British Army could have invisible tanks within five years

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,927
1,910
113
The 21st Century has truly arrived.

British military scientists are planning on developing an army of invisible tanks that could be used by the British Army on a battlefield within the next five years.

The tanks will use a system called "e-camouflage" which will give the illusion that there is no tank there.

Electronic sensors attached to the hull of the tank will project images of the surrounding landscape onto the outside of the tank making it blend into the landscape. A group of them could therefore approach the enemy without the enemy knowing.

Until recently, such concepts were mocked as "science fiction" but scientists at British defence giant BAE Systems now believe battlefield "invisibility" will soon become science fact.

The concept was developed as part of the Future Protected Vehicle programme, which scientists believe will transform the way in which future conflicts will be fought.

The programme is based around seven different military vehicles, both manned and unmanned.

BAE Systems is also close to developing a form of transparent armour which is much tougher than bullet proof glass.

The tank was developed and first used by the British during WWI. They were first used at the Battle of the Somme in 1916.

The Royal Navy is also in the vanguard of hi-tech weaponry. There are currently seven giant, heavily-armed submarines being built for the RN which will be able to detect ships leaving New York harbour whilst sitting in the English Channel, and are so quiet that enemy sonar wil find it very difficuly to detect them. They'll also be able to bomb targets throughout Western Europe and North Africa whilst sitting in the English Channel.

Invisible tanks could be on battlefield within five years

British military scientists plan to develop an army of "invisible" tanks ready for use on the battlefield within five years.



Unlike conventional forms of camouflage, the images on the hull would change in concert with the changing environment always insuring that the vehicle remains disguised

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
09 Jan 2011
The Telegraph

Armoured vehicles will use a new technology known as "e-camouflage" which deploys a form "electronic ink" to render a vehicle "invisible".

Highly sophisticated electronic sensors attached to the tank's hull will project images of the surrounding environment back onto the outside of the vehicle enabling it to merge into the landscape and evade attack.

The electronic camouflage will enable the vehicle to blend into the surrounding countryside in much the same way that a squid uses ink to help as a disguise.

Unlike conventional forms of camouflage, the images on the hull would change in concert with the changing environment always insuring that the vehicle remains disguised.

In Helmand, for example, all armoured vehicle have desert sand coloured camouflage, which is of little use in the "Green Zone", an area of cultivation where crops are grown and the Taliban often hide.

Up until recently such concepts were thought to be the stuff of science fiction but scientists at the defence company BAE Systems now believe battlefield "invisibility" will soon become science fact.

Scientists at the BAE hope the new technology will be available to use with the British Army fighting in Southern Afghanistan and in future conflicts.

The concept was developed as part of the Future Protected Vehicle programme, which scientists believe, will transform the way in which future conflicts will be fought.

The programme is based around seven different military vehicles, both manned and unmanned, which will be equipped with a wide variety of lethal and none lethal weapons.

The unmanned vehicles or battlefield robots will be able to conduct dangerous missions in hostile areas, clear minefields and extract wounded troops under fire.

The vehicles include:

* Pointer: an agile robot (shown below) which can take over dirty, dull or dangerous jobs, such as forward observation and mine clearance.
* Bearer: a modular platform which can carry a range of mission payloads, such as protected mobility, air defence and ambulance;
* Wraith: a low signature scout vehicle;
* Safeguard: an ultra-utility infantry carrier or command & control centre;
* Charger: a highly lethal and survivable reconfigurable attack vehicle;
* Raider: a remotely or autonomously controlled unmanned recce and skirmishing platform – similar in design to the "Batmobile"
* Atlas: a convoy system which removes the driver from harm's way.


The Pointer robotic soldier, aimed at carrying out dull or dangerous reconnaisance work in the field or inside buildings, can travel at high speed on horizontal tracks, or can ’walk’ on tracks in an angled configuration.

BAE's Future vehicle project is, in part, a reaction to the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) 'Capability Vision' for armoured vehicles, designed to spur development along different paths from the MoD's previous research.

Commanders are aiming for a prototype within four years and an experimental operational capacity by 2013.

The brief is for a lightweight vehicle, weighing 30 tonnes, powered by a hybrid electric drive, with the same effectiveness and survivability of a current main battle tank.

The UK's current tank, the Challenger 2, weighs 62.5 tonnes, and runs a 1,200hp V12 diesel engine.

Britain's current fleet of armoured vehicles are also close to approaching the end of their service life and armoured vehicles designed specifically for use in Helmand, such as the hugely successful Mastiff, may be inappropriate for use in other operational theatres.


The tank was invented by the British, who were the first in the world to deploy them, during WWI (above)

Scientists at BAE are also looking at a number of revolution battlefield inventions which will increase troop protection as well as making the vehicles more lethal.

One concept being developed is to develop technologies, which will cut the use of fuel on the battlefield. In Afghanistan, the cost of fuel is 50 times that of the pump price.

All fuel currently used by NATO troops comes in via road convoys which are often attacked by insurgents which are responsible for 80 per cent of US casualties.

Scientists are close to developing a form of transparent armour - much tougher than bullet proof glass – which could be used in turrets of on the sides of armoured vehicles which would improve the situational awareness of troops inside.

Also being developed is a technology known as "biometric integration" which uses advanced algorhythms to analyse crowds and to search for potential threats from suicide bombers by analyzing suspicious behaviour in groups or individuals.

Electronic scanners would search for suspicious behaviour, inappropriate clothing or individuals on wanted lists who can be identified through facial or iris recognition.

The information would then be displayed on screen within vehicle or handheld vehicles carried by dismounted troops.

Hisham Awad, the head of the Future Protected Vehicle project said: "The trick here is to use machines to do what they are best at (and humans are not) - ploughing very quickly through dull, repetitive data to strip out the overwhelming bulk which is of no use and would take a long time and enormous human resources to process.

"Then you can quickly bring human intelligence to bear where it excels - making life-or-death decisions based on 'real time' information on suspicious activity flagged up by the machines."


telegraph.co.uk
 
Last edited:

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I've also been watching how scientists are able to make objects as large as a quarter "invisible," by bending light (Discovery Science). I think it is a very exciting development for the technological future of our species--however, this then begs a larger question.

If we are approaching these exciting frontiers of science, then how are we still so grappled in petty arguments between neighbours on the international stage, necessitating military implementations of these technologies at all? I maintain that we need to find something to unite ourselves, so that we can pool our technological know-how to push the world forward into a new, greener, and more prosperous age.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I've also been watching how scientists are able to make objects as large as a quarter "invisible," by bending light (Discovery Science). I think it is a very exciting development for the technological future of our species--however, this then begs a larger question.

If we are approaching these exciting frontiers of science, then how are we still so grappled in petty arguments between neighbours on the international stage, necessitating military implementations of these technologies at all? I maintain that we need to find something to unite ourselves, so that we can pool our technological know-how to push the world forward into a new, greener, and more prosperous age.

Mais avant tout, on doit communiquer.

Most of the world's scientific texts are not even translated into English owing to exorbitant translation costs.

One possible solution would be something along these lines:

AIS San-Marino

An international academy that requires all submissions to be in both the author's first language and a commonly agreed upon, easy-to-learn second language. After all, let's not forget that scientists must often devote much time to science and technology, leaving not much time to learn the complexities of something like this:

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.

Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it's written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind,
Scene, Melpomene, mankind.

Billet does not rhyme with ballet,
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation's OK
When you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.

Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.

Query does not rhyme with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little,
We say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate;
Dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific.

Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.

Petal, panel, and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.

Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.

Pronunciation -- think of Psyche!
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won't it make you lose your wits,
Writing groats and saying grits?
It's a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.

Finally, which rhymes with enough --
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is to give up!!!

-- Author Unknown

YouTube - The Chaos of English Pronunciation

Oh English is torture.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
To start with, if we shut down the military complex of the world we would all be unemployed.
The main thought here is that there are all kinds of consumer benefits that come from those
defence department budgets, including flat screen TV, those abundant electronic games and
a thousand other ideas. The space race was another great innovator of science and we need
to keep that in mind as we criticize and protest against such extravagance.
If you set back science and discovery the world will look like Albania, and we will soon be like
sheep herders in the Middle East. I like the concept myself, the Brits also provided the world
with those jets that can fly like jets and land like helicopters, harrier jets or something like
that as I recall.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
To start with, if we shut down the military complex of the world we would all be unemployed.
The main thought here is that there are all kinds of consumer benefits that come from those
defence department budgets, including flat screen TV, those abundant electronic games and
a thousand other ideas. The space race was another great innovator of science and we need
to keep that in mind as we criticize and protest against such extravagance.
If you set back science and discovery the world will look like Albania, and we will soon be like
sheep herders in the Middle East. I like the concept myself, the Brits also provided the world
with those jets that can fly like jets and land like helicopters, harrier jets or something like
that as I recall.

It's a lot more efficient to put that money directly into civilian research. After all, the kind of screen the military needs might not be ideally suited to a living room, meaning more research needed compared to if the money had been put directly into developing a TV screen for living rooms for instance.

And the idea of spending money to create jobs as an end in itself is equally ridiculous. In that case, why not just hire a bunch of people to dig holes and others to fill them up all day. Mission accomplished.

If the government's concern is job creation and scientific innovation that will be beneficial to the people, then why not put it into the hands of the people. For instance, let's suppose the government gave school vouchers to all Canadians up to the age of 23. Would that not achieve those very same objectives far more efficiently? Let's look at it:

1. Job creation: Teachers, construction workers to build schools, the multi-media industry to buy computers for schools, etc.

2. civilian technological advancement: With a higher average education across the board, then even the average waiter might come up with new and innovative ideas on how to revolutionize the restaurant so as to make it more energy efficient, sanitary, more labour efficient, etc. etc. etc. either by reforming common administrative or social structural components, or alternatively by developing new technologies that could benefit him in his work.

Seeing that the general population has far more experience than government scientists in everyday private sector work life, and are likely to be more conscientious about developing low cost and affordable technologies with direct application to their daily lives, would that not prove a far more efficient investment than to dissociate such research from daily life, doing it in some theoretical world devoid of real life applicability, only for the private sector to then have to modify it again?