this case hyping the use of the term force field which it obviously isn't is a huge clue they are trying to sell us on a pile of crap (despite the sold-called successful Army tests). Granted a point defense system that works is of obvious use, but the fact that they are not selling it as a point defense system tells me it simply doesn't work well and they are following the age-old tactic that snake oil salesmen have always used by dressing up crap and calling it filet mignon. The fact is that all TV news organizations now happily take "news footage" created by corporate marketing departments and show it as their own news. In this case I'll bet the news footage was created by the Israeli company including the commentary by the news caster.

  64. "Forcefield" thing comes from Fox News by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The description of this thing as a "forcefield" seems to come from this Fox News clip (big SWF file.)". It's not. It's an active defense system that shoots small rockets back at incoming weapons. Exactly what it shoots back is not being revealed. UPI has a better article.

  65. Wait, it IS a forcefield, honest! by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    I think, if you want to stretch it, it can be described as a forcefield, emphasis on the "force" and please try to forget about the "field". After all, f=ma. They're supplying the ma, so there must be some f around there somewhere....

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    1. Re:Wait, it IS a forcefield, honest! by Xeger · · Score: 1

      The problem is, it isn't strictly a force field.

      It's an electromagnetic (sensor) field that detects incoming projectiles. When it sees one, it projects a kinetic counter-force by firing a projectile back.

      Any radar = "sensor field"

      Any projectile weapon = "force projector"

      Combine the two, and you've got a reasonable simulacrum of a force field -- but it's still not technically a force field. It's just a fancy point-defense system. Aircraft carriers have done this for more than a decade.

  66. Re:Anyone else remember a somewhat similiar system by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    And here's one you can buy at you-know-where (of course, some "after-market" scaling may be required if you want it to deflect bullets, etc.)

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  67. Anyone who's played C&C Generals... by Kargan · · Score: 1

    Will recognize this as being similar to the point defense laser mounted on the US Paladin tanks.

    Except that, as pointed out, this is not likely to use a laser but a standard projectile sort of weapon to accomplish the same purpose.

    --
    Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
  68. Force field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but the genius that wrote the article up should think about what they say. This is indeed a sensor field, attatched to some very well programmed artilary to predetonate and/or destroy incomming projectiles, but a sensor field is not a forcefield. If one is to use the term "force-field" one should remember the prime function of it. It is to give an anti-force to a force. Somebody tries to push past it, the field reacts by pushing back. Although one could metaphorically say this is doing the same thing, I meant it in the literal sense.

    Don't get me wrong, it's useful, but it isn't a force-field in the slightest, and is not all that difficult to develop with current technologies. I mean, it is difficult, but... we've had the tech to make it decently for the past 5 years at least, and to make it badly for the past 15 or so. All it is, is a series of detectors that use radar and probably edge recognition to detect a projectile, classify (maybe), aim certain turrets correctly, and fire the appropriate anti-projectile. Very good for defense, but not a force-field, and nothing TOO special as far as technology goes.

  69. Mod parent up, grandparent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly the poster of the parent has read the article, while the grandparent's author has not.

  70. Checklist for accepting military projects by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. gotta be expensive (we don't wanna look like cheap assholes) 2. gotta make it sound like it's out of a sci-fi movie Training donkeys to help soldiers with carrying provisions : REJECTED A million dollar noisy and entertaining robotized donkey, looks like those big quadruped machines on Hot in Episode VI - ACCEPTED Laser beams shooting out of airplanes, like on space ships - ACCEPTED Light mattery to replace bullet proof vests - REJECTED Robotized cyborg-like appendages, makes soldiers look exactly like Robocop - ACCEPTED Machine gun that shoots of RPG-s targeted at tanks - REJECTED Mysterious Force field repelling RPG-s - ACCEPTED

  71. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well done, ScuttleMonkey...you've effectively sensationalized the story into something it patently isn't. You must be auditioning for a position on Fox News.

    Actually this is about par for Slashdot, why do you think otherwise? It's also Slashdot that's also more biased than Fox News, but I'm sure you can forgive even that.

  72. Potential Problems by fjf33 · · Score: 1

    The ones that would probably not be too happy are the grunts on foot or the ones on the Hummer following the tank in the direction of the RPG. Actually anyone friendly between the RPG and the countermeasure. It would work in a regular fight but probably it can be exploited to generate more casualties if one can set up the situation, just like the insurgents can.

  73. How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's my guess at how it works:
    1: A phased array radar senses the incoming projectile
    2: The target aquisition system determines that the incoming projectile is a threat
    3: A device fires shrapnel at the incoming threat.

    I think the important bit between something like this and "Phalanx" is that this has zero slew time. How is that possible? I think that it uses what amounts to a phased shaped charge, similar in operation to the phased radar. The main difference is that instead of having numerous carefully timed antennas to direct a beam, it has numerous carefully timed detonators to direct the blast from a sheet of high explosive behind a frangible plate.

    Again, just a wild guess.

    - knock knock - hang on while I go answer the door...

  74. Grim reality by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Parent:
    I still think it would be nicer to use all this money being spent to get those with the hate and the weapons to not hate as much.

    Response:
    And how would you like to accomplish this? Pay them to think happy happy joy joy feelings?

    I think he meant to take that money, and use it to abduct potential threats and lobotomize them.

    That pembo13 is scary hardcore, man. I prefer just protecting the tanks myself.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  75. Defends Bullets? by krunoce · · Score: 1
    Okay so it can defend against missiles, but what about bullets? It would be ultra cool to sit on top of the tank untouchable.

    It's probably easier to see and hear things outside the tank anyways.

  76. Here's part of what the CIA gave bin Laden: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    You said, "... [the U.S. government] TRAINED Bin Laden and gave him stinger missiles during the Soviet Afghan war."

    Actually, the consensus is that Laden was likely never funded, trained or armed directly by the CIA. But, that's not relevant.

    Osama bin Laden did not need money or arms. He had millions of dollars of his own money; he was extremely wealthy and had connections with other extremely wealthy people who wanted to fund his ideas.

    Here's part of what the CIA gave bin Laden, perhaps completely indirectly:

    A deep understanding of how to be an efficient terrorist: What bin Laden needed was the CIA's manuals that tell how to be a terrorist. There was a news story about an Arab terrorist manual that had been found, and some of the text was quoted. The U.S. government stopped the quoting. However, before it was stopped, it was completely obvious that the original language of the terrorist manual was certainly not Arab and it seemed obvious to me that it was American English.

    Jobless people trained in violence: When the U.S. government's largely secret support for aggression against Russia was finished, all those trained in violence and CIA terrorist methods needed work. Their resumes did not support getting jobs as rug merchants; all they knew was violence. That was the CIA's second biggest contribution to OBL: A huge group of people trained in and looking for violence.

    Followers who hated U.S. government interference and violence: Other incidents of what the CIA calls "Blowback" provided strong reasons to hate U.S. government intervention. Also, many people in the U.S. government have a difficult time understanding this, but Arabs don't like to be killed.

    A huge cache of modern missiles and explosives: Sure, maybe there was never a formal transfer of weapons to OBL, with contracts signed and handshakes, but a huge number of weapons and a huge amount of weapons material were left, and became available to OBL.

  77. Mystery Games by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's not a "mysterious force field". That's an even more bogus version of the "Star Wars" missile defense system for intercepting ballistic attacks with ballistic attacks. Which has never even worked at the long distances, large scales and long times, as well as vast, complex, powerful systems and humongous budgets. This system is better known as "science fiction". The mysterious force you're sensing is the defense contractor budget propaganda marketing field. Which has been protecting this country from good sense for generations.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Mystery Games by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      actually, scaling down the problem (1/50s the speed, 1/1000s the distances) makes things MUCH easier, and this system is very much viable... even though its not a force field.

      Its more or less an metalstorm style supershotgun...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Mystery Games by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      It's been working on ships for a couple of decades now. But no, it's not a force field.

    3. Re:Mystery Games by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a metalstorm style supershotgun... like I said, science fiction. The speeds are still much too great, and the proportionally reduced distances means much less time to aim & fire, therefore much more demanding precision. It's another fake star wars defense project, just as fake as the big guns we've been paying for since the 1980s that have never worked, but always profited.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Mystery Games by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Moderation +1
          70% Insightful
          30% Troll

      You can test any proposition to determine whether it threatens the fascist military/oil industrial/political complex. Just post the truth about it on Slashdot, and TrollMods will swarm it when it's a threat. I'd love to trace back the IP#s of those TrollMods to the Pentagon or some of their contractors - or Congressional sponsors.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Mystery Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE TO POST A CRITICAL ANALYSIS EVERY TIME SOMEONE MODS YOU DOWN? HOLY CRAP NO WONDER YOU HAVE SLASHSTALKERS WHO KEEP ON MODDING DOWN YOUR SHIT. ITS BECAUSE YOU POST SHIT. GODDAMIT YOU FUCKING CUNTRAG. AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT WHY IS EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU A TROLLMOD? ARE YOU A FUCKING RETARD OR SOMETHING?

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    6. Re:Mystery Games by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I reply to some moderations to give metamoderators info about the otherwise anonymous, unsupported suppression of my posts, to inform their metamoderation. When someone actually disagrees with me, instead of just downmodding me with an obviously specious mod like "Offtopic" when it's not, I disagree with them. Especially when they're not some fucking asshole Anonymous Coward with no concept whatsoever. Thanks for the chance to explain to people who can't see that for themselves.

      BTW, Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. You demented Anonymous fool Coward.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Mystery Games by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Show me where ballistic intervention has been used to defend ships effectively.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Mystery Games by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      It didn't work when the U.S.S. Stark was hit by the Iraqi Exocet, but the big scandal there was that the Phalanx wasn't turned on. I can't vouch for how effective they actually are, but both the American and Soviet navies were sold on them for a while.

      The U.S. navy is now replacing Phalanx with the RAM (Rolling Airframe Missle); I don't know about Russian, Ukranian, etc.

  78. Re:Good news by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    It also does nothing to stop air-burst nuclear weapons and meteor strikes, but so what?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  79. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush PUT FORTH the UAE port deal, but it was shot down by a Chuck Schumer (D)-lead bipartisan backlash in the Congress.

    Bush didn't "put forth" anything. The companies who currently own the ports wanted to sell them, a UAE-owned government corporation wanted to buy them. This transaction required government approval, which was granted by (IIRC) a congressional commission. Public outcry followed. At this point, Bush became publically involved, supporting the sale.

    Holy jesus christ are you misinformed

    I suggest you present evidence backing up my "misinformed" status. Preferably on grounds that are factually correct, though it would be incredibly hilarious if you were both actually correct and able to prove that the President of the United States had abused government power to orchestrate the seizure and sale of privately owned property to a foreign government.

    Either way, it changes nothing about the public villification of Arabs by right-wing talking heads, and again, the majority of the blame for the public xenophobia against Arabs falls squarely on their shoulders.

  80. Warning Label: by SnapShot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Warning Label on Tank:

    Do not play frisbee, football, or baseball near the talk.

    Thank you,
    The Management

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    1. Re:Warning Label: by gwayne · · Score: 1

      The warning on the laser plane probably says "CAUTION: Do not look into laser with other eye!"

    2. Re:Warning Label: by spacefiddle · · Score: 1

      Did you make your name up just for this article??

    3. Re:Warning Label: by Senzei · · Score: 1
      Hmm, at first I thought you were making this up. Then I saw this:

      Do not play frisbee, football, or baseball near the talk.

      So now I have to ask, who do you work for that you managed to see the actual label military intelligence used.

      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    4. Re:Warning Label: by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      "THANK GOD IT'S THE AMERICANS!

      "Please, save my baby!"

      <toss>

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    5. Re:Warning Label: by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      There must have been a "force field" over the 'n' key. No military intelligence here.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    6. Re:Warning Label: by tuxlove · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be, "CAUTION: Do not look into laser with remaining eye!"

    7. Re:Warning Label: by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Especially if you are being invaded by US forces and want a cheap way to make our multimilliondollar 'force fields' as effective as worm crap. Blanketing our tanks in fifty-cent beachballs or paintbombing the sensors is right out. Tank you, The Management

    8. Re:Warning Label: by tigga · · Score: 1
      Especially if you are being invaded by US forces and want a cheap way to make our multimilliondollar 'force fields' as effective as worm crap. Blanketing our tanks in fifty-cent beachballs or paintbombing the sensors is right out. Tank you, The Management

      Bah,
      Sensors should ignore low-speed objects.
      And those sensors are not optical - regular paint would be useless.
      And I afraid person doing it would be shot on spot.

    9. Re:Warning Label: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you're suggesting that when American forces arrive somewhere, the greatful locals throw babies at their tanks?

      Anyway, it says that the threat is "detected identified and verified" before the countermeasures are deployed. If they're in a country where baby-chucking is prevalent, I'm sure they'll try to make one of those steps screen out babies.

    10. Re:Warning Label: by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1
      So... you're suggesting that when American forces arrive somewhere, the greatful locals throw babies at their tanks?
      Yes. Every time.
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  81. This sort of already exists. by burtonator · · Score: 1

    The US Navy used the Phalanx to protect against missles fired directy against a ship.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

    Also... the second series of Ghost in the Shell - 2nd Gig shows a "smart tank" controlled by an AI that can defeat RPGs with a similar active defense mechanism.

    Regardless theres a LOT of very realistic scifi in GiTS... def worth watching.

    1. Re:This sort of already exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember what it was called, but in one of the Mechwarriors (2 I think?) there was a countermeasure you could equip that would shoot incoming missiles down with a little machine gun.

      This made me think of that.

  82. Not a machine gun, and NOT 5.56 by DG · · Score: 1

    It's not 5.56mm. Misses would be akin to opening up with a C9 pointed in some random direction.

    It's closer in operation to a short-range shotgun, or command-detonated reactive armour.

    Note too that the blast effect is not what disrupts the HEAT jet in reactive armour. Instead, reactive armour uses the explosion of the propellant to force a series of steel plates laterally through the jet.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  83. Friendly fire? by Heembo · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered the friendly fire considerations of this automated chaff-firing defense system?

    --
    Horns are really just a broken halo.
  84. Is this DREAD? by Steve+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A while back, there was talk of a technology called DREAD, which pretty much was a high-speed rotating disc that electronically released balls from it. By timing the spinning and the release, the balls could be fired in practically any direction as quickly as the machine could load the ammo.

    It looks like you could combine DREAD with a high-speed tracking radar and you get something like this technology.

    Check out this link for more info:

    http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News &file=article&sid=526

  85. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hemispheric field, in this case, refers to the half a sphere above the ground (containing the vehicle), rather than the hemisphere below ground.

    So it would still be vulnerable to self-guided, underground, suicide gopher torpedoes? Lame.

  86. Re:Good news by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 4, Informative

    No way. This tech is intended to destroy incoming long-range projectiles such as missiles and, maybe, shells.

    In theory, it works against RPG fire, assuming the radar catches it fast enough, which is subject to discussion, since RPG 7 is typically fired from 100-200 m away. Regarding IEDs, it would probably be totally inefficient. IEDs cause damage pretty much like landmines do: blast, heat/fire (where their device is not effective), and shrapnel (too dispersed to be intercepted). Plus, the IEDs fire off at very close range, while this device is supposed to trigger when the incoming projectile is 20/30 metres away.

    Plus, they're only planning to implement it on expensive, big-ass armoured vehicles such as M1s and Strykers: in other words, the ones that aren't really put at threat by RPG7's and IEDs in the first place. I don't see the Army deploying this multi-million-dollar tech on their Hummers anytime soon...

    This is "just" some new kind of anti-missile technology, only miniaturized and applied to tanks. Calling this a "protective force field" reeks of astroturf and, worse, political propaganda. This is high-tech for high-tech wars between high-tech armies, not protection gear.

    Assuming this kind of high-tech weapons systems helps the conduct of non-conventionnal warfare, low-intensity warfare and ground occupation in anyway it misleading, counter-productive, and ultimately, dangerous (not to mention tax-dollar-wasting):

    1. It makes political leaders and citizens think they can send troops to war without putting them in harm's way (assuming they care about the soldiers' lives at all), while ignoring all warnings from experts (both in and out the Army) that no amount of tech will ever make asymetric warfare completely safe.

    2. It facilitates entry into war by ensuring complete, total, casualty-less, blitz-style victory against the military opponent (such as during the first weeks of the Iraq war). This both allows to "sell the war" (politically speaking) more easily, and it makes political leaders and military planners believe they don't even need a post-war scenario (since, by their standards, they'll have won the war and will be able to retire in the following weeks).

    3. And during actual occupation, all these gadgets are of absolutely no use whatsoever to protect the troops against guerillas/militias/terrorist cells and/or an angry populace.

    Sure, tech can help, even in non-conventionnal warfare. But it will never replace diplomacy, non-conventionnal military skills, solid ground intelligence, negociations with the adversary (don't get me wrong, negociating doesn't mean you can't stab them in the back the next minute), and not pissing off all of the locals at once. All things which the US Army is arguably not very good at, but this is another debate entirely.

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  87. Hammers Slammers by cc_pirate · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems that is nothing more than the active defense system that David Drake envisioned more than 30 years ago in his Hammer's Slammers book series. Impressive if it works, but notice how they don't really mention what happens to any friendlies near the "system" when it fires... Like all point defense systems, keeping the thing from killing your own guys is a major concern.

    --

    "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

  88. There's always a way around by rentedflowers · · Score: 1

    First off, this is totally useless against mines/IEDs/roadside bombs, which have proven so useful in the current conflict in Iraq that you can guarantee their use by anyone else who wants to take on the US military.

    Second, I keep having visions of the "slow penetrator" from Dune: something that moves so slowly that the device will not notice it. Like the opposite of a kinetic-energy penetrator. I'm having visions of an RC car with a bomb.

  89. What a lame forcefield. by einexile · · Score: 1

    It shoots out a bunch of stuff at an incoming whatever. It's a tiny version of whatever they're calling Star Wars these days. This belongs on Slashdot why?

    The other thing isn't Star Wars, this isn't a forcefield, and those assholes should be focusing their efforts on space-age technology to spot roadside bombs and keep us from shooting down our own helicopters. Also a means of wiping out civilian populations that will be agreeable to human rights organizations.

  90. Active armor on steroids by Werrismys · · Score: 1

    Sounds like systems designed for carriers.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
  91. Been there Done that by Rytr23 · · Score: 1

    isn;t this the exact concept of the hugely successful "Patriot" missile system? Preemptively stiking an incoming projectile? Albeit a mush smaller faster scale.. Not a forcefield.. Silly geese

    --
    So many injustices..so little time..
  92. What motivates such an obvious misnomer? by posterlogo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The title drew me into this posting. This kind of bullshit needs to stop -- it really dilutes the credibility of Slashdot. I fully understand that TFA used the term force field, but obviously someone wrote out the term "mysterious force field" with the intent of deceiving people.

    1. Re:What motivates such an obvious misnomer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credibility has long been out the door for several years (you're new here?) when Taco sold Slashdot to make more money.

      I'm only here for the comments and I AdBlock all the banners.

  93. At what cost? by wuffalicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's my understanding that RPG's didn't become a big deal until tanks and other heavy, armored equipment did. They were, in a sense, a cheap response to an expensive problem. From what I recall (and feel free to correct me, I very well may be wrong) you can acquire RPG rounds for suprisingly little in some areas of the middle east - we're talking around $20. My suspicion is that this point-defense system isn't nearly as inexpensive to fire. We're presenting their cheap response with another expensive problem. I'd be curious how difficult it would be to build a radar jammer that could confuse this system enough to allow something through. I wonder how cheap it would be to build said jammers, and duct-tape them on to existing RPG launchers.

    I don't have any doubt that systems like these, designed to save the lives of people who put themselves on the line for this country, are valuable assets. However, I do question the economy of it all. When we have to spend millions of dollars for every 20 bucks our enemies do, one has to wonder how that will play out in the long run.

  94. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by trb · · Score: 1
    So it would still be vulnerable to self-guided, underground, suicide gopher torpedoes? Lame.
    This question isn't all that silly, and it depends on what the hemispherical field really is. There are at least three alternatives:
    • the field is an open curved surface with no flat side - shaped like a soup bowl.
    • the field is a closed hollow surface including a flat side.
    • the field is a non-hollow solid.
    I would guess that a force field would be generated from a device situated at a point, and probably emitting a solid field whose force decays proportional to the inverse square of the distance from the device, so it would be non-hollow solid.
  95. Magic: the Gathering geeks are burnt, too. by FearTheFrail · · Score: 1

    We Magic geeks were wondering where the U.S. Army got all the mana to repel these projectiles, too.

    --
    ___ In the words of Gen. Douglas McArthur: "I'll be right back."
  96. Bah... by Lotso · · Score: 1

    You know as well as I do, fighting a vehicle with that system isn't that difficult... Just scratch RPG's off of the options list and move to the next. It's MUCH easier to be the attacker than the defender! ;)

  97. Moving target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd hate to be a bird flying over this thing.

  98. Like a marshmellow in a microwave by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Still, you've got to admit that this would be a huge psychological deterant. I mean, if I fired RPGs at a tank, and the RPGs (seemingly without cause) pre-detontated before they ever reached the tank, I'd be looking to get the hell out of there and warn all my friends!

    How would you like to be an insurgent trying to sneak up on an M1 and suddenly find yourself looking like a marshmellow in a microwave oven? I am not surprised that the army has showcased this stuff as a defensive weapon but think of the potential of replacing fragmentation weapons.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  99. Portability by Kinthelt · · Score: 1

    How portable are these things?

    Anybody know if I'll be able to install one into my pimped ride?

    --

    "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

    1. Re:Portability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the ugliest mech I have seen in a long while.

      Your pimp-ride sucks monkeytoes.

  100. NFI - No Fields Involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As anyone that plays any scifi tactical/strategy/turn game:

    Energy fields theory and point defense theory are two DIFFERENT research tech trees!

    It is still neat to see it on tanks though, because armor plating is a THIRD tech tree in most games :)

  101. Mysterious force is Kinetic force. by tod_miller · · Score: 2, Funny

    Big hot thing coming in on radar. Fire a 'beam' of bullets at it.

    Wham. Phalanx anyone?

    Bush: Well, I done heard that these I-ranians have hi-tech equiptment and the like
    Daddy: Yes son, and we have been skimming billions off our defense budgets for our friends in the middle east for years now!
    Bush: That don't make no sense!
    Daddy: Yes son, that is the beauty of it!
    Bush: So lets get someone to make something up about our stuff, to make it sound good?
    Daddy: Thats right son, and lets sell ADS as a new optional extra on hummers!
    Bush: I like them cars! brum brum!
    Daddy: Tree Fiddy?

    please type the word in this image: skirted verification text - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  102. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That part of the world"? Take a look at European and American history. Just because the US has been on the winning side recently doesn't mean we're not violent. "Westerners" are like everyone else - we value human life when it's our lives, not so much for anyone else.

  103. Actually... by Otto · · Score: 2, Funny

    That depends. Are the 'rebels' a foreign superpowers military that is overthrowing the dictator under the guise of motives that turn out to be completely fraudulent and more likely than not just going to exploit your national resources and establish a puppet government?

    No, actually the 'rebels' are mostly a group of independant freedom fighters run by a quazi-religious organization of people with supernatural abilities and are attempting to regain democratic control of an empire (with the quazi-religious group being the appointed guardians of that empire) despite the fact that the senate was stupid enough to vote the dictator into his position anyway by giving him emergency powers in response to a perceived threat (that the dictator himself helped create), and which powers he maintains by using a army of mostly ineffective but nevertheless cheap fighters who were cloned from a bounty hunter and by using an extremely powerful (but sadly mangled) and corrupted person from the quazi-religious group, and who has awesome supernatural powers, bad fashion sense, and a propensity for building weapons on a truly immense scale.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  104. Ah, the age old game by dvdungeon · · Score: 1

    Of armour versus anti-armour weapons... We'll now be seeing anti-tank missiles dispensing chaff or with multiple warheads (like this http://www.army-technology.com/projects/starstreak /images/star2.jpg) or built in jamming technology. Well, it keeps some geeks gainfully employed at least. Matt

    --
    oops...
  105. I have a force field too! (please pay me) by is+as+us+Infinite · · Score: 0

    Exactly!

    This is just as much a 'force field' as I have a 'force field' around my body, centered roughly around my arms and facing in my forward direction that prevents balls and objects of various sizes from hitting my body. When I have successfully deflected or nullified an incoming ballistic, I call it "Cephalically-Activated Technology Creating a Haven from Incoming Non-explosive Grenades". And it's been patented, so I'll expect royalties when you use my 'force field' to protect yourself.

    . . . . . . .

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. . . . . . . .
  106. Re:Good news by shaitand · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is that why iraqi citizens are dying? I thought the US supported iraqi police death squads were part of it? Not to mention the US troops putting caps in the back of 7 month year old babies heads.

    Lets see if we can find some imagery. Here is a video

  107. Expect black helicopters by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    I'm not 100% sure what Australia's equivelant of Guantanamo is, but I think you can start having your mail forwarded to New Zealand...

    1. Re:Expect black helicopters by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      I'm not 100% sure what Australia's equivelant of Guantanamo is,

      Australia's equivelant of Guantanamo is Guantanamo

    2. Re:Expect black helicopters by torpor · · Score: 1

      Australia's equivelant of Guantanamo is Guantanamo.

      No it isn't. Australia has multiple hidden detention centers in the desert. There's one near Karratha.

      Parts of the interior are nothing but detention..

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  108. News! by erotic+piebald · · Score: 1

    The Defense Update article was in "Year 2004 Issue: 1".

  109. I bet I know what the "Force Field" is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The clue from the article 'Trophy is design to form a "beam" of fragments' gives it away. In the news lately (I googled it and can't find it now) there has been a new gun with many barrels. Each barrel has many bullets. It can fire these all at once, so a 100 barrel, 10 bullets per barrel gun can fire 1000 bullets all and nearly the same instant. This causes a wall of lead. This has even been on the Discover channel.

    Of course the detection and aiming system are what makes this work. Something coming in at mach 2+ is pretty hard to detect and aim at before you become a crispy critter.

    I'll post a reply if I find a link to the gun.

    1. Re:I bet I know what the "Force Field" is by pontifier · · Score: 1

      It's called metal storm, and I too immediately thought of that type of gun when I read about this system.

      --
      -John Fenley
  110. Brits have a real force field. Or will soon. by spacefiddle · · Score: 1

    This is point defense. It's cool, but it's not a force field; more like a 'sensor net.' Proximity field. Whatever, insert your favorite bastardized sci-fi term.

    THIS is a force field, and it's 4 years old:

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/8/19/12550/6486
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/19/boffins_in vent_grenade_vaporising_electric/
    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc- Science&Forteana/Doc-Science-StrangePhysics/ForceF ieldProtectsTanks.htm
  111. Joking about Commies... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I disallow use of my software by anyone in a posession of a Che Guevarra T-shirt, for example.

    I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but what if they just wear it ironically?

    They'll need my written permission then...

    Seriously, I know, you are joking, but nobody seems to jokingly wear, say, Swastika on their clothing, yet the Hammer-and-Sickle remain all the rage :-(

    Imagine a new line of German schnaps being promoted with those crossed symbolic fasces. It would -- understandibly -- cause an outrage. But new Russian vodkas continue to proudly display the murderous Red Star, and the above mentioned tools.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Joking about Commies... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Che was no Hitler or Stalin (6,000,000 killed and 30,000,000 killed). Even Castro wasn't.

      Also worth noting, Che is still a hero to many in south America, and the Comunists in Russia (can't speak to Stalin though).

      Revolutionaries are in general murerous and bloody people though, the south coused the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and yet they are heros to many and often times their flag is worn in a non-ironic manner.

      Thousands dead in our revolution for a war that only about half the country supported.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Joking about Commies... by Mskpath3 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Whoa whoa whoa - that's a little bait and switch you're doing there.

      It's convenient to just say Che was a "revolutionary" and since the US was borne of revolutionaries, it's the same thing. The clear and concise difference is the Che and the communists actively murdered and suppressed citizens just for being....not them. Che specifically had the job of executing people deemed "not revolutionary enough". Not soldiers. Not tyrannical politicians. Just dirt-poor people who happened to disagree with his point of view. No comparison.

      I've heard people try and use this same dumb argument that the US revolutionaries were just 'terrorists', right? Guys with rifles killing people in their land - just like Palestinians! Of course, this is bogus too. If the Palestinians just targeted Israeli soldiers and politicians this would be an entirely different issue. Instead, the blow up school buses full of children. Samuel Adams never sawed random people's heads off because he really disliked England.

      As for Che still being a big hero in South America - fuck those who understand what he was and feel that way. If you worship Che out of ignorance, ok, I'll buy that. Everyone needs a hero. If you honestly know what he represented (the world's most efficient and prolific meat grinder of all time) and did for a living, then yes, fuck you, you murderous bastard :)

    3. Re:Joking about Commies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've heard people try and use this same dumb argument that the US revolutionaries were just 'terrorists'"

      Why don't you tell that to the loyalists who were tortured and murdered?

      Or the native inhabitants who were slaughtered in their millions "just for being..".

      The prime reason for the revolution was economic - to gain land by expanding westward. The British tried to stop them doing that because of the cost of maintaining soldiers to guard against the resulting raids.

      The US is the only country I know that was responsible for a continent-wide genocide in recent history. It has a sick, murderous past, and is now developing a military machine which is "the world's most efficient and prolific meat grinder of all time". You want to see "random people's heads" being sawed off? Look at the reports of US troops behaviour from Vietnam to Iraq. And this is state-sponsored, not the actions of a few bad apples.

    4. Re:Joking about Commies... by Catharsis · · Score: 1

      But new Russian vodkas continue to proudly display the murderous Red Star, and the above mentioned tools.

      Yeah, but they Won The War, and that's the prize -- your Generals don't get tried for War Crimes, and theirs do. Funny how that works...

      --

      "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -- David Hume

    5. Re:Joking about Commies... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Also worth noting, Che is still a hero to many in south America

      Yes, education is in a sorry state in much of the world. What's your point?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Joking about Commies... by jcr · · Score: 1

      this is state-sponsored, not the actions of a few bad apples.

      Bullshit. Lt. Calley was arrested, tried, and convicted for My Lai. The soldiers who abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted. These incidents get a lot of press, because they're unusual. They get prosecuted, because they're not state-sponsored.

      What was state sponsored was the slaughter of thirty million soviets by Stalin, and 77 million Chinese by Mao.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Joking about Commies... by mi · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but they Won The War, and that's the prize
      They lost the war -- the Cold War. And then there was enough on them to hang many of the bonzas like they did in Nurenberg, but "the times have changed" by 1990-ies.

      Instead, the surviving individuals continue to receive posh pensions from Russia and the Communist Party as a whole is the second (where not the first) strongest in parliaments of ex-Soviet states.

      Heck, Russia is ruled by Putin. His KGB job was not particularly murderous (industrial espionage), but he was the chief of his local Communist Party group in Germany -- and proud of it!.. Imagine a proud ex-Nazi officer becoming Germany's chancellor 15 years after the war, or even now...

      I'm getting carried away even further into off-topic. Gotta stop.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Joking about Commies... by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Revolutionaries are in general murerous and bloody people though
      No, actually. The really grotesque murders begin (when they do) after revolutions.

      And on this front the more removed the victorious side is from common sense, the more murderous it has to be to survive.

      The amount of death and destruction during the Russian Civil War amounts to a rounding error compared to the murders (and occasional genocide) afterwards.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Joking about Commies... by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      I fully agree ... it ain't no joke. And neither are the Che Guevara shirts. How many of them did you see at the first illegal immigration 'protests'? Here in my town, they were (and are) all over the place.

      In fact... the church on the corner from me is surrounded by MS13 and Stalin graffitti tags. It makes me ill and it makes me sick to know my father(s) and grandfathers fought for decades to defeat Communism, and here it is in our own midst. Blame A.N.S.W.E.R., the Ex-Sandinistas, and all the other corrupt mofos coming up ILLEGALY from the South. (It's not like the Canandian border is any LESS porous, but at least there aren't 8,000 of them streaming in every DAY now - some estimates up to 15,000)

      The movements and the people are already here, and our government wants to give them citizenship now. Lovely! :) So, does that mean I don't have to pay taxes anymore, and I can break whatever laws I want and KEEP my American Citizenship? No.... I get to go to prison and be a felon and not vote anymore.

      So, sadly friend, you weren't joking... maybe fortelling, but I don't think you were joking.

      /Dons flameretardant lingerie!

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
    10. Re:Joking about Commies... by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      "Samuel Adams never sawed random people's heads off because he really disliked England."

      No, but President John Adams jailed or deported people he didn't like. (See "Alien and Sedition Acts") His supporters beat up various writers and publishers who spoke out against the President and his unnecessary war with France. (See the book "American Aurora.") I expect there were political murders, too, but I don't have proof offhand.

      While there is most likely a difference in scale and brutality, don't give our founders a complete free ride.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    11. Re:Joking about Commies... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 2, Insightful


      "Seriously, I know, you are joking, but nobody seems to jokingly wear, say, Swastika on their clothing, yet the Hammer-and-Sickle remain all the rage :-("

      I think the difference is largely because the worst of the Soviet Union happened under Stalin, a nutbar, whose nuttery was not baked into the ideology of Communism (at least not as written and espoused.) After Stalin, it mellowed.

        On the other hand, it's hard to separate Nazism from Hitler and his evil nuttery is baked into its core. Nazism doesn't really have a period when it kind of mellowed out, and it would be laughable to make an argument that Hitler was a nutter who somehow distorted true Nazism.

      And, also, a big thing is that Communism is essentially an unrealistic utopian social and economic scheme, which can actually sorta work in a way in very limited conditions, such as the Israeli Kibbutz (sp?). It just doesn't scale, and big problems happen when it is not voluntary, so the government has to keep the people in line.

      But I don't think there's been a similar, small-scale version of Nazism that avoids the hatred and nastiness inherent in that ideology.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    12. Re:Joking about Commies... by Tellalian · · Score: 1

      While I don't particularly support Guevara's actions, I think it's an oversimplification to simply call him a "meat grinder" (besides, Stalin was far more efficient in this regard). Guevara became a Marxist revolutionary after traveling through Latin America while studying medicine, and seeing so many people living in abject poverty, often in countries with corrupt, yet democratic governments. Even though he used brutal and excessive violence against those he perceived to be his enemies, fighting for the powerless is why he's remembered as a hero by some. Few, if any, hold Hitler's or Stalin's motives in the same esteem.

      And I agree, the US Revolution can't really be compared with modern conflicts. However, US revolutionaries weren't entirely innocent. Civilians were killed by both sides, often with the colonial media exaggerating British atrocities while downplaying their own. It's nice to know we live in a more enlightened age, where our media strives to be both fair *and* balanced ;)

    13. Re:Joking about Commies... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I just returned last week from my honeymoon in Vietnam, where I saw a number of swastikas. It's a very old symbol - I think a good luck symbol - that the Nazi party appropriated for their own ends. I saw it carved into things, on building frescoes and in patterns on seats (although that was probably just a random thing).

      They also make a lot of the Communist imagery, and are still run by the Communist Party. I can't see what difference it makes these days though - apart from a few state-run businesses, it's Capitalism as usual.

      Anyway - swastika still in evidence around the world.

    14. Re:Joking about Commies... by mi · · Score: 1
      The Hindu/Buddhism symbol you saw has nothing to do with the crossed fasces symbol of Fascism. They just happen to be similar looking. There are also stars, that aren't symbolizing the Soviet Union.
      Anyway - swastika still in evidence around the world.
      The symbol itself is innocent. But the 'glory' of the Fascism is not used to market the products of Germany. Unfortunately, Russians have no qualms using the 'glory' of the no less evil Communism promoting Russian products. That's my point.

      You know it, I know it. You just wanted to let the world know, you visited Vietnam and brought back 2 cents to share. Should've used your blog for that...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Joking about Commies... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I saw both symbols, one the mirror image of the other.

      And while I didn't know about the crossed fasces, there's no need to be a jerk about it.

    16. Re:Joking about Commies... by mi · · Score: 1
      And while I didn't know about the crossed fasces
      Fasces -- axes wrapped in wooden rods -- are the ancient Rome's symbol of the State's power given to the official, for whom they are carried.

      The word "Fascism" is derived from the same root and one explanation of their swastika is the two fasces crossed (not mentioned on Wikipedia), although they also hinted at the other (Aryan) connotations of the symbol...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  112. Re:Good news by plalonde2 · · Score: 1

    I said nothing about the cause of the lack of security, merely asserted it's existance.

  113. Too bad you can't use it in the desert.. by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1
    It's too bad we can't use this in the desert environment our troops are currently deployed in. I mean, how are we gonna fight off all those sandworms this will attract?

    All hail Shai-Hulud!

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

  114. Just bomb the bastards by zpok · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The chinese, koreans (either), russkies, cubans, arabians, frenchies, krauts, africanians ...
    Let's just be done with it and establish our proud heritage once more, what?
    All this long war on terror crap is sissy talk. Nuke nuke nuke nuke!

    disclaimer: this is not a serious post. Not funny either, but hey...

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  115. Heads up! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    From the briefing provided by US sources, Defense Update understands that Trophy is design to form a "beam" of fragments, which will intercept any incoming HEAT threat, including RPG rockets at a range of 10 - 30 meters from the protected platform. Which works out well for everyone except soldiers that work 10-30 meters from the protected platforms, who were quoted as saying, "F*ck..."

  116. Yeah, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... can it defend against this?:

    http://poopedtank.ytmnd.com/

  117. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...

    i shoot 2 missiles from a very close distance???

    Or what if the soldiers throw 15 objects shaped as a missile and just 1 is a missile ?

    I would love to know the reaction time for this "force field"

    I just need some real specs ....

  118. Trophy Wife Interceptor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Provides detection and target lock-on to Trophy wife hemispheres,
    but the overall system effectiveness is unreliable and extremely expensive.

    Additional R&D funding is required for the new TWI system.

  119. MILF!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nope that's definitly not what google thinks MILF means ...

    Though an available MILF in the car doesn't sound like a bad idea.

  120. Happy Fun Ball then? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    How about Happy Fun Ball?

  121. Electric Reactive Armor Plating by netrangerrr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Red alert - charge the hull plating! One of the latest experimental versions of reactive armor being developed for British Defense and Science and Tech Lab is "electric reactive" which uses an extreme high-potential capacitor linked to metal plates on the hull of a tank. The metal plates have a non-conductive layer between them. When a penetrator rod (Sabot) or the explosively-formed penetrator of a shaped charge breaches the plates, the lighting-like discharge vaporizes the penetrator of shaped charges, and if scaled up may be able to deform or vaporize (turn to plasma) kinetic penetrator rods.

    I think an ultimate system for light combat vehicles like the LAV, Stryker, FCS, and russian BTR would use a combination of electric-reactive armor and directed energy weapons like particle beams to pre-detonate or vaporize incoming ballistic threats.

    --
    "As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
    1. Re:Electric Reactive Armor Plating by shish · · Score: 1
      and if scaled up may be able to deform or vaporize (turn to plasma) kinetic penetrator rods.

      Because a blob of plasma is so much friendlier than a high-speed rod?

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    2. Re:Electric Reactive Armor Plating by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1

      Aren't kinetic penetrators being at least partially turned to plasma upon impact anyway? I always thought that this actually helped the penetrator burn its way through the armor and subsequently fry everything inside to a nice crisp?

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    3. Re:Electric Reactive Armor Plating by JetScootr · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it turns to plasma as it punctures. Reactive armor of any type attempts to start this process before the projectile hits a solid surface. Hot plasma blowing through a hole burns the hole bigger as it expands. (Remember Columbia?) Hot plasma hitting a plate of cold armor is just a blast of very hot air that gets deflected. Then there's this loud THUNK as the rest of the projectile, by now just a blunt brick, bounces off.
      What I'd like to see is not a test of the reactive armor, but their attempts to convince some poor private to be the first human soldier to sit in the tank during a live fire test.
      Someone had to be first. "Soldier, see that tank out in the field? We'd like you to go sit in it."
      "Then what, sir?"
      "You'll hear a very loud noise."
      "And if I don't, sir?"
      "Then we'll pay off your GI life insurance policy. Semper Fi!"

      --
      Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
  122. Thank God by Mad+Ogre · · Score: 1

    Thank God that they didn't leak the new designed tank using this that can transform into a bit robot. D'oh!

    --
    MadOgre.com
  123. that's just normal assymetrical warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's also just logical. They"gave up" so they could harass them forever after the occupation, which is exactly what is happening.. They knew full well they couldn't stop the advance, so they just stopped fighting for the most part, now they get to pick and choose in a target rich environment and use the "death by a thousand cuts" technique.

    The axis of mega lies and blood profits is no closer to having won the war now then the day they started it. They *won't* win either, not unless they use total scorched earth genocide.. Every human they kill over there, all the persons relatives now have a blood oath committment for revenge, and they will seek it, even if it takes years or generations, just like you see with the israeli/pal war. It will never end until one side or the other is wiped out.

    The neocon/R/Likud war profit hawks even *wrote* this was the plan from the beginning, a generations long "clash of the civilizations".

    Perhaps you missed the memo...it's out there, just google that phrase for a starting point

  124. Re:Good news by geekoid · · Score: 1

    he is a troll, ignore him.

    Granted he is a good one.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  125. Video of similar system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The video shows something being thrown at the incoming RPG (seems an explosive).

    The video requires the swf plug-in which does not work on Linux (macromedia, foxnews, anyone?):
    http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_3 00.swf

    Here's the original discussion from 2 days ago:
    http://digg.com/technology/Direct_Link%3A_Video_of _Israeli_Made_Forcefield_

  126. Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Tank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT

  127. doubts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what if a soldier is in the path of counteractive bullet?
    doesn't protect against megawatt lasers.
    can it protect against a train of rpgs? like 2-3 rpgs fired simultaneously from same spot?

  128. Feature I'd like to see: by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

    Here is a simple feature I would *love* to see here on /.

    The "Is this worth our money?" poll, to be attached to any story discussing anything tax-funded. Politics aside, it is our money. Is this how we want it spent?

    Honest question, useful data (IMO).

    --
    Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    1. Re:Feature I'd like to see: by Piroca · · Score: 1


      Yes sure, especially because Slashdot is only read by americans...

    2. Re:Feature I'd like to see: by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, the American government is funded largely by investments from many other world governments! So it's your money, too. Have a nice day!

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  129. Video of it in action by JRHelgeson · · Score: 1

    Notice: This is not reactive armor, check out the video here.

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  130. Easily Defeated. Here's How: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Step" successive rounds into the target. The first round fires in the air and the explosion masks the approach of the second round. The explosion of the second masks the third, etc. Each round more closely approaches the target until it is destroyed.
    p>This tactic has been studied for tactical nukes, BTW.

  131. Only FOX News ... by kitzilla · · Score: 1
    ... could air such a sensationalist piece with a straight face. Jesus.

    You have to wonder if they even bother to retype the Pentagon, Administration, and defense contractor press releases which hit their fax machines.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  132. Re:Good news by Pearson · · Score: 1

    Casualties in tanks are few in Iraq.

    Well, this is the problem. RPG rounds fired at tanks is not a big issue. If this could react against IEDs, then it'd be big news. Until then it's cool, but not something that's going to make much of a difference (at least in Iraq).

    --
    I...I'm attacking the darkness!
  133. trade one occupier for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stupidly the US got involved kicking out oppressor Saddam only to be blamed for its efforts and called (by some at least) an oppressor.

    it mystifies me how people don't see the sequence; and blame the US, as if there were not terrible things going on there before we got involved.

    Colin Powell did say, "if you break it, you own it."

    the Iraqis themselves have not united around a government they elected. there is no respected central authority to replace the previous hated central authority. meanwhile "there are these Americans. let's hate them. "

    what futility.

    1. Re:trade one occupier for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to understand the situation there.

      stupidly the US got involved kicking out oppressor Saddam only to be blamed for its efforts and called (by some at least) an oppressor.

      Yeah, that wasn't the best thing to do, particularly since the time the invasion was called a "success" the official line has changed from the goal being removing Saddam Hussein because he has nukes and chemical weapons, to "let's free the people and give them a new government". Regime change, I believe. Pick a morally superior angle, and stick to it.

      it mystifies me how people don't see the sequence; and blame the US, as if there were not terrible things going on there before we got involved.

      Well, you've got a huge leap of logic and faith in there. Before, the people hated the terrible things going on, but they knew who the enemy was. Now the US is involved, and similar terrible things are still happening, in spite of the claims by the US that they are there to protect and aid the people, and many of these terrible things are being enacted by the US.

      Why should the population of Iraq be happy about an invader who claims to be there to help, and then kidnaps and tortures people while claiming freedom and safety?

      On top of that, power, water, food, and medical supplies are scarce. What is there for them to be grateful for? They're still being tortured, they're still dying, they're now starving.

      the Iraqis themselves have not united around a government they elected. there is no respected central authority to replace the previous hated central authority. meanwhile "there are these Americans. let's hate them. "

      Well, the "these Americans" did just invade the country, kill thousands of people, destroy roads and bridges, disrupt water and food supplies, electrical power, Think about it, for a minute: they used to know who the enemy was. Now, they're surrounded by people, all fighting for power. Who's going to throw the next bomb? It could be the Americans, it could be the insurgents, it could be some random rebel group, it could be a religious extremist group.

      what futility.

      Only on the surface. You can't just list things as you see them, and consider that the whole picture.

    2. Re:trade one occupier for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had the US been an effective "occupier" things might have been different. Had there been sufficient forces to establish a temporary government, law and order, stop the looting, ensure that people could go to their shops and sell stuff, etc... that would have been an effective occupation.

      Any effective "freedom" or democracy' is a long way off in Iraq, and not merely because armed Americans are there. One may have noticed that in the absence of a respected central government and effective policing, that natively Iraqi religious factions have taken to kidnaping and killing each other; blowing up holy places with worshipers in them, on supposedly holy days.The responsibility for this must be laid to those who are doing those things. The American forces are doing what little they can in that case to contain a tendency that leads nowhere good.

      There is a natively Iraqi problem here that has become visible now that there is no strong man in power with a quasi-KGB keeping the internal opponents apart. This is one of the dangers of superpower intervention. Things can get much worse before they get better.

      I suggest than anyone interested in this stuff beyond the surface should read former General Anthony Zinni's book.

    3. Re:trade one occupier for another by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Another note to add. Let us not forget that the US is primarily responsible for keeping iraq impoverished for 10 years prior to invasion. We basically prevented them from selling their only major economic resource, oil. I am sure it didn't help that we bombed them now and then because we didn't think they were fully cooperating when it came to weapons inspections (nevermind that we now know that Iraq didn't have anything to hide all along).

    4. Re:trade one occupier for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us not forget that the US is primarily responsible for keeping iraq impoverished for 10 years prior to invasion. We basically prevented them from selling their only major economic resource, oil.

      The restraining power was the *UN*, not the US. There was an international resolution to allow oil sales for food, with the intent that sanctions against the Saddam regime should not penalize the people. However weak that was, such was the intent. Oil shipments did not stop. There was just a new UN bureaucracy in the middle.

      In any case, the info suggests that the oil-for-food program was misadministered and both UN officials and Saddam profited. Saddam used the money... of which there was plenty... to re-equip the army. The money and the breathing room allowed him to continue the internal campaign against the Kurds and other non-Baath elements.

      Setting aside the "we did this to them" and the self-hatred... really to be fair there is blame to go around. Everything that was broken about Iraq... the party system, the routine oppression of political opposition, the killings of Kurds in the north, the mass graves, etc... everything that was there but unknown by the rest of the world is now on display, photographed with Americans standing next to it as if they were the cause of it. The "rescue" was then so badly carried out that there is little to be proud of. Maybe some soldiers on the ground get to make a difference once in a while. The small contributions of a few honorable people doing their best in difficulty meanwhile will likely be met with scorn and skepticism, and some will cease to try. That is the law in the upside-down world.

      The Iraqis need to lift themselves up and unite around a civil government that they have elected. As long as they can be provoked to fight among themselves , the best police force or outside military power will not be able to establish order.

      One hopes that future US administrations will recognize the signs and not touch a situation like this one. You touch it, you own it.

  134. I call it a "Laser" by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

    Laser cannon reference was to this doofus.

    We need an active defence system to shoot down posts like yours before they hit the thread.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  135. Force field my ass, probably more like a liability by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    We can fight something like this. First of all there might be a way to deplete the point defense system with
    machine gun fire. Second of all there are probably electronic countermeasures against it's radar which can also
    be used to deplete point defense projectiles. Third, the system does not protect against antitank mines or
    other means of physically disabling the tank (such as fast hardening foam etc.). And best of all the active
    radar component is actually a great way to detect and triangulate the hostiles. What's more, this just means
    that projectiles either have to have more mass to get past the defensive projectiles or have higher velocity.
    The race is on and it can't really be won.

    Reminds me of the radar jamming devices the Germans had on board their bombers albeit for a very short time
    during WWII. The british used the jamming signal to triangulate the bombers.

  136. Those lazy iraqi civilians by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just build a mysterious force field of their own?

    Honestly, can these people do nothing for themselves?

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  137. mods should chk story b4 posting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Common guys, "mysterious" force fields? if ed's had bothered to google the facts there wouldn't be a need for this post(same for that ABL article- currently neutered as a tech demonstrator).

    Wired, aug/2002
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54641, 00.html

    SecDef's Force Transformation
    http://www.oft.osd.mil/

    more info on Trophy(Rafael)
    http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.ht m

    similar effort using AESA(Raytheon's Quick Kill)
    http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=art icle&aref=02_14_2006_OM

    info on AESA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically _Scanned_Array

    the need for such a system(fuel cost IS a factor but it's a fixed cost. See fob.gov
    SP0600-06-R-0033 for example):
    http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004 /Dec/SurvivalInCombat.htm

    I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this system used by Carnival cruise lines:
    http://www.atcsd.com/lrad.html
    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/ 2005-11-07-cruise-blast_x.htm

    "mysterious" force fields? LOL. I'm moving my slashdot bookmark next to collegehumor and dumpalink.

  138. Not in my name I didn't get my ass kicked. by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong and also don't bore me with the Domino Doctrine which Wikipedia rightly calls a theory but I never got my ass kicked in Vietnam, Korea or anywhere else on the globe. I never authorized any force against anyone nor was I ever asked to authorize it, nor will I ever be likely to authorize it. Aside from the humanitarian aspect, take a look at the latest "Holy War".. so if all the oil wells are under their control, why is it that I still have to pay for gas at the pump? This is not my war and I don't profit even remotely from it, so even if I was a sick enough son of a bitch I'd still have no incentive to back this crap.

    If someone blows people up half-way across the globe and says he did this in my name and with my consent then fuck him, he either doesn't know any better (guy in an uniform) or is lying through his teeth (suit with american flag pin label). Oh and spare us all the "War against Terror" angle. There wouldn't be any terror in the first place if the scum over here didn't threaten the mostly islamic clerical scum in charge over there.

  139. Marketing vs. physics by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1
    > So yes, it can handle that... even while moving.

    To be fair, TFA does not say that. What TFA says is:

    "The Threat Detection and Warning subsystem...[provides] full hemispherical coverage. Once an incoming threat is detected identified and verified, the Countermeasure Assembly is opened, the countermeasure device is positioned in the direction where it can effectively intercept the threat. Then, it is launched..."

    Emphasis mine. In particular, note from what I've emphasised:

    1) The system can not protect against multiple threats from arbitrary relative angles. Unless all threats lie within a hemispherical arc, the system cannot even theoretically protect against them all.

    2) The system has not only informational steps before firing (detect, identify, verify), it has mechanical steps it must perform (open, position), and those can't be done at the speed of electrons. Given that 90% of urban targets are engaged at under 50m and that the most common RPG has a speed of 100-300 m/s, urban combat is going to require reaction times on the order of fractions of a second. That's a tall order for simply the informational parts of the process, much less the mechanical parts.



    Basically, the article reads like a marketing pamphlet, and isn't all that informative. Based on the nature of the threats involved, though, it's unlikely that the system will perform as a "protective forcefield" in realistic conditions. It may well be useful and valuable, but I'm very dubious that it will in any way live up to how some people are hyping it.

    1. Re:Marketing vs. physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless all threats lie within a hemispherical arc, the system cannot even theoretically protect against them all.

      Holy smokes, you're right! If they fire RPG's from UNDERGROUND, this system is worthless!!!! We must scrap it immediately!

      If you'll notice, the "above ground" region is indeed a hemispherical arc.

    2. Re:Marketing vs. physics by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1

      > If you'll notice, the "above ground" region is indeed a hemispherical arc.

      a) You're being an idiot, since that's obviously not what they meant.

      b) You're not even being an amusing idiot, since mounting the system on the vehicle means that it will be a significant distance off the ground, and hence even your upward-pointing hemisphere will be unable to protect from attacks fired from near ground level. Indeed, since most attacking infantry are likely to be lower than the mount points on the vehicle, such a hemisphere would be largely useless.

      We're discussing the merits of the system in a realistic context; do try and keep up.

  140. Can it deal... by Piroca · · Score: 1


    With dogs?

  141. we're not into that by r00t · · Score: 1

    Reactive armor is a Russian thing.

    We layer on the ceramics, steel, depleated uranium, and kevlar. We like to bolt on great big thick sandwiches of the stuff, uranium between steel. For the stryker, we add stand-off armor with a 2-foot air gap designed to pre-detonate stuff away from the vehicle.

    It's lots safer. Reactive armor is a hazard to people near the tank. This new system looks like a hazard too, so I guess we're getting over our qualms about foot soldiers getting blasted by "friendly" tank protection.

    1. Re:we're not into that by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I didn't know we had any qualms to begin with- we actually still have foot troops going into battle alongside tanks at close range?!?!?!?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:we're not into that by kikta · · Score: 1

      Yes, infantry and tanks fight together. They mutually support each other and are very effective that way. You don't have many tank-on-tank battles nowadays - the Battle 73 Easting was the exception, not the rule.

      They most effective way to fight is to have nearly everything in your arsenal pounding an objective at once. Think of it like layers on an onion. For example, you might first have the artillery (or NGFS), which gives way to fixed-wing CAS, then mortars, then helos, then tanks, then crew-served weapons, then individual weapons.

      There are a million variations based on the objective and the resources availible. The real keys are deconflicting fires and managing the time-space aspects. You can't have fixed-wing CAS at the same time as your mortars, because the flight of their rounds is much more variable than artillery, but it is possible to deconflict arty and fixed-wing CAS for overlapping fires on the objective.

      So, yes, we do use tanks and foot-moblie infantry together and we do train that way. It is a powerful combination and not going away anytime soon. Even when we were training to fight Ivan, the idea was the infantry was there to kill other infantry that might pose a risk to the tanks. The tanks did what they were best at - killing other tanks.

    3. Re:we're not into that by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I have a tendency to agree more with the tactics in your signature- in which case infantry tends to be a weakness in an equation that includes nuclear weapons (in that the best attack would actually be from orbit using spy sats for information- no need for infantry because there is NOTHING left alive for hundreds of miles around the target area- and better yet no chance for the enemy to shoot back at our troops). But given that we're still trying to fight CONVENTIONAL warfare battles and limit the collateral damage we do- nothing beats small arms for selective fire.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:we're not into that by kikta · · Score: 1

      I have a tendency to agree more with the tactics in your signature


      And here I thought I was just funny...

      But given that we're still trying to fight CONVENTIONAL warfare battles and limit the collateral damage we do- nothing beats small arms for selective fire.


      Well, the idea is not so much small arms fire as it is concentric rings of death. That's the idea with the slightly older concept of HAW-MAW-LAW. You scale down as you close in to mop up the progressively smaller pieces. There is overlap involved and the example of the mutally-supporting tanks and foot-mobile infantry is an excellent one. The overall idea is to put the enemy in what we call the "combined arms dilemma," which means he gets to choose how he wants to die.

    5. Re:we're not into that by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      My point was though- we now have weapons that if we had the guts to use them, don't require any mopping up- because there's nothing left alive TO mop up. No enemy, no civilians, no bunny rabbits, nothing.

      Of course, that would be setting up a kill zone that would last a thousand years or more- effectively cutting off Exxon/Mobil's profit margine....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:we're not into that by kikta · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      Yes, I'm well aware of your genocidal cheerleading. And you know I know, so I don't know why you're bothering... other than the fact that your personality is like a social disease.

    7. Re:we're not into that by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm well aware of your genocidal cheerleading. And you know I know, so I don't know why you're bothering... other than the fact that your personality is like a social disease.

      Actually, according to the Diagnostic and Statician's Manual (Revision IV) my personality IS a form of a "social disease". Or maybe a better description would be an "anti-social disease".

      Having said that- your sig indicated to me that you might be changing your mind- as that is most certainly a genocidal outlook, of kill them all and let God sort them out.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:we're not into that by kikta · · Score: 1
      social disease
      n.
      1. A sexually transmitted disease; a venereal disease.


      If you truly have Asperger's, then what little humor you have will be of the dry variety. Missing the sarcasm of my signature I can understand, but definition play in the personality comment should be within your grasp.
  142. could be a shaped charge by r00t · · Score: 1

    Shaped charges send a beam of copper in a desired direction. The copper is not exactly a normal solid or liquid, but in any case, droplets or particles go really fast.

  143. sure it is by r00t · · Score: 1

    It all depends on how you measure.

    Fuel efficiency? Hell no. Speed? Yes. Since we upgraded to the German guns, we have rather nice firepower. Our armor is no-nonsense stuff that handles all sorts of stuff. To penetrate our tank with an RPG, you need a very lucky shot with a rare double-warhead projectile. (through a narrow seam in the skirt it seems, then between the wheels, and you probably won't kill anybody)

    Reactive armor (popular with Russia) is very wimpy against sustained 30mm canon fire, as delivered by the A-10 or the Bradley fighting vehicle. Just 7 hits and you're dead. At 4200 rounds per minute, it only takes 1/10 of a second. Americans use real armor: layers of uranium, ceramic, steel, kevlar... and we lay it on thick.

  144. Re:Force Field? Waiting for "Tank-H4xor" by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    to post?

    Hell, why wait that long. If you set up a saturation attack from multiple quadrants, it's just a matter of time before a tank's swiveling/slewing reactive armor can't cope, and might even break down. It's just a matter of time before the close-in defense gun either jams, overheats, or expends its ammo.

    How to speed this up? Well, launch a wave attack. Only SOME of the rounds need to be live shots. The rest, if convincing enough to trigger the perimeter alert/defense system, will keep the tank crew on edge until they make a fatal or mission-fatal mistake.

    Some of the "vampire" rounds could deposit acid or sand or some corrosive or jamming agent to gunk up seals, gaskets and even cooling systems, causing slower slewing, seal failure, and even false alarms (get sand in the lensing system and maybe you can force the crew to come out to clean it...)

    But, why bother with all that? Just bring your OWN super generator and microwave guns and cook the people IN the tank. If you can penetrate the armor with microwaves, then you'll cook the crew and maybe end up with a perfectly operable tank... But,for airplanes... they'll crash if not on autopilot...or if a/p fails...

    This is NOT a how-to on attacking US technology... It's universally applicable to ANY ground vehicles, maybe even including ET's tanks ... But, more likely, this'll make useful fodder for sci-fi scripts....

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  145. Obligatory Dune reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When activated it creates a field of protection around the tank where anything approaching the tank at certain speeds of enough size gets an automatic response from the system."

    The slow blade penetrates the shield...

  146. Re:Good news by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    Yup, there's no religious war going on over there. It's all the US baby-killers, right? I'll bet you'll neve rhave the balls to say what you just said to some troops arriving home from Iraq. Not in person at least.

  147. Re:Good news by shaitand · · Score: 1

    I bet I do. The troops are just following orders.

  148. Re:Good news by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    Troops just don't follow orders to kill babies because those orders do not exist. And if you ever are foolish enough to say this to some troops, I look forward to you getting shut up quick, fast, and in a hurry. You could of course, enlist and go to Iraq and "expose" everything that you claim is going on over there. Not that you'd put your own body on the line for your beliefs.

  149. How to hax0r a tank by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
    The specs talked about flat-panel radar antennas. That's a common active phased array. Just find a way how to deposit a blob of conductive paint over it, and it will attenuate the signal, perhaps enough to make the radar blind. If it is opaque, it can also blind the exposed optical sensors. A grenade that explodes mid-air (or after being hit by the intercept device) and creates a cloud of aluminium chaff can do interesting things with the targeting computer's idea of what's around as well - only for a brief moment, before the flying metal foil settles or is scattered in the wind, but that may be enough time for your other interests.

    Using microwaves you may at most cook the target's radar and comm gear, the hull is more or less a Faraday cage. (But then, once they are blind and mute, you may use conventional weaponry.) However if you'll be spotted lugging around this gear, which you will be as your EM emissions betray you to the nearest AWACS at the moment you switch it on, you'll get a missile from the nearest UAV right into the trunk of your car. Therefore I would suggest to stay lowtech.

    Tinfoil-wrapped stones launched from a suitable sling-shot could work as good decoys, as they will give excellent radar signature. Normal stones are not as reflective.

    Hightech toys are pretty and sexy, but sometimes they are more a liability than a help.

  150. How to hax0r a tank by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
    We Magic geeks were wondering where the U.S. Army got all the mana to repel these projectiles, too.

    You misspelled money.

  151. Counter Battery Fire by thisNameNotTaken · · Score: 1

    A nice WIZZBang system like the "force field" makes sense only if it is capable of sending counter battery fire directions to other USForce's for the KILL.

    Kind of like the UASF Wildweasle missions. One in, ten fire.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wil d+weasel

    Otherwise the soldiers will burn the explosive to heat the morning coffee.

  152. Easy to defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This thing is easy to defeat: make it think one of it's own allied tanks is shooting at it, i.e. by making it seem like that's where the incoming fire is coming from.

    Target Tank A then reacts and repels the fire that seems to be coming from Tank B.

    Tank B's system sees the fire from Tank A, determines Tank B is under attack, and reacts, which actually DOES cause Tank B to fire on Tank A. Tank A continues to fire on B.

    Tanks A and B will then shoot at each other until they run out of ammo. This system is probably not able to actually damaged another tank but it will do well to just run through the ammo and confuse the tank crews.

    Meanwhile the baddie(TM) just has to wait and fire his RPGs at the right moment.

    Done.

    If this was an ACTUAL force field, it might even be sparkly and stuff as the two force fields try to whoop each other. Might be fun to see.

    This is the future of warfare, by the way: when we make machines that shoot back in response to incoming fire, eventually some machines on the same team will accidentally shoot each other and set off a chain reaction blasting their own teams into dust.

    Human soldiers do this too but we're less likely to KEEP doing it.

  153. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Either way, it changes nothing about the public villification of Arabs by right-wing talking heads, and again, the majority of the blame for the public xenophobia against Arabs falls squarely on their shoulders."

    Hey cock gobbler, there was just as much hot air coming from the left as from the right. Don't try to pretend for a second that Democrats didn't jump on the ports deal to paint the president as soft on security.

  154. Anonymous Coward from anti-universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Morons; I pity you, for ye, have to read this shitty piece
    Your inability, for rational thought
    maybe a kewl thing, for you country and for the rest of humanity

    I have nothing against mormons, but morons I pity you
    Few shots of vodka, will get you the truth
    so please find the bottle, and pop the question
    Will you marry me or should I kill em all

    And fore you answer the question, look over there, yonder the stinking garbage pile
    Force field, my ass - Another piece of sales crap out for consumption
    By stupid humans and slash potters and the rest,
    regurgiate and enunciate they will, crap; all the time.

    Managers, executives and sales; burn in hell
    if there is no hell, I'll make one for you
    The executive, the judiciary and the other crap, you are crap
    Why don't you put us out of misery; fore you dig yourselves into that massive black hole (I'm not racial, I'm black, maybe blue or brown, but not white, nay not a shade of white, a crappy color for a human skin, god could not have created, maybe devil or a lack of melanin, but not gods will I'm sure, for god told me the same, yesterday, maybe, but I'm not sure).

    For the linux guy, who would like to blow things up, blow yourselves up; my lovely little dude
    And why don't you take your linux with you when you go,
    coz, I have no time for your BS or maybe ps -cf it was,

    Whatever another fork in the road brings, another patch I shalll need
    For I stare at a Window of opportunity, before the gates closed-

    Feel free to "Kill em all", but kill yourselves first.

  155. Stupid idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er... does this sound really stupid to anyone else? Most tanks can be destroyed or immobilised by dropping a bomb on them, or having them run over a mine, and neither of these can be "stopped" by the "force field"

  156. Re:Good news by shaitand · · Score: 1

    LLUA, it is time you dropped off your high horse. I know very few people who don't have SOME relation in Iraq. I did serve my term wearing a Marine bib in the Navy as well.

    As for the orders you claim don't exist (based upon nothing but your own assertion that they do not exist (because God knows, if troops were ordered to make an example of a terrorist family the brass would ring up every dipshit ex-marine and his brother so that they could make that statement without talking out their arses.

    I have given a link to the reports and video. You have given your authorative "nu uh". Oh yes, I forgot, you also assured me that evidence doesn't count unless it is being presented by your brother in Iraq.

    "You could of course, enlist and go to Iraq and "expose" everything that you claim is going on over there."

    Why would I expose stories that have already been exposed? or did you think I magically summoned the video and articles I posted in this discussion?

    Unless you have something more fruitful to add than your trolling let us call this an end to the discussion shall we?

  157. Better used on helicopters? by Bombula · · Score: 1
    Seems to me that it's always helicopters that are being lost, not tanks. I can't remember ever seeing an article in the news about a tank being destroyed, but helicopters have been dropping like flies in Iraq.

    So how about using this Point Defense System on vehicles that are demonstrably vulnerable, instead of on juggernauts that apparently don't need as much protection.

    --
    A-Bomb
  158. couldn't you by hawfizzle · · Score: 1

    overwhelm and deplete the counter-measures system by making decoy rockets/projectiles? arrays of roadside bombs that sprayed decoy projectiles? especially if the enemy knows how it works, there's all sorts of ways to exploit it and make it useless

  159. Ah, come on... by Monty_Lovering · · Score: 1

    ... if this is like a force field then a chain saw is like a light sabre

  160. No worries by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about having to take care of it.

    As happens to most very highly complex systems, it'll break down in wartime, failing to protect the tank.

    Besides, it'll be crushingly expensive - meaning the USA will collapse from its economic pressure even sooner. Not that I appreciate this all that much (I do have some US friends), but at least the world will be quite a bit more peaceful again.

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  161. Re:Force Field? Waiting for "Tank-H4xor" by onedotzero · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't have thought it would even be that complicated. Just run a series of projectiles being fired from the same location, along the same trajectory, targeted at the same point on the vehicle.

    The front 4 or 5 projectiles (depending on the rate of recognition and firing rate from the tank) would be decoys, and the last in the series would be a nice, heavy shell (or whatever). Each decoy would get closer and closer because the system wouldn't see the next projectile until after it had destroyed the preceeding one.

    Finally, the defense system doesn't have enough time to respond to the real attack.

    --
    onedotzero
    thedigitalfeed.co.uk

  162. Old news by SamLJones · · Score: 1

    There's a small bit about this in my 1995 Popular Mechanics magazine... A tank that can tell when a projectile is incoming, and launches a panel of its armor to intercept 20-30 feet away from the tank.

  163. SweeeeeeettT!!!! by Crypto1969FLA · · Score: 0

    Sounds good, wake me up when I can get one for my Saturn :-)

    --
    ERROR ERROR Sig too long Sig will now END.
  164. Re:Force Field? Waiting for "Tank-H4xor" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things inside metal boxes tend to be quite difficult to microwave. Try it!

  165. 'Force field' madness by amwanted · · Score: 1

    Has it ever occured to you that maybe you should start spending some money on things that actually promote human life...instead of your perverted desire to kill everything you can find. You are a war-mongering bunch of pyschopaths.

    1. Re:'Force field' madness by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      It occures to me, that this technology costs more than human lives (seriously), so instead of sending these tanks to war, we should send people.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  166. Wild Weasel by JetScootr · · Score: 2, Informative

    The urban dictionary is wrong. It calls Wild Weasels a "crazy" mission. It wasn't. It was dangerous, but so is everything else in warfare. I used to work on the F4D and F4G - The Phantom F4G was called the "Wild Weasel" in its day. af.mil/museum. It was a cool plane. In 1984, when the US bombed Libya, F111's were the Wild Weasels, and one didn't come back. I don't think it was the result of enemy action, tho, IIRC it had mechanical problems.

    --
    Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
  167. Yeah, hammers and sickles are so fashionable by ianscot · · Score: 1
    yet the Hammer-and-Sickle remain(s) all the rage :-(

    Maybe in your set. In my world, which granted is mostly comprised of people over the age of 26, I haven't seen a hammer and sickle t-shirt yet. The Che Guevara face shirts I've noticed in some sort of pop media context, but never seen in person.

    In fact the overwhelming cultural weight in my world is thrown behind a lot of bogus "family values" and "support the troops" posturing that's nothing more than a thinly-veiled justification for exactly the sort of authoritarian views you yourself would probably detest in Soviet, or Che Guevara, admirers... There's absolutely no shortage of ribbons on the backs of cars to that effect -- "Support our Troops" meaning "Never criticize our foreign policy (as long as a God Fearin' Republican is in power)."

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Yeah, hammers and sickles are so fashionable by mi · · Score: 1

      Very good then. You and your friends are not subject to the Che Guevarra exception on my software's license.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  168. This is old tech by Madcowz · · Score: 1

    Sships have been using a similar system for years. Thales make a shipboard radar controlled automatic missle defence system that shoots down incomming missles.

    No forcefields, no Star Trek, just bullets.

    yawn.

    /Mad

  169. Give Steve Jackson some love by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    420-some-odd responses, and nobody has mentioned OGRE?

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  170. Let's nuke Iran! That'd be decisive! by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    Yes! Our fearless leader will be decisive for us and our children.
    That sure makes me feel warm and macho.

    Ron-bo for president!

  171. Re:Good news by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    The parent was talking about roadside attacks which are mainly IEDs...

  172. Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they did. The Left has spent the past 4 years painting Arabs as the enemy of America, it's obvious that everyone, left or right, would leap on the sale of our ports to the Arabs as insecure.

    But hey, it's easy for you to blame the Democrats, after all it was the Democrat majority that caused the sale to fall through, right?

    coming from the left as from the right.

    I always enjoy when people come right out and admit that the republicans are as full of shit as the democrats. I suggest you get behind the Libertarian party or a local independent that can give our capitol the flushing it needs, because all that shit piling up is beginning to stink up our country.

  173. That's an understatement about Saddam & sons by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Hussein was a bloody butcher of his own people. I remember the news reports of what his sons had been doing.

    Check out these news reports:

    * Qusay was the more deferential son, always showing Saddam great respect in public. He often oversaw the arbitrary killings of prisoners who were murdered to alleviate overcrowding in jails.

    * AMMAN, Jordan, 3/21/2003 (UPI) -- A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  174. Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi by Cheapy · · Score: 1

    A few problems with your statements too.

    Firstly, I, and others, have seen posts posted right after stories are 'aired' (for lack of a better word) that say that "Tripmaster Monnkey" should be an editor. Now, unless some other subscriber is posting these messages,from the mysterious future, on your behalf, without your permission, that does mean you want to be an editor.

    Secondly, your last point would be true in an place where there was some higher power over the editors. There is none on Slashdot. The editors are the one who decide who gets to be another editor.

    --
    Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
  175. Re:Good news by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    If it "only" stops RPGs, that's still an improvement over current tech.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  176. Slow Down Cowboy by kikta · · Score: 1

    a "beam" of fragments, which will intercept any incoming...

    Translation: It's a machine gun. Probably 5.56mm NATO standard



    5.56 != fragments

    explosive charge within metal casing == fragments
  177. Re:Good news by kikta · · Score: 1

    Why would I expose stories that have already been exposed? or did you think I magically summoned the video and articles I posted in this discussion?



    I just searched through every post you made to this story. I found two "links" that did not exist and one that did.

    The one that did was to a story that may or may not be true. The military spokesman said that the allegation had not been heard yet. Which means that we have not had a chance to investigate it. That makes it pretty one-sided, does it not?

    It could be a rogue squad went crazy. Much more likely is that a few terrorists got their hands on some surplus cammies and a few AR-15s and tried to frame US forces. I'm not saying it was one or the other - simply that your single article is not proof of anything, let alone all the crazy bullshit you've been spouting.

    So who's the real troll here?
  178. Yawn. by Gleemonex · · Score: 1
    Imagine a new line of German schnaps being promoted with those crossed symbolic fasces. It would -- understandibly -- cause an outrage.

    Understandably. And stupidly. The delusional mass hysteria facing the swastika (and indeed all things supposedly-Nazi) is one of the more disheartening symptoms of the prevailing hypocrisy and idiocy of the hoi polloi in western society.

    But new Russian vodkas continue to proudly display the murderous Red Star, and the above mentioned tools.

    What about whiskies with American flags on them, then?

    -Glee
    --
    Many a true word hath been spoken in jest -- mod funny posts "Informative".
  179. Re:Good news by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    Definitely, just making the distinction ;)

  180. GDRS taking credit? by wwaaves · · Score: 1

    So why does this article state that GDRS (General Dynamics) has unveiled their newest product, when in fact it was RAFAEL (isreal) and IAI Elta who designed this technology. Typical GDRS propoganda! Buy someone elses product and claim it's your own.

  181. You mean like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Open Letter to Zonk

    Hey, Zonk, have you ever considered retirement? I mean, a perfectly competent /.er is sitting around and needs a job, or at least a better one than the admin job he has. He would make an excellent editor: he spends enough time here, and he always tends to point out dupes. He goes by the username TripMaster Monkey.

    Also, have you got the message? The Slashdot community doesn't want you. They don't like articles comparing games to female orgasms. They don't like seeing the same story twice while their own interesting and original submissions are rejected. They don't like typos. They don't like links to articles from The Onion. They don't like a lack of respect for Nintendo at the GDC. You can tell this in the majority of comments to your posts.

    A Slashdot analogy: the /. effect is to a DDoS attack as a Zonkism is to a crapflood.

    Is there any wonder why "bonk the Zonk" is now a widely-used phrase? I'm not puzzled. You're a troll disguised as an editor. Either that, or you're secretly working for Antislash.

    You should resign before you hurt your reputation further.

    And to everyone else, feel free to copy this comment and FP it to other articles. Also feel free to reply with suggestions for future posts of this letter. With many slashdotters behind this movement, we can clean out the incompetency here. I mean, give a job that pays >$200,000k just to approve/reject story submissions to someone who knows what they're doing.

    And if TMM is an editor, that means he'll only post in the discussions once every few years. No more ^_^ smileys and ascii art sigs!

    --
    Bonk the Zonk! TMM for editor!
    Trolling all trolls since 2001.