Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Electric Armor 389

Posted by michael from the everything-is-better-with-electricity dept.
Ch_Omega and others wrote in about a new type of reactive armor in development. As far as I can tell, what they're talking about is essentially large capacitors on the outside of the vehicle, charged up by the vehicle's electrical system. Anti-tank warheads use a shaped charge to create a jet of molten copper that pierces armor, but in this case, when the jet bridges the capacitor plates, it immediately becomes a conductor for X coulombs of current, which effectively vaporizes and disrupts it enough that it won't pierce the vehicle's armor. (Conventional reactive armor does the same thing with explosives.) Interesting idea, if it works.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electric Armor More

Electric Armor

Comments Filter:

  • Ouch (Score:2, Funny)

    by MaxVlast ( 103795 )
    Woe betide the poor hapless private who loses his balance and leans on the tank to steady himself. Shazam!

    • Re:Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)

      by antirename ( 556799 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @04:50PM (#4137832)
      No, you'd somehow have to peirce the outer plate to get a discharge... I wonder if this will have any side effects on electronics, though? Also, would anyone inside be able to hear after a round hit? Even if it didn't penetrate, it would be like being trapped in a gong... which is still better than being dead, though.

      • Re:Ouch (Score:4, Informative)

        by Phanatic1a ( 413374 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @05:52PM (#4138151)
        You have to do more than pierce the outer plate. Basically, the outer plate is charged, and the inner surface is grounded. The cap only discharges when something bridges the plates. 'course, if something doesn't bridge the plates, then it didn't penetrate and you're safe anyway.

        Tank crews tend to retain their hearing after being in a tank that's impacted by enemy fire; an APC crew shouldn't have a significantly worse experience, assuming they're not dead or otherwise shredded by spalling.

    • Aliens (Score:2)

      by cscx ( 541332 )
      Anyone remember Independence Day? I bet they stole the technology from downed alien spacecraft they have stashed somewhere in New Mexico or Nevada!

    • Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @05:48PM (#4138133) Homepage Journal
      In other articles on this subject, it was disclosed that the internal electrode carries the charge, the outside one is grounded, so there's no danger.

      The advantage of this system is weight, and the fact that it can cycle fairly rapidly to repel multiple attacks. The disadvatage is that it requires a lot of power to charge. In theory, once charged, the caps shouldn't require more energy.

      It's not perfect, but to stop a single random weapon, it's a very good idea.

      --Mike--

  • Sounds expensive (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 25, 2002 @04:47PM (#4137822)
    Wouldn't it be cheaper to have the tank scuff its feet on the carpet?
    • Wouldn't it be cheaper to have the tank scuff its feet on the carpet?

      No, that would be silly. The cost reduction plan currently under study calls for installing a clothes dryer full of polyester slacks at the rear of the tank.

    • Polarize the hull plating? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Blaede ( 266638 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @07:57PM (#4138646)
      This kinda sorta sounds like what Archer does to the Enterprise everytime he goes into battle (yes, I know it's just fictional entertainnment, calm your ass down). Remember all the /.ers scoffing at the "bring the armor plating online" script line for the first episode this season?
  • It seems that plates that can sustain such a large charge/current on the outside of a vehicle might interfere with radio transmissions. I realize that antennae could address this problem, but then the antennae would become a fairly obvious target. Is this a good assumption?

    • Re:interference... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JAZ ( 13084 )
      Yes, antennae are targets, but I've never see an armored vehicle with out them ( and I servered 6 years in a armored division. ) In fact, US tankers are trained to shoot at the target with the most antennae as that is most likely a command vehicle or otherwise crucial to the cooridnation of the enemy.

  • Water-based weapons (Score:5, Funny)

    by mclearn ( 86140 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @04:52PM (#4137848) Homepage
    My sword of water beats your armour of electricity.

  • Very Effective (Score:3, Informative)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @04:53PM (#4137852)
    From reports on the BBC (TV not site) this is a very effective armour, and the power is provided by the tank itself, using its usual power supply. This techinology was developed solely in the UK, with the US army being very interested in it.
    Apparently a single tank can withstand multiple (10 or more) hits from a RPG when this system is in use, which hopefully will cut down on the threat!

    • ... and only against HEAT projectiles. Sabot rounds will still punch nasty holes in non-Chobham armor.

    • Re:Very Effective (Score:5, Informative)

      by ericman31 ( 596268 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @06:20PM (#4138277) Journal

      Actually, tanks like the Challenger (British Army) and the M1 Abrams can withstand RPG hits now, 10 more hits would not be a major issue. My M1A1 Heavy was hit by an RPG during Desert Storm. I didn't even notice until we were recovering and rearming after that mission. This sort of armor would be a tremendous boon for infantry fighting vehicles, which are very vulnerable to RPG rounds and shaped charge HEAT type tank rounds.

      • My M1A1 Heavy was hit by an RPG during Desert Storm. I didn't even notice until we were recovering and rearming after that mission.

        What about if it got hit by a BFG? :)

      • I don't think this armor would be useful on Bradleys and the like, where you have infantrymen mounting and dismounting from the vehicle. The only time that you could turn it on would be when the soldiers were not on the vehicle and how do you make sure that it's shut off when soldiers are near?

        I don't think this is a very good solution for mechanized warfare; to me, it sounds more suited to aircraft.
        • How are you going to ground the aircraft?-) Anyway, you don't have to use that shield on all sides of the vehicle, just turn it off on the back when that opens. When you are under heavy fire, it may not be a good idea to make a big hole in your armor anyway.

      • Re:Very Effective (Score:3, Insightful)

        by olman ( 127310 )
        Composite armor can pretty much ignore HEAT weapons *head on*, but let's see which way the Abrahams jumps when hit on ass with an RPG. In any case, the RPG-7 everyone and their grandmother owns in 3rd world is pretty damn old. Current generation weapons such as APILAS and Panzerfaust-III have a tandem warhead and bigger diameter overall. Have to wonder what the precursor charge will do to the capacitor.. I guess not very much!

        • Re:Very Effective (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ericman31 ( 596268 ) on Monday August 26, 2002 @09:43AM (#4140941) Journal

          In order to be man portable (one soldier can carry the entire system himself) the weapon cannot carry effective tandem warheads. And the whole reason that the TOW II was designed (tandem warhead, top down attack) is that the TOW IB, which had the largest warhead of its generation of ATGM's, was not able to effectively penetrate the laminate style armor used on Challenger, the M1, and the Leopard II. An RPG hit to the rear or flank of the tank might get a mobility kill, although even that is questionable. The RPG hit my tank took was on the turret flank, no penetration, some minor damage to the sponson box on that side of the tank (tool stowage).

          The new top down attack ATGM's like TOW II, Milan, etc. are quite effective against tanks, until the tank crew starts putting effective fire on the missile crew, since they have to hold their sites on the tank for as long as 15 seconds. A main gun round and several hundred machine gun rounds will just screw up your whole day.

    • don't you know not to believe everything you see on TV?

      The Internet OTOH... ;-)

    • Apparently a single tank can withstand multiple (10 or more) hits from a RPG when this system is in use, which hopefully will cut down on the threat!

      Admittedly I don't know the first thing about armaments or artillery, but how long until RPGs are made with non-conductive cores? This only works when the core is "fried" as it bridges the connection between two charged "leads".

      • The RPG needs a core with a high density to work. You won't find anything that doesn't conduct much better than air with these properties. Fill the capacitor with air or even better with some noble gas and charge it with enough charge and it will fry almost everything, even things that don't conduct very good.
        It would be a problem, if the core would conducts too good. Then all of the charge could just discharge over the bridge made by the core and the core would not be fried.

      • Re:Very Effective (Score:3, Informative)

        by Phanatic1a ( 413374 )
        Okay, here's how HEAT rounds work.

        You've got a shaped charge of HE surrounding a metal liner that's usually copper. In this picture [fas.org], you can clearly see the copper liner surrounded by the shaped charge.

        When the HE blows, it turns the metal liner into a slug traveling at mind-boggling velocities. This slug is what penetrates the armor.

        To replace the liner with a non-conductive material is easier said than done, since the non-conductive material will have to behave similarly enough to a metal to deform appropriately when the shaped charge blows; a ceramic probably won't do the trick. It will also have to be dense enough to matter; polystyrene probably won't do the trick.

        And finally, there's a tremendous amount of surplus RPGs floating around. Nullifying those as a threat is a good idea, even if armsmakers develop new kinds in the future.
  • Well this really is quite a cool piece of technology - the only problem is, as they state later in the article, its a solution to a single problem. This armour will only prevent against RPG's and bullets.. you hit a mine or go against something a little nastier, and it will not be able to protect you.

    You would have to be pretty certain of the battle you were about to go into before you delployed vehicles carrying this specific type of armour?
    • Well now, a solution to a single problem out of many is better than no solutions to many problems.

      It's only a matter of time before they apply it to kenetic anti-tank weapons, not just heat-based anti-tank weapons.

      Having this armor on a tank won't decrease it's armor vs. other types of weapons, it just won't increase it. But, it'll make it untouchable for RPGs, which seem to be the weapon of choice for terrorists/middle eastern conflicts.
    • Well, there are a lot of areas where peacekeepers would probably love to have this sort of tech. Figure on urban areas in the Third World where small arms, RPGs and their ilk, and maybe mortars / other small support are common, but where your average warlord is unlikely to get his hands on a bona-fide tank or helicopter gunship. In that case, your biggest worries probably are stuff like... ...improvised explosives (and they need to be pretty powerful; the Israelis have lost, what, only 2-3 Merkavas during this intifada, if memory serves despite throwing them into urban zones that /should/ be nightmarish for tanks, in theory) ...mines (for which you might want an engineering AFV and engineer troops) ...RPGS (cheap and common... and if numbers are vastly on their side, they may not need to do much more than immobilize) ...ambushes / betrayals (Sure, I'll lead you to him, just dismount here...)

      but you're unlikely to be dealing with, say, a warlord who's managed to get an armored force but has hidden it for all the while.

  • Movies as reference? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @04:55PM (#4137864)
    "RPGs are extraordinarily widespread," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. "And if you have any doubt of that, watch Black Hawk Down."

    Can i please not take any movie as a reference for stuff like this, otherwise id like to meet Willy Wonker and his fabulous Chocolate factory!!

    • Re:Movies as reference? (Score:4, Funny)

      by raduga ( 216742 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @05:33PM (#4138070)
      Oompa Loompa, doompadee doo,
      I've got a tougher armor for you.
      Oompa Loompa, doompadee dee,
      If you are wise run away from me.

      What do you get when you shoot at a TANK?
      All flattened like a Palestinian CAMP!
      Why bother hitting when you will get FRIED
      What do you think they next.. will.. try?

      (with another megaton)

      Oompa Loompa Doompadee dib,
      If you are hardened then you will live
      You will be in happiness too
      Like the Oompa Loompa doopity do!

    • "Can i please not take any movie as a reference for stuff like this"

      What did you expect? This is what happens when you try to use Wired as a substitute for Jane's Defense Weekly.

      I swear, everybody on /. bemoans the way "normal" media gets coverage of things like Linux all fouled up, but then assume the computer-centric media somehow knows more about other subjects than honest-to-God experts.
    • Well considering BHD is based on a TRUE story, i'd say its decent testimony at best.

  • It has its uses, but is not a wonder-system (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kuad ( 529006 ) <demento@fu[ ]ou.co.uk ['cky' in gap]> on Sunday August 25, 2002 @04:59PM (#4137888)
    Basically, the system can protect the weaker areas of a tank (the top or back) or a smaller, more moderately armored vehicle from HEAT attacks.

    It's not good on too-lightly armored vehicles as even a dispersed molten copper spray will do some nasty damage. It's not good for the front of a main battle tank because they're all impervious to HEAT rounds anyways.

    It also doesn't protect a tank from the most lethal of tank killing objects - the discarding sabot "long-rod" penetrator. Which is essentially a long, pointy rod of some appropriately dense material (depleted uranium being popular) that uses pure kinetic energy to annihilate the other tank.

    So it is a useful technology, but some people are getting far too excited about it. It's a solution to a couple of problems - namely that battle tanks can't have heavy armor everywhere and that medium vehicles are sitting ducks for anti-tank rounds.
  • OK, so it works by vaporising the copper tip (using hi-amp electricity) of the RPG that normally gets fired into the target by the shaped charge?

    So, they'll just start making RPGs that don't have an electrically conductive tip. Set the bad guys back a few years, but they'll just find something else to shoot with the existing ammo.

    Bummer, nice idea though. Could you get the power up high enough for an arc to destroy just about anything?

    • It's not really the "tip" we're talking about, it's the molten metal stream that all armor piercing weapons (since the 40s) use to do the damage. This means the temperature of the stream has to be hot enough to melt armor, and AFAIK only other metals can get hot enough to melt metal.

  • beer (Score:5, Funny)

    by squarefish ( 561836 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @05:03PM (#4137920)
    Could you arm a refrigerator with this?
    I'd love to find a way to keep my roomate from drinking my beer.

  • Cool, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <{ten.tsacmoc} {ta} {relyo.nhoj}> on Sunday August 25, 2002 @05:04PM (#4137925) Journal
    Is GM offering it standard or as an option? Those fucking carjackers are in for it now....
  • I read this article a week or so ago on reuters, except the headline was that the British were developing it, and the the US was interested.

    This article headlines the US then goes on about how the British were doing everything It then mentions in a single paragraph that the US has spent over $110 million on it but gives no details.

    Interesting.
  • Since Q(charge, Coulombs)=V(voltage, Volts)*C(capacitance, Farads), and I(current, Amperes)=V/R(resistance, Ohms), you could calculate the current. However, my guess is the military classifies this data.

  • Uh-oh! (Score:4, Funny)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @05:36PM (#4138085)
    I pitty the poor fool that fires a wire-guided missile at one of these tanks eh?

    However, I suspect it would create a good market for graphite-ribbon missiles similar to the type used to take out power generators and substations.

  • RPG's $10 and are extraordinarily widespread (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @05:40PM (#4138105) Homepage
    One of the most dangerous and pervasive threats facing American and British troops in combat zones is a primitive grenade launcher that only sets your typical terrorist back about $10.

    Cool. How much is the shiping and handling? And where do I send my check? I'll take a gross. Just make sure they're delived by July 4th.

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

    "RPGs are extraordinarily widespread," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. "And if you have any doubt of that, watch Black Hawk Down."

    I later overheard him mention that

    "Phasers are extraordinarily widespread, And if you have any doubt of that, watch Star Trek."

    -
    • Ironically the only thing a RPG or a LAW is really effective against are APC's (like BMP or M2A2) - which usually have relatively weak armor - probably to maximize space.

      I'd honestly like to see a RPG take out a modern battletank like a M1A1 or even a T80 (which has explosive reative armor).
      • Wow, it would sure be helpful to know what exactly any of those acronyms are (RPG = Role Playing Game in this case? APC=Anonymous player character?? Wait BMP is a bitmap file....)

        • Re:RPG's $10 and are extraordinarily widespread (Score:5, Informative)

          by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday August 25, 2002 @11:31PM (#4139328)
          RPG = Rocket Propelled Grendade. They are rather popular anti-vehicle weapons for gurellia groups.

          LAW = Light Anti-tank Weapon. A little 1-use rocket launcher, again for nailing vehlicles.

          APC = Armoured Personel Carrier. A vehicle you stick troops in to get them some place without getting shot.

          BMP = Don't know what it means but it's a Russian APC.

          M2A2 = The Bradley. US light fighting vehicle. It has a small turret (25MM), missles, and holds 10 people. Kind of a beefed up APC made to fight along with the M1A1s.

          M1A1 = The Abrams battle tank, with the newer version being called the M1A2. Most powerful tank in the world, and there are very few weapons that can destroy one (espically the A2 variant) in one shot.

          T80 = Russian tank. Not as heavily armoured as the M1A2, but still huge.
      • Ahh, but after playing Operation Flashpoint for many hours, I can honestly claim to have taken out both M1A1s and T80s using RPGs.

        It *does* take several shots - usually between two and four, but you can do it. The secret is moving around a hell of a lot and having good cover on hand so they can't take you out when you're reloading or scavenging more rockets from your dead buddies/comrades.

        /mike
    • The Army [army.mil] also thinks RPG's are widespread.

      A Weapon For All Seasons: The Old But Effective RPG-7 Promises to Haunt the Battlefields of Tomorrow
      Among the production grenades are the PG-7, PG-7M, PG-7N, and PG-7VL antitank grenades with armor penetrability of up to 600mm of rolled homogeneous steel. The PG-7VR is a tandem warhead designed to penetrate explosive reactive armor and the armor underneath.

      600mm are about two feet. Though I don't think you will get that for $10 ;-)

      • Lars's link is a very interesting one.

        A lot of respondents here have said that a shaped charge projects a jet of molten copper. Years ago, when I used to subscribe to sci.military, I made that mistake. Many of the correspondents there didn't hesitate to quickly set me straight, and explain that the shaped charge projects a plasma jet. [wikipedia.org]

        Here is an article from Lawrence Livermore Labs [llnl.gov] with some excellent pictures of the jets in action.

        Here is another article [prohosting.com].

        And here are some animations.
        1 meg avi [feainformation.com]
        770K avi [feainformation.com]
        10 meg avi [feainformation.com]

        This newspaper article [telegraph.co.uk] gets the scale wrong. It says the jet travels at around 1000 miles per hour, ie not much more than the speed of sound, whereas the Lawrence Livermore article I linked to above says the jet travels at 10,000 kilometers per second. Michael Smith, the telegraph's defence correspondent, was off by a factor of just 57,000,000.

    • Hrm, I had an acquaintence who, in 1993, offered to sell me a Russian RPG for $150. $20/reload.

      I quit hanging around that crowd after that.
  • A dude I know was ripping up on Enterprise and how 'polarize the hull plating' doesn't mean anything. He insisted that it's just more 'Star Trek technobabble that doesn't mean anything'. This normally wouldn't be amusing except he thinks he knows everything about quantum physics, physics, and mathematics. I'm lookin forward to bursting his bubble. He takes this stuff seriously enough that you might consider what I'm about to do to him to be cruel. >:)

    *Loves slapping nitpickers around*
  • shoots a torpedo through the reactor vent, it should work nicely!
  • There seem to be a few misconceptions about how tanks fare on the battlefield and how HEAT warheads work.

    First off, a HEAT round detonates several feet away from the surface of a tank. The detonation shoots a stream of molten metal, which impacts the tank and attempts to cut through. Reactive armor helps to defeat this by disrupting the stream of molten metal so that it more or less splatters harmlessly against the tank. The idea is not to MELT or BURN through armor, but to cut it. The jet is moving at immense speeds (Driven by explosives). The bigger the warhead, ie, a TOW vs a LAW, the longer and more powerful the jet is.

    Anyway, reactive armor is mainly designed to defeat smaller arms and missiles. It has no effect against Sabot rounds. I've seen a couple of comments about how one would have to know what kind of weapons the enemy has. This is not true. Basically, reactive armor sits on top of standard armor. It's usually fairly lightweight, though bulky.

    Electrical reactive armor has the benefit of being easier to replace and make, as well as being a bit less dangerous for the crews to service. The reactive system will fail after one hit, but only in the location of the hit. Even if the tank were to be hit in the same spot twice, there is still a lot of armor to cut through. Reactive armor is basically a cheap, light layer of extra protection from HEAT-type rounds.

    As far as the effectiveness of the tank on the modern battlefield, one has only to point to the Gulf War. Regardless of the "Air hype", tanks were responsible for most of the enemy vehicle kills. Tanks will remain a part of the battlefield for quite some time, although they are working on some tanks with fewer crew and lower profiles which also incorporate some stealth technology. Finally, tanks are much cheaper and easier to maintain than aircraft, as well as packing incredible firepower. In many cases, ballistic weapons are superior to guided missiles, as well as beaing a lot less expensive. Regardless of it's "low-tech" design, a Sabot round is by far the most cost-effective anti-armor firepower in use today.

    Certainly tanks alone will be easy prey for aircraft, but most nations have a bewildering array of Surface to Air Missiles, which make aircraft a lot less effective. Tanks might get better, and incorporate new technology, but I doubt you will see the demise of the tank anytime in the near future.

    For more info, check out: http://www.tank-net.org/
    • I don't disagree that tanks will be around for awhile, but IIANM, 80%++ of all vehicle kills were officailly given to the 5 squadrons (~120) of USAF A-10 drivers, as well as almost all SCUD finds/kills using their mavericks as night vision devices.

      (visualize driving in LA looking thru a straw, looking for a winning bottle cap dropped on the side of the road somewhere)

      Sorry, after seeing the results of A-10 V tank, I'll dig a hole, thanks.

      They were even putting the F-16s INS/bomb nav in em, and full night vision, last I heard. I am glad I'll never lose that toss and be on the recieving team...
  • As several people with experience on tanks have noted, a battle tank's armor by and large can shrug off RPGs. The main use for this technology is with lighter vehicles such as APCs and Bradleys, which most definitely can NOT take an RPG hit and keep moving
  • Limiting your opponents's mobility is probably 80% of the battle. Something tells me this armour doesn't do a damn thing for the tracks. Granted, it's a smaller target to hit, but once he can't move, he's history sooner or later.
  • Anyone remember this article [slashdot.org]? It was about using piezoelectric microfibers in tennis rackets - when an electric current runs through the fibers, they become taut, giving an extra push to the ball. I always wondered if something like that could be used in military purposes (maybe personal armor, if not tank armor). If not, they might make a heck of a pair of boxing gloves!

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Close