The future of armor protection
1
what do you think will be the next step after kevlar, chobham armor and reactive tiles? got any ideas about them?
my theorized material will be AlTiC or A.K.A Aluminum-Titanium alloy infused and reinforced with carbon (the carbon's molecular structure will mimic the hardness of diamonds in a way of alterring its molecular structure to give it's toughness that adds protection to the AlTi alloy. )
so what are your suggested materials in producing the next generation armor systems? (please, no foolin or joking around on this one)
my theorized material will be AlTiC or A.K.A Aluminum-Titanium alloy infused and reinforced with carbon (the carbon's molecular structure will mimic the hardness of diamonds in a way of alterring its molecular structure to give it's toughness that adds protection to the AlTi alloy. )
so what are your suggested materials in producing the next generation armor systems? (please, no foolin or joking around on this one)
0
how about this?
the superhuman strenght unit is already in field testing- some kind of hydraulic exoskelletton, which allows the soldier to multiply his own strenght by 10 (= about 600 pounds of equipment at max)
the superhuman strenght unit is already in field testing- some kind of hydraulic exoskelletton, which allows the soldier to multiply his own strenght by 10 (= about 600 pounds of equipment at max)
0
[quote="Nachbar"]Why need armor when you could be invisible?
[quote]
problems are, that you can still be hit by ricochets and chance hits, as well as you are "visible" to motion sensors (which is likely in a High Tech War)
The heat absorbing capabilities of the cloak are also not given, so infrared vision would be a problem too
[quote]
problems are, that you can still be hit by ricochets and chance hits, as well as you are "visible" to motion sensors (which is likely in a High Tech War)
The heat absorbing capabilities of the cloak are also not given, so infrared vision would be a problem too
0
[quote="Melfice_1"][quote="Nachbar"]Why need armor when you could be invisible?
problems are, that you can still be hit by ricochets and chance hits, as well as you are "visible" to motion sensors (which is likely in a High Tech War)
The heat absorbing capabilities of the cloak are also not given, so infrared vision would be a problem too
Thing is about chance hits and ricochets is that they shouldn't be aware of your presence in the first place if you're using cloak.
Undoubtedly if this was used only special ops would be using this sort of technology and will probably be not available to your average GI.
Thermal isn't foolproof a skilled marksman can hide his thermal signature in the brush from thermal cameras with ease, motion sensors as it stands are only really used at outposts out in the middle of nowhere to warn of intruders.
Anyway until cloaking technology can deal with those issues we won't be seeing fully invisible tanks and jets but I do think optical cloaking can be a reality.
Edit: Forgot to mention that armies won't be issuing all sorts of detection gear just in case a small squad of invisible dudes is going to show up, costs are just silly and the politicians up top won't approve of it even if the top brass want the equipment.
problems are, that you can still be hit by ricochets and chance hits, as well as you are "visible" to motion sensors (which is likely in a High Tech War)
The heat absorbing capabilities of the cloak are also not given, so infrared vision would be a problem too
Thing is about chance hits and ricochets is that they shouldn't be aware of your presence in the first place if you're using cloak.
Undoubtedly if this was used only special ops would be using this sort of technology and will probably be not available to your average GI.
Thermal isn't foolproof a skilled marksman can hide his thermal signature in the brush from thermal cameras with ease, motion sensors as it stands are only really used at outposts out in the middle of nowhere to warn of intruders.
Anyway until cloaking technology can deal with those issues we won't be seeing fully invisible tanks and jets but I do think optical cloaking can be a reality.
Edit: Forgot to mention that armies won't be issuing all sorts of detection gear just in case a small squad of invisible dudes is going to show up, costs are just silly and the politicians up top won't approve of it even if the top brass want the equipment.
0
i was talking about what kind of metal will be used, not the whole suit.
and i was talking about the armor, not the cloaking systems.
and i was talking about the armor, not the cloaking systems.
0
MS-09RickDom wrote...
i was talking about what kind of metal will be used, not the whole suit. and i was talking about the armor, not the cloaking systems.
but isnt this a kind of "armor" too? since avoid fighting would be more effective then every armor.
0
Melfice_1 wrote...
MS-09RickDom wrote...
i was talking about what kind of metal will be used, not the whole suit. and i was talking about the armor, not the cloaking systems.
but isnt this a kind of "armor" too? since avoid fighting would be more effective then every armor.
i was talking about the physical protection and the ability of the armor to withstand hits from projectiles. so cloaking systems doesn't count.
0
MS-09RickDom wrote...
Melfice_1 wrote...
MS-09RickDom wrote...
i was talking about what kind of metal will be used, not the whole suit. and i was talking about the armor, not the cloaking systems.
but isnt this a kind of "armor" too? since avoid fighting would be more effective then every armor.
i was talking about the physical protection and the ability of the armor to withstand hits from projectiles. so cloaking systems doesn't count.
okay.
I think that the "intelligent armor" system is quite promising.
means, thet the armor "senses" incoming bullets (through a Motion sensor field perhaps) and hardenes a nanostructure in the armor via an electric shock.
0
Melfice_1 wrote...
MS-09RickDom wrote...
Melfice_1 wrote...
MS-09RickDom wrote...
i was talking about what kind of metal will be used, not the whole suit. and i was talking about the armor, not the cloaking systems.
but isnt this a kind of "armor" too? since avoid fighting would be more effective then every armor.
i was talking about the physical protection and the ability of the armor to withstand hits from projectiles. so cloaking systems doesn't count.
okay.
I think that the "intelligent armor" system is quite promising.
means, thet the armor "senses" incoming bullets (through a Motion sensor field perhaps) and hardenes a nanostructure in the armor via an electric shock.
well. what if a railgun is used against your armor? and what will happen if the passive armor system fails?
0
MS-09RickDom wrote...
well. what if a railgun is used against your armor? and what will happen if the passive armor system fails?
well, you are screwed... basically.
but it seems unlikely that a railgun is used or even allowed as an Anti Person weapon...
and failure ... well- everything can fail, but they use mostly electronicaly controlled tanks despite of EMP weapons
0
MS-09RickDom wrote...
well. what if a railgun is used against your armor? and what will happen if the passive armor system fails?
Good luck powering your railgun with today's or near future technology without having to mount it on a tank or ship.
Melfice_1 wrote...
but it seems unlikely that a railgun is used or even allowed as an Anti Person weapon...
Chances are if a man portable railgun was produced it would be allowed to be used against people though the only issue I see with the insane velocities is over penetration.
Look at the A-10's 30mm gatling cannon it's not designed to be used against people but nothing is stopping them from attacking 'soft' targets with them.
Same with the large bore sniper rifles they're technically anti-material rifles to be used against light armoured cars, disposal of IEDs ect but you do see people getting shot with them.
Melfice_1 wrote...
and failure ... well- everything can fail, but they use mostly electronicaly controlled tanks despite of EMP weapons
Electronic equipment can be shielded against EMP most likely future weapons will be shielded and remote tanks will have basic AI to auto-pilot if contact with the command centre is lost.
0
spectre257 wrote...
MS-09RickDom wrote...
well. what if a railgun is used against your armor? and what will happen if the passive armor system fails?
Good luck powering your railgun with today's or near future technology without having to mount it on a tank or ship.
yeah- as far as i can imagine a railgun must have a hell of a kickback, at least when the bullet leaves the barrel and the almost vacuum it leaves is filled again...
spectre257 wrote...
Melfice_1 wrote...
but it seems unlikely that a railgun is used or even allowed as an Anti Person weapon...
Chances are if a man portable railgun was produced it would be allowed to be used against people though the only issue I see with the insane velocities is over penetration.
Look at the A-10's 30mm gatling cannon it's not designed to be used against people but nothing is stopping them from attacking 'soft' targets with them.
Same with the large bore sniper rifles they're technically anti-material rifles to be used against light armoured cars, disposal of IEDs ect but you do see people getting shot with them.
basically it is "forbidden by law" as well as any kind of Anti Personell mines. War is a game with pretty strict rules for the "good guys"
spectre257 wrote...
Melfice_1 wrote...
and failure ... well- everything can fail, but they use mostly electronicaly controlled tanks despite of EMP weapons
Electronic equipment can be shielded against EMP. most likely future weapons will be shielded and remote tanks will have basic AI to auto-pilot if contact with the command centre is lost.
problem then will be : AI, modern warfare is lesser actual fighting then other stuff. What if the complete AI was hijacked and reprogrammed by a hacker? then the whole system will be screwed.
Yes, war has gotten more indirect- where earlier armies of tousands met and engaged in close combat there are only a few people now with access to the little red button, you shouln't press
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Meh, another thread about technology that won't be used for 50 years as most wars will be fought in the 3rd world through proxies or between 1st world armies and 3rd world irregulars...
...high-tech is not what comes to mind in these scenarios.
http://exiledonline.com/future-war-hi-tech-toys-vs-fanged-vermin/
"Spacewar — Killer satellites, orbital lasers…won’t happen. Nothing but lame NASA fundraising ideas, cooked up by corrupt lobbyists and corporations that make a living off the federal budget. Never convinced anybody this side of Newsweek. 150 years from now there’ll be nobody on the moon, nobody on Mars — just some fragile, expensive tools floating up there, not worth blasting, far too expensive to risk."
...
"Try plugging the hi-tech, RPV-heavy war plan to a more even-sided war: say, an all-out struggle for world domination between the US and China ten years from now. The first thing you realize is that it’ll come down to production rates. You’re gonna lose a lot of hardware in a hurry. Like aircraft in the early days of WW I, RPVs will go from surveillance to attack, and that will lead to interceptor models designed to destroy enemy RPVs. There’ll be unmanned dogfights, and since these things are easy to make, the dogfights will be unbelievably massive, maybe hundreds of thousands of individual combats in the sky over the battlefield. It comes down to our factories vs. theirs. If you can replace it faster than they do, maybe you win. It’ll all be as harmless as a nerd picnic on the school field Saturday afternoon, with the Asian kids and the pasty white kids each piloting their little remote-controlled MiG’s and F-16s and arguing about who killed who, then going off for pizza."
...
"Production dominance will tilt one way or the other, at last: you own the skies. They can’t send up any more RPVs, and you can. OK; you’ve won. Now what? Do you start carpet bombing their cities? What the Hell for? The civilian population won’t even matter any more. Kill a hundred million Chinese — so what?
You want to assert control, though, prove you’ve won. Whaddaya do, send in troops? Chinese troops landing in Hawaii, or American troops landing on Amoy? It’s real easy to see what happens next: the nukes come out, and everybody loses.
Oh wait, I forgot: we’re gonna have a nuke-shield over us. Uh…yeah. Folks, as long as I’m debunking Sci-Fi bullshit, lemme tell ya the sad news: this nuke shield, it’s what is technically called, in specialist language, “total bullshit.” Nobody can be shielded from nukes. Not just because it’s impossible to intercept an ICBM under real conditions (those tests? They were just plain faked, folks!), but because an ICBM isn’t the only way to deliver a nuke."
...
"And that means there are nukes lying in our harbors, and in longterm storage sheds, and cemented into the foundations of buildings in our downtowns. So no matter how much they bleat about their anti-missile systems, you better believe that the US will never, never be safe from nukes. And neither will any city that matters, in China or Japan or Russia or Europe.
That means there won’t be any total wars of the good ol’ WW II kind, except between little backward countries without nukes. So we’ll have a two-tier system of wars: very cautious limited wars between the big players, and bloody messes between the savages, which will do little more than prune their exploding populations."
...high-tech is not what comes to mind in these scenarios.
http://exiledonline.com/future-war-hi-tech-toys-vs-fanged-vermin/
"Spacewar — Killer satellites, orbital lasers…won’t happen. Nothing but lame NASA fundraising ideas, cooked up by corrupt lobbyists and corporations that make a living off the federal budget. Never convinced anybody this side of Newsweek. 150 years from now there’ll be nobody on the moon, nobody on Mars — just some fragile, expensive tools floating up there, not worth blasting, far too expensive to risk."
...
"Try plugging the hi-tech, RPV-heavy war plan to a more even-sided war: say, an all-out struggle for world domination between the US and China ten years from now. The first thing you realize is that it’ll come down to production rates. You’re gonna lose a lot of hardware in a hurry. Like aircraft in the early days of WW I, RPVs will go from surveillance to attack, and that will lead to interceptor models designed to destroy enemy RPVs. There’ll be unmanned dogfights, and since these things are easy to make, the dogfights will be unbelievably massive, maybe hundreds of thousands of individual combats in the sky over the battlefield. It comes down to our factories vs. theirs. If you can replace it faster than they do, maybe you win. It’ll all be as harmless as a nerd picnic on the school field Saturday afternoon, with the Asian kids and the pasty white kids each piloting their little remote-controlled MiG’s and F-16s and arguing about who killed who, then going off for pizza."
...
"Production dominance will tilt one way or the other, at last: you own the skies. They can’t send up any more RPVs, and you can. OK; you’ve won. Now what? Do you start carpet bombing their cities? What the Hell for? The civilian population won’t even matter any more. Kill a hundred million Chinese — so what?
You want to assert control, though, prove you’ve won. Whaddaya do, send in troops? Chinese troops landing in Hawaii, or American troops landing on Amoy? It’s real easy to see what happens next: the nukes come out, and everybody loses.
Oh wait, I forgot: we’re gonna have a nuke-shield over us. Uh…yeah. Folks, as long as I’m debunking Sci-Fi bullshit, lemme tell ya the sad news: this nuke shield, it’s what is technically called, in specialist language, “total bullshit.” Nobody can be shielded from nukes. Not just because it’s impossible to intercept an ICBM under real conditions (those tests? They were just plain faked, folks!), but because an ICBM isn’t the only way to deliver a nuke."
...
"And that means there are nukes lying in our harbors, and in longterm storage sheds, and cemented into the foundations of buildings in our downtowns. So no matter how much they bleat about their anti-missile systems, you better believe that the US will never, never be safe from nukes. And neither will any city that matters, in China or Japan or Russia or Europe.
That means there won’t be any total wars of the good ol’ WW II kind, except between little backward countries without nukes. So we’ll have a two-tier system of wars: very cautious limited wars between the big players, and bloody messes between the savages, which will do little more than prune their exploding populations."
0
Melfice_1 wrote...
problem then will be : AI, modern warfare is lesser actual fighting then other stuff. What if the complete AI was hijacked and reprogrammed by a hacker? then the whole system will be screwed.
Yes, war has gotten more indirect- where earlier armies of tousands met and engaged in close combat there are only a few people now with access to the little red button, you shouln't press
You've been seeing too many hacker movies.
The AI runs on a closed circuit ie. it's a ROM program that kicks in like an aircraft autopilot.
Encryption is not as simple as Hollywood seems to make out you need terraflops of processing power to be able to hack into an encrypted connection with any sort of speed.
Don't forget that with the evolution of processing abilities encryption also evolves not to mention other methods such as changing encryption on the fly which prevents people from 'listening' in.
If the connection was hacked chances are it was an inside job with someone assisting the outsiders.
I agree with Flaser that future wars will most likely be fought through proxy wars.
0
Armors can be reinforced, but it cant be invulnerable...
There is always some kind of weakness attached my friends...
There is always some kind of weakness attached my friends...
0
Most of this probably won't be deployed anytime in the near future. Major advances in warfare will likely not be in the development of new armor or high powered weapons, but rather in the creation of cheap portable sensor packages and communications technology.
Modern Military thought is basically if you give the enemy any reasonable sort of chance in any engagement, you're basically doing it wrong. The most significant advances in the near future are going to be in line with this way of thinking;
If you can get shot at you, you can lose. So we're trying to develop the means to wage war with no risk of life on our part.
Modern Military thought is basically if you give the enemy any reasonable sort of chance in any engagement, you're basically doing it wrong. The most significant advances in the near future are going to be in line with this way of thinking;
If you can get shot at you, you can lose. So we're trying to develop the means to wage war with no risk of life on our part.
0
Khane wrote...
Most of this probably won't be deployed anytime in the near future. Major advances in warfare will likely not be in the development of new armor or high powered weapons, but rather in the creation of cheap portable sensor packages and communications technology.Modern Military thought is basically if you give the enemy any reasonable sort of chance in any engagement, you're basically doing it wrong. The most significant advances in the near future are going to be in line with this way of thinking;
If you can get shot at you, you can lose. So we're trying to develop the means to wage war with no risk of life on our part.
Apparently the US wants to have a third of its military to be unmanned by 2020 or something along those lines.
One use I've heard suggested was that their logistics would become unmanned so that convoys travelling through ambush prone regions can travel without risking personnel.
The French seem to have the right idea with their Dassault nEUROn that can slave to a Rafale Ace Combat 6 Pasternak style.