OT Predator Camoflauge .....tech advancement

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Got this in an email froma clan member during a discussion about the controversial Carrnivore System currently implemented by the FBI

ANyhow it seems that a cloaking system that is is like the one used in predator is under development

check this out ....

http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Aug00/NPO20706.html

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest dirkd1976]

That is some freaky ****.........

------------------

Never mistake motion for action - Ernest Hemingway

[Mannheim Tanker]

Cool idea, but I'd LOVE to see them get it to work on a tank that's full of mud, getting banged up by trees and the crew, and that can still provide the same NBC protective properties as the CARC paint that's currently on NATO armor. Still very impractical IMHO. It might work better on a plane or chopper, though. What do you wingnuts think?

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Hmmn.. i woulda figured if they got this far they woulda thought of that already

[Minnesota Joe]

Impractical on a tank or other vehicle, save scout units. Would work best for covering ground positions like artillery or refueling stations for helos in forest or jungle. That or by snipers or other covert ops.

------------------

Ah scheist.

[Mannheim Tanker]

"Hmmn.. i woulda figured if they got this far they woulda thought of that already"

LOL! I work at a NASA facility, and you should see some of the hairbrained ideas that people come up with!

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-13-2000).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Minnesota: The scouts and groundpounders get just as muddy as the tankers I'll believe this thing when I see it...I saw a more than a few gadgets proposed for tanks when I was on them that got stuck in the connexes (storage lockers) by the tankers because they were pieces of ***t. The turret hammock comes to mind

[Guest Michael emrys]

I began hearing about this a year or so ago.

It would seem to me to work best for objects seen against a simple background that remains the same when seen from different angles, e.g., a flying aircraft.

In the case of, say, a tank, your problem is producing simultaneously on one screen a picture for each angle that the tank may be viewed from (on that side). There may be a technical way to do this, but it won't be simple and it won't be cheap.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

I began hearing about this a year or so ago.

It would seem to me to work best for objects seen against a simple background that remains the same when seen from different angles, e.g., a flying aircraft.

In the case of, say, a tank, your problem is producing simultaneously on one screen a picture for each angle that the tank may be viewed from (on that side). There may be a technical way to do this, but it won't be simple and it won't be cheap.

Michael

P.S. One more thing: if this is done electronically (a strong presumption) it may have an identifiable emissions fingerprint that would give the whole game away.

[Ash]

If only the Germans had this

------------------

The names Ash, Housewares

[Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger]

That is rather interesting but outside of a laboratory the real world is much different and things that may be thought of as brilliant suddenly are subject to not just calculations on paper but the true world that loves to mess with stuff anyway possible... *lol* Mr.Murphy will be more than willing to point that out if he was here right now...instead he is out messing up my car's engine.

However in stationary objects this system could work, on an Abrams moving through broken terrain quickly you could wind up with jolted and malfunctioning equipment... not to mention there are other problems... when you move you create dust clouds etc so although you may be "invisible" plumes of dust will be seen churned up by the invisible tank. Not to mention electronic signature, there is bound to be some kind of noticable emmissions off a platform such as this so hence it will be the same as ever... one side comes out with a new gadget the opossing force comes out with a way to combat it and so forth. Kinda like reactive armor in a different context.

[Mannheim Tanker]

The biggest problem with applying this technology to land warfare is that it doesn't address the method with which all modern AFV's acquire targets - their thermal signature. I've scanned woodlines with daylight optics and have seen nothing, but when I switched to TIS (thermal sights), I saw an infantry platoon sneaking forward! Most land units can already make themselves "invisible" with standard camoflage and smart tactics.

Der Unbekannte Jäger (clever handle ) hit it on the head - new technology is cool in the lab, but is often impractical when brought into the field. We had so much trouble with MILES gear (which is probably 1000 times less complicated than this stealth stuff) that I can't even comprehend getting this stealth package to work reliably on ANY land system.

This technology would probably have a better application in stealth aircraft. From my understanding, the F117 is most vulnerable in daytime when being tracked by optical sights. If this "Predator" technology actually worked on a plane (and didn't foul up the other stealth technologies employed), it would render it nearly completely invisible from thermal, radar, and optical systems. Cool idea to think about...

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-14-2000).]

[BasilD]

I feel for any maintence personnel responsible for something like this.

------------------

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

[Wesreidau]

Quit it with the negative waves guys..

Technology takes such leaps and bounds that who knows where we will be in 5-10 years. Looking back over the last decade I am shocked at what has been accomplished...the net, mobile phones, Stealth tech etc We take it for granted now but who would have thought we could have accomplished such things in the early 80`s? Besides, I want my very own "Predator" suit.

[Mace]

I have an improvement...have it merge the background images with prerecorded ones!

I can then use prerecorded film of myself working extremely hard, merge it with the office background view on screens strategically placed between the Boss and I, and take a long nap!

From the Boss' perspective, it looks like I'm still working!

Yep, I like this new technology!

Mace

[Mannheim Tanker]

I wouldn't call it negative - more like realistic. I've been around the R&D community just long enough to realize that a large proportion of the "great ideas" out there never materialize because the world has a funny way of not imitating laboratory conditions. If you can't get a simple laser tag system to work reliably on a tank or foot soldier, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you'd be able to get this thing to work. Besides, my personal atomic transporter system will make all of this obsolete

[Deuce]

For what it's worth I looked it over and it sounds more or less workable, provided the the key enabler technologies become available. Since it uses fiberoptics to transmit the light input from one side of the structure to light output on the other side, it would be just as easy to render a complex or even moving background as a static uniform one. This is the same as how glass works, light goes in one side and light goes out the other. The nature of that light makes no difference. If there's a problem it would come from, durabilty, weight, maintainablity, etc. Historicly these sorts of problems are generally pretty easy to solve once you make the theory work.

I've found that you rarely get anywhere being pessimistic about technology. If nobody ever innovated we'ed still be chucking rocks at each other. I mean how many people thought that airplanes would never fly, or that automobiles would never be practical?

[This message has been edited by Deuce (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

I'm not arguing that it won't work technically - my point was that it was probably not very practical for use on AFV's or infantry. If the thing is covered in mud or is getting bashed into trees, will it still work? I also wonder if the value added is really worth the probable high cost...if infantry are already fairly invisible to the naked eye (eg snipers and scouts), do you need an expensive system to make them more invisible?

I was really hoping that some wingnuts out there would be able to comment on whether this would be more practical if applied to aircraft. I could also see law enforcement applications (eg a stakeout).

[Deuce]

The main consideration with aircraft would be weight I would think. Back during World War II they developed a different (and much simpler) system to make aircraft less visable. I beleive it was called the Doolittle project.

The idea arose from the war in the Atlantic. U-boat captins often had enough time to spot an incoming aircraft and submurge before that aircraft could attack. The idea was to fit an array of lightbulbs on the aircraft, that when illumiated could allow it to blend in with the sky. When you think about it, it makes sense. Often, the first evidence you have that an aircraft is in the area is a black dot in the sky, but if that black dot generates enough light that it looks just like the bright sky behind it it's nearly invisible at long to medium ranges. The idea never really took off because radar came into widespread use not long after and made visual sighting a secondary concern.

Now that we have radar stealthy aircraft I imagine that there will be much more study into visualy stealthy technologies.

As an interesting side note: I have heard from several sources that the optimal color for an aircraft to minimize visabilty from the ground in the widest varity of lighting conditions is light pink. Of course no one will drive a light pink fighter

[Mannheim Tanker]

LOL! Have you ever seen that old war movie where they painted the sub pink? I don't think it gave them any stealth characteristics, though.

[Bertram]

Deuce, I don't think it will be as simple as capturing the image (by a lens) in a fiberoptic and transporting it to the other side.

First the article states that the aperture to capture the image is very smal (as it should be, or you would not be stealthed from that side). So obviously there has to be some system to get this captured image to the size needed, be it lenses or an electronic system.

Second it states that the system has to correct for the ambient light (it has to: a small aperture will catch much less light as the large panels need to blend in). This again shows that there has to be some way of manipulating the image.

Thirthly (sp?) there will be some distance between the image catching aperture and the display panels, as well potential displacements in height and lateral position. While this might not matter much against a broke or distand background, it will surely destroy the illusion against a closer background or straight lines.

And finally: as long as they can't make a 14' flat screen viewable from any angle but close to 90 I don't see how they can pull this of with panels big enough to hide a tank.

So while it might theoretically be a nice idea I don't think it will be technically possible for along time to come.

The idea looks like a sophisticated version of the Cameleon camouflage that was talked about a few years ago. The idea there was to have a outer skin (paint, plastic layer, tentlike cover, the details varied) which could change color depending on the background. Only here the choise was between a number of prerendered patterns, and the way of changing them was through thermodynamics or electric currents, the choice either hand selected or by an outside camera (depending on the source). Never heard anything from it while the technoligy is quite a bit simpeler than this one.

(Or did they finish it and are they looking at us? Should we send in the X-men? )

Bertram

[Deuce]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertram:

Deuce, I don't think it will be as simple as capturing the image (by a lens) in a fiberoptic and transporting it to the other side.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. My statment above was over simplistic. I realize that there would have to be some processing involved, but I don't see that as the major obstacle in acheiving this technology. We already have computer programs (like quake III) that can generate a virtual object and then shade the surface of that object (on the fly) based on the nearby light sources. In theory, you would need to due the same for actual objects and actual lightsources. The major differnce is that the program would have to be able to measure the light intensity and direction accurately enough to provide realistic shading. Obviously it's a complicated system, but I think it could be made to work. Whether is't worth the effort is another matter.

You mention color-change paint. I have read about this also. As I understand it they can acheive surprizingly high resoultions with it (paint on top of lots of little electrodes which are used to change the color). Although, I'm not sure if veiwing it from an angle distorts the colors or not, I think something like this would be optimal for this system, given the various detractors to conventional displays that have been mentioned.