Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Science Technology

Electric Armor Tested For Light Armored Vehicles 418

Posted by michael from the disconnect-capacitor-before-servicing dept.
joncrie writes "The Telegraph is reporting that British MoD scientists are now testing a new electric armor to protect light armored vehicles against RPGs. The new electric armour is made up of a highly-charged capacitor that is connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. When an RPG warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection and thousands of amps of electricity vaporises most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull. The initial development was mentioned previously."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electric Armor Tested For Light Armored Vehicles More

Electric Armor Tested For Light Armored Vehicles

Comments Filter:

  • NICE MOVE EDITORS. (Score:5, Informative)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:32PM (#9408066) Homepage Journal
    "'Electric armour' vaporises anti-tank grenades and shells
    By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
    (Filed: 19/08/2002) "

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

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

    sorry for sounding so trollish but REALLY.

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

  • Wasn't this covered before here? (Score:3, Informative)

    by ChronoZ ( 561096 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:33PM (#9408067)
    'Electric armour' vaporises anti-tank grenades and shells By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 19/08/2002)

  • I wonder if you have to ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MikeHunt69 ( 695265 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:34PM (#9408072) Journal
    ... polarise the hull plating?
    • Not only does it defend against RPGs fired by Islamic extremists, but it also works great against alien Nazis.

    • Re:I wonder if you have to ... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:23PM (#9408352)
      If you polarize the hull plating, you need to have a way to reverse the polarity in case they fire a reverse-phase ion cannon. And if you can reverse the polarity, then you can add an alternating field. But if you do that, then you need to be able to modulate the shield harmonics in case they fire a phased photon torpedo at the same frequency. Also, you need a good voice-activated computer so you can yell out "computer, modulate the aft shield polarity using a quantum differential to compensate for the inbound photon torpedo's phase variance" while some guy casually walks up and stuffs a banana in your exhaust pipe.

  • Using Iraq as an example.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tuvai ( 783607 ) <zeikfried@gmail.com> on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:36PM (#9408083) Journal
    The heavily armoured divisions of the US and British armies had little to fear of the iraqi armed forces RPGs, the most "devastating" weapon in their limited arsenal.
    However once the initial resistance was swiftly dealt with, the all new threat came from roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and mines. This will make some difference, but most terrorists will strike at the troops outside of their vehicles anyway.
    • Roadside bombs and suicide bombers can be lethal to Humvees and the like, but aren't really a threat to heavily armoured vehicles: it takes a shaped charge or KE penetrator to breach the armour.

    • Re:Using Iraq as an example.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:10PM (#9408273)
      Apart from the fact that RGPs took out several Abrams M1A1 tanks during the course of the conflict. It would seem that the M1A1 has a flaw when dealing with close combat situations, its engine compartment isnt as protected as the rest of the system and could be taken out using an RPG.

      Links:
      Tank destroyed by mysterious weapon [freerepublic.com]
      Same story as above
      Better story [janes.com]

      • Re:Using Iraq as an example.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 3263827 ( 192923 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:34PM (#9408415)
        All vehicles have a "flaw" when dealing with close combat situations. The M1A2 is fortunately for US forces, one of the most protected tanks, especially against HEAT charges like the one employed by the RPG. Tank protection is a matter of choosing your battles. You can't provide 360 degree protection. That's why tanks operate with infantry in urban ops. Take away the infantry, and you'll have situations like Grozny where the Chechen rebels massacred entire divisions due to poor tactics on the part of the Russians.
        • True.

          Ever tank in the world has the same "flaw" - in order for the engine to work, air has to get in and exhaust has to get out. This means that the armor around the engine compartment will not be as durable as the armor around the turret and engine compartments.

      • Challenger 2 MBT (Score:5, Interesting)

        by reality-bytes ( 119275 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @04:00PM (#9408538) Homepage
        Conversely, the Challenger 2 MBT is one of the most heavily-armoured tanks in the world, sporting both heavy solid armour and reactive plating.

        However, you can apparently stop one with a bucket of sand down the air-intake ;)

        I think that we (the UK) could do with, is getting our MBTs to work properly in all conditions as well as providing fancy-pants defence systems.
        • I think that we (the UK) could do with, is getting our MBTs to work properly in all conditions as well as providing fancy-pants defence systems.

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

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

      • Re:Using Iraq as an example.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by wooby ( 786765 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @05:24PM (#9408960) Journal

        You're right, the Abrams was not designed for urban combat. The most lightly armored part of the tank is the top. There's even less armor there than on the hull. This makes the tank susceptible to RPGs fired from rooftops.

        M1's are also huge; when patrolling roads, they tear up pavement and will not fit through some streets in densely populated areas. They pose a danger to civilian passerby and vehicles.

        For day-to-day patrolling, the Army relies mostly HMMWVs. The HMMWV, or "Humvee," can also be "up-armored" with a kit [globalsecurity.org].

        This "electric armor" sounds like a fantastic idea, but I have a feeling it will be too heavy to equip a HMMWV. It could probably work wonders for the roofs of M1's though.

    • Duh!

      This article/solution is about *Light armour*

      • Re:Using Iraq as an example.. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @06:07PM (#9409181)
        Just to clarify, U. S. light armor isn't HUMVEEs, it's mostly Bradley APCs and the occsional modified M-113 still in the system. The Bradley is treated as both an Infantry vehicle and a Cavalry scout vehicle, so you may see it refered to as an APC (armored personnel carrier) or an IFV (Infantry fighting vehicle), while the old M-113 chassis is still used for some communications and ambulance/field hospital vehicles and possibly still by MP units. You might also include M-88 tank recovery vehicles since they are modified from what was heavy armor in the WWW2 era, but isn't really up to grade now. Arguably, even some artillery systems, i.e. Palladin howitzers, can count as light armor if in a direct fire environment. All of these have tracks, not tires. There's also a few vehicles used by the U. S. Marines which fill roughly simiar roles, but include some amphibious capabilities.

    • Re:Using Iraq as an example.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:39PM (#9408449)
      I know you've had the word terrorist drilled in to your head the Bush administration and the media using it about a 1000 times a day but when someone is attacking occupying soldiers in a war zone they are not "terrorists", they are guerillas or insurgents. Guerilla is probably the word you are looking for:

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

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

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

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

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

      • Re:Using Iraq as an example.. (Score:3, Insightful)

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

        i fucking hate the media.
      • They're insurgents/geurrillas if thier primarily natives or allies of the natives. If thier outsiders with the primary goal of creating strife I think agent provacatures would apply.
        To me a terrorist is one who uses 'terror' as a political tool. By terror in this context I mean primarily violent acts targeting primarily civilians. I'm up in the air whether political leadership counts or not for this definition.
        Anyway, just my two cents.

        Mycroft

  • Filed: 19/08/2002 (Score:5, Funny)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:38PM (#9408097) Journal
    I see that Slashdot is finally posting more up to date stuff.

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

  • Two Shots? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alphanos ( 596595 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:38PM (#9408100)
    So. if I understand correctly, this only vapourizes the incoming shot once it's most of the way through the armor. What happens when a second shot hits the same location? Alternatively, what if 2-3 shots are fired simultaneously at different locations in an attempt to overload the electrical system? It would be ironic if the electric armor protected the tank against these multiple shots only to kill its electrical system and immobilize it.

    • Re:Two Shots? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:54PM (#9408189) Homepage Journal
      "Alternatively, what if 2-3 shots are fired simultaneously at different locations in an attempt to overload the electrical system?"

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

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

      • Re:Two Shots? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:05PM (#9408238) Homepage
        Anyway, nobody ever promised this would make tanks absolutely invulnerable to RPGs. If it significantly reduces damage (and casualties) and gives the tank a better chance to return fire, it's a success.

      • Re:Two Shots? (Score:2, Funny)

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

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

      • It's actually pretty common tactic to fire multiple RPGs simultaneously at the same target to ensure a hit in the right place(modern tanks are already pretty well protected against these types of weapons but there are still few week spots). But because of this I think that they thought about it when designing the new armor.
      • well, considering that no even slightly trained infantryman would except the tank to stop from 1 shot from a cheapo-rpg... they'd try to make the tank to drive into mines(you know, some big ass mines, like some 10kg tank mines stacked together) if possible and have something heavy enough that takes the tank down or arrange multiple shootings from some light rpg's.

        this thing will be useful as a complimentary system but it's not really as revolutionary as the 2 year old articles make it to look like.
    • I'm always suspicious of "defenses" that are too specific.

      What if the vehicle is hit with regulare AK-47 rounds prior to the RPG attack? How large would a round have to be to cause the armour to discharge?

      I think it would even more ironic if the vehicle went over mine and the crew was killed when the electrical armour discharged through the vehicle's interior.

      Always believe that you'll be fighting against an enemy who will learn and exploit your weaknesses.
      • If an ak47 is breaching your tank armor, you've got bigger problems.
      • My guess is that they'd make the outer armor thick enough to stop standard infantry calibers, up to .30 cal or so (light machine gun). 12.7mm/.50 cal might cause problems, but so can depleted uranium (valuable for its ultra dense mass, not the residual radioactivity, which is actually a crew/environmnetal liability) and some of the ultravelocity armor-piercing .30 cal sabots they put in .50 cal rounds.

        But remember, they want to keep RPGs from immediately destroying or disabling _light_ armored vehicles; e

        • That's what I was wondering. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday June 12, 2004 @04:11PM (#9408585)
          If they make the outer armour thick enough to stop small arms fire, then they're adding significant weight to the vehicle. Particularly the HMMWVs and such. If you add 2,000lbs of armour, you're facing other, structural, problems with the vehicles.

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

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

          Which is exactly what you do not want in the "long-lasting, low-grade, hostile civilian population," scenario you mentioned. :(
      • "Always believe that you'll be fighting against an enemy who will learn and exploit your weaknesses."

        Like wheels or tracks?

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

        Go for the wheels or tracks, its pretty obvious.

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

    • Yep,>BR> That's why the old chicken wire cage as the Israelies use(d) is probably smarter.

    • RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      RTFA.
      In a recent demonstration of the electric armour for senior Army officers, an APC protected by the new British system survived repeated attacks by rocket-propelled grenades that would normally have destroyed it several times over. Many of the grenades were fired from point-blank range but the only damage to the APC was cosmetic. The vehicle was driven away under its own power.
    • More sophisticated anti-tank weapons already carry two explosive charges in the same projectile. The first charge triggers any active defences, the second charge penetrates the tank.

      The idea of electric armour is new, but armour has been active for a long time. It isn't just a chunk of metal. Tank armour is designed, oddly, to explode in a small scale, controlled way when hit. This tends to break kinetic energy weapons such as DU penetrators.

      Warheads which are based on a shaped charge can ordinarily d

  • Added bonus (Score:5, Funny)

    by alex_ware ( 783764 ) <alex DOT ware AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:39PM (#9408106) Homepage
    switch the live and earth and you make it impossible for terrorists to climb on the tank
    • switch the live and earth and you make it impossible for terrorists to climb on the tank

      Until the occupants attempt to get out.

      Also you have another problem. This might render the tank more susceptible to various miscelanious debres shorting the system. For example, a wire mesh net could be thrown on the tank from a building, thus contacting the treads and the body and shorting the system out.

      Or the opponent could jump onto the tank from buildings and thus get only slightly shocked if at all (like a
      • If you read the article: The outside of the tank isn't live; it's an inner second layer of the armor that is electrified. So no, it does nothing about folks jumping on the tank, but it's also not at risk of being shorted by debris.

  • Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cheerio Boy ( 82178 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:39PM (#9408111) Homepage Journal
    Could a similar method be used to weld a breach in a ship's hull while at sea?

    Suppose you made a ship with an insulated two-layer outer hull. The two layers are both insulated from the ship. In between the layers put something like coated metal pellets with a low melting point.

    Something breaches the hull and you apply a massize but _localized_ charge around the area to melt the metal and seal the breach.

    I think the biggest problem, duh, is how much of the charge gets leached into the water or the internals of the ship when sealing is taking place.

    Then there's that whole frying the occupants things...

    I never said it was foolproof! ;-)
    • Maybe, but what do you do when some moron uses a LAM to break the 5 tri-hull weld points?
      • I'm talking about breaches not necessarily combat damage here. Although in the context of the article I probably should have been more clear about that.

        Besides, if the missile is big enough it won't matter. Either the hole will be too big to "flow into" to seal or it will have hit something vital.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wes Janson ( 606363 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @07:39PM (#9409666) Journal
      The big problem with that idea is threefold. First, when the breach occurs it's going to require a non-trivial amount of time for the system to begin applying current, heating the pellets, and congealing together.

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

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

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

  • Just like RIAA vs. File traders (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Superfreaker ( 581067 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:39PM (#9408112) Homepage Journal
    This sounds familiar, they come up with something to get us, then we come up with something to stop them...

    Napster - centralized server (shut down)
    Kazaa - Decentralized server (lawsuits pending)
    Encrypted p2p networks (riaa = screwed)

    Bazooka - (heavy plating neutralized)
    RPG - (liquid copper spewing heads!)
    Electric Field - (emp? = screwed)

    Once you come up with a fix, you force the technology to evolve to its next form faster tahn it would have on its own.

    Just MHO.

    • Re:Just like RIAA vs. File traders (Score:5, Funny)

      by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:42PM (#9408125)
      Peer-to-Peer artillery is never gonna catch on

      Unless you mean all armoured assault vehicles share targeting information and fire many small projectiles instead of one big one?
      Good grief, that would be deadly. Hope the army don't think of it.
    • Once you come up with a fix, you force the technology to evolve to its next form faster tahn it would have on its own.

      Absolutely, which is why arms races are so fucking *dangerous*. There's still lots of talk about the militarization of space, to use a contemporary example -- the only result this will have is the development of more powerful weapons to launch into orbit. When one nation does something like that, it forces every other nation that doesn't want to be routinely threatened to jump in and star

  • Although this is a step in the right direction, terrorists also seem to be advancing in their use of tank-busting mechanisms. As weapons proliferation continues, and more advanced technologies become readily available in the world's "hot spots", the greater threat is posed by ever-popular depleted uranium shells.

    These DU shells have become a large problem because of the amount of R&D that went into these weapons - weapons that were subsequently banned by most of the western world for their hazardous pr
    • Although this is a step in the right direction, terrorists also seem to be advancing in their use of tank-busting mechanisms.

      Consider it genetic algorithms in action. The terrorists will try everything and anything they know about. They'll drop the methods that aren't successful. For those methods that are successful, they'll reuse.For those methods that are partially successful, they'll try something slightly different: use more explosives, heavier chunks of metal, better concealment or more accurate ti
    • > Although this is a step in the right direction, terrorists also seem to be advancing in their use of tank-busting mechanisms.

      What? Could you cite references to terrorists using tank-busting weapons? At least having them? The army of a country you're at war with does not count as terrorists...

  • Foiled By water balloons? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The_Real_Nire ( 786847 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:42PM (#9408124)
    So if I understand this right, a direct hit from an RPG would cause a breech in the outter hull, exposing the inner, charged hull. While teh rpg would apparently not affect the vehicle, whay happens if they use those grenade looking water balloons on the hole the RPG made? will this short circuit the system, and possibly fry anyone inside? We need impenetrable EMP forcefields or adamantium hulls instead I think. :P

  • Protected against RPGs? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Moth7 ( 699815 ) <mike,brownbill&gmail,com> on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:43PM (#9408137) Journal
    Electric armour will never match my Great Sword +4!

  • I just know you'll come and bitchslap this post... (Score:3, Informative)

    by James A. S. Joyce ( 784805 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:44PM (#9408141) Homepage
    ...down to -1, Offtopic because you can't handle criticism, michael, but you know what? I just don't care. This is the last straw. I used to wonder why all of the trolls would constantly take the piss out of you over all of the other editors. Sometimes you posted blurbs that had egregious spelling errors, blatant plugs for Apple products or just outright filled with false information. I always just put it down to misjudgement and figured that it wasn't so bad - Slashdot's standards are fairly high compared to other sites.

    But godammnit, michael, how hard would it have been to actually read the fucking article and realise - "Hey! This is a couple of years old! Maybe this isn't worth posting!" - and this is also a dupe . Isn't that what an editor's supposed to do? Check the leads people give them to make sure they're not bullshit ? You get paid to do this, for God's sake, and you're just not taking it seriously. Not at all. And as soon as anyone points it out you bitchslap them to shut them up. Who the hell do you think you are?

    By the time you read this my subscription will have been cancelled. I'm fed up, michael. I'm not subsidising this site so you can post this trash.
    • Man someones got an RPG up their ass and its shooting its molten copper!
    • RIGHT ON THE MONEY, I have mod points, but I posted in this discussion, sorry. Don't want to see this post smacked down to -1? Mod it up, editor censorship is not welcome.
    • "...down to -1, Offtopic because you can't handle criticism, michael, but you know what? I just don't care."

      Heh you think Michael did it? Doubtful.

      A.) You should just email him or the staff directly.

      B.) Bitching about it here can only cause other people to bitch, and really the discussion is about the armor. Go through the right channels before making a public stink. This little lesson in life will help you down the road.

      "But godammnit, michael, how hard would it have been to actually read the f
  • Much is now made of local wireless networks and data terminals being used by army units to share targeting and strategic information.
    I wonder how well a wireless computer works when sealed within a highly polarised electronic cage? None too well, I suspect.
    • IT ISNT

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

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

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

  • Only works with conductive charges (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bojanb ( 162938 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:49PM (#9408161)
    Well, it seems that an anti-tank rocket filled with non-conductive charge would be able to defeat this armor, but is such warhead feasible to make?

    One would need material that is as dense as metal, can be vaporized easily but is still a poor conductor. Any slahdotters aware of something like this?

    • Re:Only works with conductive charges (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:53PM (#9408179)
      "as dense as metal, can be vaporized easily but is still a poor conductor"

      Granite. There's no technical reason I can imagine that would stop you using a stone warhead on a rocket.

      • Re:Only works with conductive charges (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:35PM (#9408425)
        Wahooo! We're back to throwing rocks at each other. Military technology has finally come full circle :D

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

    • Re:Only works with conductive charges (Score:5, Informative)

      by deacon ( 40533 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:14PM (#9408299) Journal
      Just to explain how a shaped charge [pml.tno.nl] works:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • And you all laughed when Archer said it (Score:5, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @02:52PM (#9408175) Homepage Journal
    "Polarize the hull plating!"
  • Tanks do use regular packages of explosives on their sides for doing this exact thing. When the copper hits it the explosive deflects it. This is just evolution. Don't know if it's any better though. Plastic explosive is safe stuff while high volt capacitors are an unknown.

  • The latest weapon from the U.S. Air Force (Score:5, Interesting)

    by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:12PM (#9408283)
    Here [af.mil] is a more interesting new weapon in development by the U.S., courtesy of Raytheon(an ironic name in this case). Its the U.S. military's Active Denial System scheduled to start trials this fall. Its a millimeter wave beam weapon designed for non lethal crowd "control". The beam penetrates just below the your skin and sets off every pain receptor. Volunteers at Raytheon subjected to it described it as "unbearably painful, saying they felt as though their bodies were on fire". It should put an end to any unauthorized demonstrations against the U.S. or any of its allies.

    Its an execeptionally good riot control device since it leaves no physical evidence, especially if the antenna is somewhat concealed. No clouds of tear gas, no protesters eyes burning from mace, no batons swinging, no soldiers shooting rubber or lead bullets to stoke sympathy from TV viewers. The protester will just start screaming in pain and running away. Sure to be a big hit in Israel and Iraq.

    I'm wondering if they are working on an indoor version since it is a perfect tool for torture, it leaves no marks. The victim wouldn't even know what was happening to them.

    It appears I now have a good reason to wear a tin foil hat, or really a full body suit like everyone keeps telling me I should. Its not just a Bush Big Brother Weapon either. I believe it was started by Clinton and is roundly endorsed by John Kerry [counterpunch.org].

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

    • Re:The latest weapon from the U.S. Air Force (Score:5, Informative)

      by danaris ( 525051 ) <danaris@mac . c om> on Saturday June 12, 2004 @03:28PM (#9408385) Homepage

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

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

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

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

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

      Dan Aris

      • But you fail to appreciate that the fact that this is non lethal makes it worse. It makes it so much easier to use much more often. If there is a big protest and an authority is forced to use ugly and potentially lethal weapons to break it up then they will either show restraint, contain it and let it go, or they will use violence and if they do they will probably further alienate their population and make things worse for themselves. The shootings at Kent State were a near fatal blow to the misguided Vi
      • To make my point another way, what do you think the result will be if a set of these patrol outside every WTO meeting from now on. Anyone who shows up to protest, unless they figure out counter measures, will be practically strapping electrodes to their own genitals and asking to be tortured. Chances are good it will put an end to protests and some of the crap the WTO pulls deserves to be protested. Protesting is one of the things our First Amendment is all about and this could put an end to.

        Why do you
    • "It should put an end to any unauthorized demonstrations against the U.S. or any of its allies."

      Of course it will also prove extremely effective at knocking out the police and military who are trying to stop people from demonstrating.

      I suspect muggers,rapists and other criminals will find a few uses for it too...
  • I wander, what happen when a second RPG is fired to the vehicle half a second after the first, when capacitor is just discharged (and may be left shortened as well)...

    How long it take to desert people go figure they just need to fire two rpgs at once?
    • I believe, but I may very well be wrong, that this was the Soviet reponse to British Chobham reactive armour: where an explosive charge built into the defensive armour plating on a tank detonated against an incoming shaped charge so as to deflect it.
      The USSR then deployed two stage charges where the first one triggered the defensive response and then the second main charge went on, unimpeded, to wipe out the tank.

      by analogy the same response would seem to be possible with RPGs.

      Of course, I presume the c

  • Isn't it curious (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bairy ( 755347 ) *
    Some people are spending $n billion on researching weapons to kill, whilst some other people are spending $n billion on researching gadgets (for want of a better word) to stop those weapons, like this, and that laser that can shoot down missles/guns that was featured on /. a few weeks ago.

    And we call ourselves the most intelligent species on the planet

    [/cynicism]

  • I wonder how long it'll take for non-conductive shaped charges to show up on the market. That would really mess this system up.

  • Just think of the practical joke potential! (Score:5, Funny)

    by craXORjack ( 726120 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @04:22PM (#9408636)
    Corporal Capacitor: 'Hey Specialist, where'd the Sarge go?'
    Specialist Sparks: 'He just climbed out on the deck to take a leak.'
    Corporal Capacitor: (Charging plates) 'Oh really?'

  • Obligatory Star Trek quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by smeenz ( 652345 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @05:41PM (#9409033) Homepage
    As I seem to be the first to say this....

    Shields up, Mr Sulu !

  • against RPG ? (Score:3, Funny)

    by hagnat ( 752654 ) on Saturday June 12, 2004 @09:40PM (#9410422) Homepage
    The Telegraph is reporting that British MoD scientists are now testing a new electric armor to protect light armored vehicles against RPGs.

    never though RPG could be so dangerous...

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

    lol

  • M1A1 taken out by 'Mystery Projectile' (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TitanBL ( 637189 ) <brandon.titan-internet@com> on Saturday June 12, 2004 @10:21PM (#9410674)
    Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.

    Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.

    According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the report's author noted.

    The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1½ to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.

    As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

    Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7 but most likely something new -- and that worries tank drivers.

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

      In this case though the M1 does not have reactive armour. It has an advance form of Chobham armour which uses ceramic plates laminated

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

Slashdot Top Deals

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Close