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.'"

33 of 603 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!
    2. 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.
    3. 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. :-)

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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?

    7. 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

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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!
    11. 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.
    12. 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."
    13. 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)
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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.

  2. 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 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: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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. Obligatory Family Guy reference: by rdwald · · Score: 4, Funny

    That isn't a force field at all! It just shoots you!

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.
  14. 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!
  15. 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.