Mysterious 'Forcefield' Tested on US Tanks 603
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.'"
Force Field? (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.
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Force Field? (Score:2)
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, 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 [ciar.org].
-- TTK
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Force Field? (Score:2)
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Funny)
Well i would look it up on the Internet. There is bound to be a post on some obscure forum by some guy named "Tank-H4xor" that gives direction on how to exploit a bug in the system by duct-taping a banana on the missile or a fluffy bunny something :)
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think McGuyver would appreciate you calling him that very much.
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Informative)
RPG's are only effective against more lightly armored vehicles, such as trucks, Humvees and some parts of an APC.
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org], and other superiority systems.
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would HATE to read this if I was a linux programmer. Is it possible to include notes in software licenses forbiding military uses?
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Funny)
Joking about Commies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I know, you are joking, but nobody seems to jokingly wear, say, Swastika on their clothing, yet the Hammer-and-Sickle remain all the rage :-(
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.
Re:Joking about Commies... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Seriously, I know, you are joking, but nobody seems to jokingly wear, say, Swastika on their clothing, yet the Hammer-and-Sickle remain all the rage
I think the difference is largely because the worst of the Soviet Union happened under Stalin, a nutbar, whose nuttery was not baked into the ideology of Communism (at least not as written and espoused.) After Stalin, it mellowed.
On the other hand, it's hard to separate Nazism from Hitler and his evil nuttery is baked into its core. Nazism doesn't
Re:Joking about Commies... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's convenient to just say Che was a "revolutionary" and since the US was borne of revolutionaries, it's the same thing. The clear and concise difference is the Che and the communists actively murdered and suppressed citizens just for being....not them. Che specifically had the job of executing people deemed "not revolutionary enough". Not soldiers. Not tyrannical politicians. Just dirt-poor people who happened to disagree with his poin
Re:Joking about Commies... (Score:3, Insightful)
And on this front the more removed the victorious side is from common sense, the more murderous it has to be to survive.
The amount of death and destruction during the Russian Civil War amounts to a rounding error compared to the murders (and occasional genocide) afterwards.
Re:Force Field? (Score:4, Funny)
hawk, who intends someday to include the phrase, "This is free software. You may use it for any purpose, including the extermination of endangered species, the violent overthrow of your government, or planning a nuclear attack on Australia."
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Force Field? (Score:3)
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Insightful)
BZZZZZT
Only ~2% of the insurgents are found to be foreigners. And the majority of the insurgents are minority-group Sunnis who are trying to maintain a power presence in a government now dominated by the majority-group Shi'ites.
Sorry to burst your rant-bubble, but a few facts are in order here.
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go.. [cnn.com]
So.. of 13000 to 17000 insurgents they've identified, some 500 are foreigners.
Let's see.. 500/17000 =
Kiss my fact-filled ass.
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Force Field? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Informative)
IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank. You'd need an actual anti-tank mine to penetrate.
IEDs have mostly been deployed against Humvees, Supply Trucks, and Police vehicles. As we've been shipping more armored Humvees over, the insurgents have been forced to get more creative with the IEDs to target more vulnerable areas of the vehicle.
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Informative)
Not really true. True for the REALLY unsophisticated IEDs, but they have IEDs that nothing we have can defeat. DoD is urgently working on this now, but the amount of high explosives (and shape charges) they are using in close proximity even an M1A1 cannot withstand.
example [abovetopsecret.com]
example [globalsecurity.org]
example [fromtheinside.us]
Re:Force Field? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 defense
phalanx? (Score:2)
That is, I surmise
Re:Force Field? (Score:2)
Think Battlestar Galactica NOT Star Trek
Force field here is kinda like free checking, 50% off jewelry sales, or that 2-legged robot that can't stand on 2 legs.....
Re:Force Field? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Warning Label: (Score:5, Funny)
Do not play frisbee, football, or baseball near the talk.
Thank you,
The Management
Re:Force Field? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reactive Armor (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Reactive Armor (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Reactive Armor (Score:2)
Not really (Score:3, Informative)
Reactive armour is basically another layer of material on the outside of the vehicle. If I read TFA right, the Trophy system sends a stream of projectiles to intercept incoming threats at ranges of 10-30 metres. It's more attacking the incoming weapon ahead of time than waiting for the weapon to hit but trying to disrupt its effects when it does (though the basic principle - try to get it to explode early - is the same).
Not exactly. (Score:2)
With reactive armour, the threat is destroyed by the outer layer of reactive armour before it can penetrate the real (non-reactive) armour.
Not even slightly. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re:Not even slightly. (Score:3, Interesting)
(I don't have any insider information; I'm just thinking the technologies are a really great fit.)
Armour Technologies (Score:3, Informative)
But you aren't all that mistaken by comparing it to reactive armour, as the functionality of reactive armour is getting more complex all the time. A new-generation Russian reactive armour uses a sequence of outward-facing, linear shaped charges inside the reactive armour "brick", all tied together with a common detona
How is that a "force field"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Re:How is that a "force field"? (Score:5, 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.
Not quite a "forcefield" (Score:3, Insightful)
ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehension. (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi (Score:2)
Automatic response, automatic lawsuit (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit (Score:2)
Well, TFA mentions minimal collateral damage. How close to zero that is, and under what circumstances it's greater, is left as an exercise to the read (provided they have sufficient security clearance, presumably)...
Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit (Score:2)
AFAIK, the US military has never lost a civil suit in a combat situation due to technical or human error.
You know... Every time we drop a bomb on the wrong house or kill someone with friendly fire... It never goes to a civil suit (albeit Court Marhshall and dishonorable discharge)
There have been state side lawsuits I do believe for loss of life, limb, and
Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit (Score:2)
(Results 1 - 10 of about 10,500,000 for us friendly fire deaths iraq.)
Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit (Score:2)
Re:Automatic response, automatic lawsuit (Score:2)
This is NOT a mysterious forcefield!!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Direct Video Link (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Direct Video Link (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Man oh man (Score:5, Funny)
Now, if they had actually trained bats, then we're on to something.
Re:Man oh man (Score:2)
Re:Man oh man (Score:4, Funny)
Completely inappropriate use of the forcefield (Score:4, Informative)
Call it protective field or simply coutermeasure device, but don't bastardize the concept of force field to sensationalize this story.
You get all us Trekkie geeks excited over nothing.
Uncanny (Score:2, Informative)
RTOS I wonder? (Score:2)
LynxOS [lynuxworks.com]
Damn I wish I got paid to make stuff like that. Anyone find any other info giving more detail as to exactly what went into that system? This would be an invaluable safety system on vehicles, if nothing less just shielding the driver from the initial crash.
reinventing the wheel... and making it a square (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square (Score:3, Insightful)
And reactive armnour is rather limited in it's appliation.
You can call it a waste of money if you want, but losing the vehicle and the personnel inside it is a LOT more expensive.
Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square (Score:3, Informative)
This new system makes it so that there is no impact. It's inherently reusable, so long the magazine of whatever launches the counter-projectile is large enough in capacity and/or can be safely reloaded by the vehicle crew. The only achilies heel that I can see is the damage or destructio
Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square (Score:4, Insightful)
Which part of "keep the guys in the tank from dying" don't you like? The US uses 70 ton tanks, the most sophisticated in the world, and they can be pretty well blown up by a guy with a 50 pound rocket on his shoulder. There are quite a few companies in the US, and in russia, who will sell you rockets with multiple shaped charges, that will pretty easily defeat reactive armor.
The real trick to a system like this, is target identification. It's not always helpful if the tank's armor starts trying to take out some unlucky pigeon, or radio flyer. When they first started putting this sort of things on ships, they wiped out a lot of porpuses, shot the tops off some waves, etc.
Iranian Uranium (Score:5, Interesting)
Which one is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this is why people don't like hanging out with me.
Obligatory Family Guy reference: (Score:5, Funny)
feels more like... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mysterious? Perhaps to non-readers... (Score:3, Funny)
Dude; you gotta learn to read, before submitting articles with "Man Bites Dog" headlines...
Not new (Score:5, Interesting)
"Forcefield" thing comes from Fox News (Score:3, Interesting)
Checklist for accepting military projects (Score:5, Insightful)
Mystery Games (Score:3, Insightful)
Hammers Slammers (Score:3, Informative)
What motivates such an obvious misnomer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mysterious force is Kinetic force. (Score:3, Funny)
Wham. Phalanx anyone?
Bush: Well, I done heard that these I-ranians have hi-tech equiptment and the like
Daddy: Yes son, and we have been skimming billions off our defense budgets for our friends in the middle east for years now!
Bush: That don't make no sense!
Daddy: Yes son, that is the beauty of it!
Bush: So lets get someone to make something up about our stuff, to make it sound good?
Daddy: Thats right son, and lets sell ADS as a new optional extra on hummers!
Bush: I like them cars! brum brum!
Daddy: Tree Fiddy?
please type the word in this image: skirted verification text - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
Re:Good news (Score:2)
The examples in TFA all seem to talk about big armour like tanks and APCs. AIUI, the major (though obviously not only) threat from RPGs in places like Iraq is to Hummers and such, and the big problem is that even up-armoured versions of these light vehicles are far from immune to a good RPG shot. If this system really is as effective as the article makes out, and really will be ready within a couple of years, I wonder whether its first use will be on light vehicles like the next generation Hummer replacemen
Re:Good news (Score:2)
The ideal of these systems is to reduce the passive armor content of armored vehicles so that things like main battle tanks could be made lighter and therefore A) easier to deploy in quantity by airlift and B) faster and longer-ranged.
If they could put such systems on HMMWVs, that would certainly be a plus. Humvees weren't really designed to be APCs (though uparmor kits are available), though, as we've found out much to our dismay. Even with the armor kits, they would still be vulnerable to roadside bom
Re:Good news (Score:2)
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Bad news, General (Score:2)
Re:Force field my ass (Score:2)
Where do they find these idiots who watch too much Star Trek?
The problem is that they don't watch enough Star Trek. Any fan would know the difference between this thing and a "force field."
Re:Anyone else remember a somewhat similiar system (Score:2)
Here's a brief article I was able to find about it:
http://www.engadget.com/2004/06/14/force-field-for -tanks/ [engadget.com]
Re:Any amount for war, little for relationships. (Score:2)
Eventually? You mean to tell me that part of the world hasn't been violent for over a thousand years? Don't take this the wrong way but I think you need to brush up on history a bit.
Where are my mod points? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wild Weasel (Score:3, Informative)