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.'"
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"?
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.
From TFA:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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!
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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!!
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.
fak3r.com
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.
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
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).
Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel
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!
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.
According to the article: Yes.
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
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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."
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
"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"?
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."
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.
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)
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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
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.
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.
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.
What part of "Free Software" was unclear to you?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
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.