Concealment?

[SgtMuhammed]

The Predator style suit might not be that far fetched. Imagaine this. Fiber optic cables woven into a combat suit that transmit light from 180 degrees behind the wearer. To someone looking at the wearer he looks like what he is in front of. No need to have some wierd force fields or some such. In the next couple of decades who knows what will happen.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The Predator style suit might not be that far fetched. Imagaine this. Fiber optic cables woven into a combat suit that transmit light from 180 degrees behind the wearer. To someone looking at the wearer he looks like what he is in front of.

Maybe. But I doubt if any existing or projected technology will do that any time soon, or at a cost that would be acceptable.

Which is not to say that it isn't a route that should be investigated. It's just that I don't see such suits being made and handed out to the average GI.

Michael

[SgtMuhammed]

Then again 50 years ago no one figured every infantryman would have a fully automatic weapon either. Fiber-optic cable is pretty cheap and is getting cheaper. In 10 to 20 years...

[juan_gigante]

Perhaps the Canadians have developed it, and Dorosh is wearing it right now. Watching.

[Peter Cairns]

sgtgoody (esq)

Your missing the point.

No one is saying you can project an image, but any image you project will only work for one viewer at one range.

If the light level and image size work for someone at 15m and hide you, they will do the opposite for someone at 50m and make you stand out.

And as Steve said, as soon as you start moving that constantly changing image will be like having a flashing beacon on your head.

Regardess of new technology the nature of light and the importance of the views position might make it impossible to make work.

Peter.

[juan_gigante]

Oh! Oh! Problem! What about their weapons and kit? I'm going to make a guess here and say that it will be a lot longer than 10-20 years before we would see such "cloaking" fiber-optics on an assault rifle. And would they have to have all their soldier stuff on under the special suit? If not, wouldn't their ammo, etc, be visible?

"What's that floating gun doing there?"

"It's got some grenades and crap attached."

"Let's shoot at it!"

I can see how that could turn out poorly. Excluding the whole "you could still kind of see them, especially when they move". Hey, and what about in almost every movie with an invisible person, when they get mud on them or something and you can totally see the outline of the mud on them? Will we just not send soldiers to places with mud?

[juan_gigante]

This, of course, begs the further question about such suit's inclusion in CM gameplay. Going with the mud thing I outlined before, could the defender buy mud as a fortification to identify "cloaked" foes? Would mud have rarity?

[mazex]

Originally posted by SSgt Viljuri:

Will pixilated camouflages (CADPAT, MARPAT, ARPAT and FINNISH M/05) give an edge to the rest of the world's ordinary camouflages?

Like to Sweden's ordinary M/90?

Just asking...

En interesting anecdote regarding camouflage and the swedish M90 Uniform uniform (which is a regular camo uniform)...

I don't know if this is true but my major told me this story when I was in the army: When the M90 camo uniform was beeing developed the swedish army had the M59 uniform which was monotone green, and before that the M39 wich was monotone grey. Tests where performed with all three uniforms to compare the visibility in varying conditions, different light, movement etc. The winner was the old M59 uniform. It was only in dusk/dawn that the M90 was best. Obviously the natural camuflage by folds in the fabric and shadows are better than camouflaged fabric - at least according to the tests. The main reason for adopting the new uniform was from what I've heard that it was considered morale boosting. The soldiers feel better camouflaged and it looks better and more modern...

/Mazex

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

sgtgoody (esq)

Your missing the point.

No one is saying you can project an image, but any image you project will only work for one viewer at one range.

If the light level and image size work for someone at 15m and hide you, they will do the opposite for someone at 50m and make you stand out.

And as Steve said, as soon as you start moving that constantly changing image will be like having a flashing beacon on your head.

Regardess of new technology the nature of light and the importance of the views position might make it impossible to make work.

Peter.

No Peter you are being far too conservative about what might be standard equipment in the next few decades.

They are getting ready to turn the average infantryman into a computerized fully integrated weapon's system. Once the system is up and running he will be able to see the position of all his mates on his computer display eyepiece and send all of them text messages. He will be able to lase a target and have the position of that target instantly transmitted to every big gun in the division. He will be able to send live video and thermal imagery to whoever requests it. All of these things were considered laughably impossible only 25 years ago. I know this because I have carried the system in its prototype stage.

As for the soldier's equipment. As it is it renders cammo nearly useless as it is. "Hey, why I have never seen a grenade tree before! And look it's wearing NODs!" That doesn't stop the military from using cammo and spending a lot of time and money working on something that is going to be covered with a lot of non-blending junk.

[Peter Cairns]

sgtgoody (esq)

I am begining to think no anount of technology is going to make you see the point of this.

It was considered laughable 100 years ago that we would be able to bend light with radio waves so that it would go round corners, and heres the thing....

It still is because it doesn't work and you can't do it.

My arguement isn't technological it's theoretical,..

Because the effect is dependant on the position of the observer, and must be specifically designed to fool someone at a particular point, regardless of the technology used it won't work for multiple targets at different ranges.

This isn't about fibre optics are light sensitive fabrics, it's about geometry, and technology don't change that.

A computer might be able to calculate 142x167 far faster than any human, but the answer is still 23,714.

What technology can do is get the answer quicker but it can't change the answer...

Peter.

[SgtMuhammed]

There is nothing theoretical about it. It is a fact that you can send a ray of light down a fiber optic cable and out the other end, it doesn't matter if you tie the cable in knots. I'm not talking about turning the soldier into a gravity lense but rather more like an LCD.

[Peter Cairns]

sgtgoody (esq)

I'll try to explain this as slowly as possible.

(God this is getting like Father Ted with Dougal in the Caravan, "Small...Far Away",...).

Imagine a triangle with three different sized sides,

The points are A,B, and C.

With me so far, good.

Point A is the target that has reactive camoflage.

Point B is the first observer.

Point C is the second observer,

B is closer to the target than C,

B and C are seperated by less distance than from A to B or A to C, but still apart.

still with me.

Now If you take the line from B to A and continue it half the distance you get a tree directly behind A that B would see if A wasn't there.

This is what A must project at the right scale, detail level and ambient light to fool and observer at B.

Now if we continue the line from C to A twice trhe distance we get a red brick wall. which is what A must project at the right detail, scale and Ambience to fool C.

Now Lets hope you can follow this...

THEREFORE TO FOOL BOTH B AND C, A MUST SIMULTANIOUSLY PROJECT BOTH A CLOSE TREE, AND A DISTANT RED BRICK WALL ON THE SAME SURFACE AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS THEORECTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE NO MATTER HOW MANY F***KING FO CABLES YOU USE...........

I can't get the hang of adding diagrammes so if anyone who can understands this please could you draw the above and add it, as I have my doubts sgtgoody (esq) will get it yet.

Peter.

[SgtMuhammed]

I actually learned a long time ago not to argue with a Scot (or to bet one he couldn't down a half liter Guiness but that is a different story). We will have to agree to dissagree.

I understand your argument I just don't agree with it. I am not talking about projecting a specific object, I am talking about basically turning the soldier's uniform into a flexible display screen with integrated video pickups. When viewed at different angles you see different images.

Not easy but not impossible.

I can show you a long list of the "Theorectically Impossible." Wasn't it "Theorectically impossible" to travel past the speed of sound? What is "Absolutly Impossible" is to know what will be fact as soon as tomorrow.

[juan_gigante]

Never mind - I tried to make a diagram but it didn't really work.

[SgtMuhammed]

Not same surface showing different image. If you are going to help the man at least understand what he is saying.

[Peter Cairns]

But two people at different angles and ranges will intersect at the point of the target with the reactive camoflage, and that means two different images from two different points being projected from the same point to fool both, and that's impossible.

I doesn't have to be atree or wall, if the view b to A has a shadow background, and C to A a blue sky, then to fool both a has to project dark shade and blue sky on his chest at the same time.

As to lots of things that were thought impossible, as this is about geometry prove me wrong

POST A PICTURE OF A FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE.

Like I said this isn't technological, it's theoretical.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

Oh and it was never theorectically impossible to go faster than the speed of sound, or fly (or even the arguement against trains, as the human body couldn't stand speeds above 30mph), people stated these things and believed them, but few proved them or had a theoretical basis for them..

There is a fundamental difference between saying,

"You'll never be able to build a plane that can go that fast", Technical/technological.

and

"You can't go faster than the speed of light because E+MC2, means that anything with mass by definition , can't reach the speed of light" thats, Theoretical.

Peter.

[SgtMuhammed]

The fundamental difference is that now we know better. When people believed that you couldn't go faster than sound there were lots of "proofs." To many it was theoretically impossible. The ones who doubted that it was were the ones who went out and did it.

It was theoretically impossible to split the atom until they increased their knowledge of actual make up of matter.

Even the universal constant is coming under fire which can totally undermine the basis for physics as we know it.

Assuming that we absolutely KNOW anything today is absurd.

[Peter Cairns]

It wasn't theorectically impossible to split the atom before it was done, the people who did it were working on the basis of a theory of the structure of the atom that said it could be done.

There may indeed be a way found in the future to conceal moving infantry from view from more than one point at a time, but it just won't be the one you are suggesting because it relies on projecting multiple incompatable images on the same surface at the same time.

In the 19th century people suggested ways to get to the moon, these included a giant cannon, or even rockets. however they also included flocks of swans carrying baskets, and the oder from french cheese.

Your suggestion is in the swans and cheese catagory, they won't work...

others might but not yours.

peter.

[SgtMuhammed]

Like I said, we will have to agree to dissagree.

Thanks for engaging in a discussion that didn't devolve into the standard "you are a poopy-head."

Fun stuff

[flamingknives]

Ah, but the original theoretical model of the atom was that it was a hard sphere and, in fact by definition, indivisible.

Only when the theoretical model was changed to reflect (then) current knowledge, did splitting the atom become possible, in theory.

The fibre optic concept falls down because the are constant width, and rather flexible.

The flexibility means that you cannot guarantee that each end of the fibre will be directly opposite the other and pointing in the right direction.

The constant width means that you cannot cover the whole body in fibres pointing in all directions. You will inevitably end up seeing the sides of the fibres running in directions other than the one that you're looking at.

More likely tech at the moment is chameleon-type colour changing

[Battlefront.com]

One thing that is being experimented with is a biological angle. The main problem with turning a chameleon suit (the common name for the concept) into reality is the power supply. Various animals (and I include algee here) can blend themselves in very effectively by using a chemical process to change the pigmentation of the skin. If this process can be replicated effectively (there has been some lab success already) then it might be possible to minimize the amount of hardware that is required to make the suit work.

The other thing that is being worked on is nanotechnology.

There are tons of practical limitations to these things, and all of them are going to run into trouble with environmental factors. For example, going to ground in mud and then getting up... how is that fancy suit going to work now? What happens if the suit is made out of bio fluid... how tough do the containers need to be in order to keep the fluid from spilling out? And as mentioned above there is the problem of weapons, gear, and what not that won't be invisible.

Until there is some sort of projector that can dynamically change the air molecules around the soldier to mimic whatever is behind him, I don't think a chameleon suit is practical. At least not like Predator. However, hiding 80% of the solder 50% of the time is still a rather significant advantage provided the tradeoffs don't negate the gains.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Until there is some sort of projector that can dynamically change the air molecules around the soldier to mimic whatever is behind him...

That is an interesting concept that might even be doable. But not for years and maybe decades. Possibly centuries. Again, there is this problem of geometry that Peter brings up. Until that is solved, nothing is going to work very well, if at all.

Michael

[SgtMuhammed]

Of course that won't stop people from trying. Modern cammo is very ineffective in the majority of circumstances but there is still a lot of time and money devoted to it.

[Peter Cairns]

Of course if we ever do get it to work, we then face the problem of Friendly Fire, you know.

In your "chameleon suit" you line up an unsuspecting target and open up, only to find half way through the first clip, that "Chuck" is standing in between you.

Peter.