Better Electronic Sensors Mean Militaries Need Better Camouflage (livemint.com) 72
Long-time Slashdot reader SpzToid shares a new report from the Economist:
Thanks to innovations such as fractal colouration patterns, which mimic nature by repeating shapes at different scales, the distance from which naked eyes can quickly spot soldiers wearing the best camouflage has shrunk, by one reckoning, by a fifth over the past two decades. That is impressive. On today's battlefields, however, it is no longer enough to merely hide from human eyes.
People and kit are given away as well by signals beyond the visual spectrum, and devices that detect these wavelengths are getting better, lighter and cheaper. Thermal sensors are a case in point. Today, one that costs about $1,000 and weighs as little as five sachets of sugar can, in good weather, detect a warm vehicle as far off as 10km. As Hans Kariis, deputy head of signatures research at the Swedish Defence Research Agency, notes, that is well beyond the range at which a small drone would be spotted. Two decades ago, he adds, a less sensitive thermal sensor weighing a kilogram cost ten times as much.
And then there's automatic target-detection software, the article points out, like the Kestrel software deployed in more than 3,500 aircraft around the world, which "scans feeds of visual, infrared and radar data, and places red boxes around people and other potential targets, even as their positions in the frame move." And the threat has only increased with the arrival of satellite-based synthetic-aperture-radar (SAR) imagery.
But then the article lists examples of new camouflage that now tricks electronic sensors:
People and kit are given away as well by signals beyond the visual spectrum, and devices that detect these wavelengths are getting better, lighter and cheaper. Thermal sensors are a case in point. Today, one that costs about $1,000 and weighs as little as five sachets of sugar can, in good weather, detect a warm vehicle as far off as 10km. As Hans Kariis, deputy head of signatures research at the Swedish Defence Research Agency, notes, that is well beyond the range at which a small drone would be spotted. Two decades ago, he adds, a less sensitive thermal sensor weighing a kilogram cost ten times as much.
And then there's automatic target-detection software, the article points out, like the Kestrel software deployed in more than 3,500 aircraft around the world, which "scans feeds of visual, infrared and radar data, and places red boxes around people and other potential targets, even as their positions in the frame move." And the threat has only increased with the arrival of satellite-based synthetic-aperture-radar (SAR) imagery.
But then the article lists examples of new camouflage that now tricks electronic sensors:
- Military vehicles affix hexagon-shaped sheets that can be cooled with electricity to blend into the temperature of their surroundings.
- Camouflage netting that absorbs (some) incoming radar beams with semi-conducting polymers while reducing heat signatures with insulation — and reflecting back the cooler temperature of the ground.
- Netherlands-based TNO makes "battery-powered sniper suits" embedded with 500 LEDs that match the luminosity and color of the surroundings using real-time data from a helmet camera.
Civilians are screwed (Score:2, Insightful)
But, for civilians: Privacy is already gone, ubiquitous technical surveillance is already.. pervasive, and the means for surveillance will become further commoditized. Public life will become (even more of) a mockery.
five sachets of sugar (Score:5, Funny)
"weighs as little as five sachets of sugar".
*shakes head*
How many Libraries of Congress is that, again?
Re:five sachets of sugar (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, I would much have preferred they give us the actual mass/weight. I don't pick up "sachets of sugar" very often; I know they have to be really light; but using them for comparison doesn't convey any useful information to me over what the term "really light" would have done.
But maybe the author was writing the story from his local Starbucks...
Re: (Score:3)
I think the generic weight is 5 grams, equivalent to one teaspoon, which means either they're just giving the weight of the sensor itself or they seriously fscked up their measurements.
I'll leave someone in the US to translate that measure into tetradrachms for the locals.
Re: (Score:2)
A "tea spoon" does not hold 5 gram of sugar.
Perhaps one gram, probably less.
A "sachet" I would have considered a "sack" and an english or American or European "pound".
But that is just me, to lazy to google "sachets" as I basically agree that the story should use "real units".
Re: (Score:2)
A "tea spoon" does not hold 5 gram of sugar.
It doesn't matter what one random teaspoon somewhere holds, when used as a cooking measure 1tsp = 5 grams = 5ml (with rounding for US imperial measurements, thus my comment about needing to convert it to tetradrachms for the US).
Re:five sachets of sugar (Score:5, Informative)
...are sachets of sugar even standard?? Quick search here in Italy gives me varying results, from 5 to 8 grams. This is ridiculous
Re:five sachets of sugar (Score:5, Funny)
It's roughly three Olympic-sized swimming pools per Rhode Island, if I got my unit conversions right.
The best testing ground (Score:5, Insightful)
The last three items mentioned would be perfect for the Ukrainian army to test while it's defending itself from Russia's invasion. With the upcoming offensive to liberate their country, the Ukrainian battlefield is the perfect place to test in real time under combat conditions.
We've already seen the magnificent performance of Germany's IRIS anti-aircraft missile system, the devastating impact of HIMARS and related rocket systems, and of course the deadly accuracy of the 777, German Panzerhaubitzen 2000, and French Caesar artillery systems. These new and untested camouflage systems can only make things better.
Re:The best testing ground (Score:4, Insightful)
Testing countermeasures to hi-tech detectors would require that the opponent is equipped with those. Muscovy's army has expended their stocks of medium-tech, and is closer to WW2 than to modern gear. While not all is rusted rifles the mobiks get, the "special forces" that Putin is so fond of are also scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Russia has already lost. Putin refuses to accep this and will send 10s of thousands of more Russians to their death as a result.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia has already lost.
Not at all. They are still on the field fighting.
If Ukraine's allies don't come through with better weapons, then Ukraine will lose the war of attrition.
Re: The best testing ground (Score:2)
Like the decapitated turkey that runs around without a head.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in 1940, the French were still in the field fighting after the German breakthrough in the Ardennes, but that didn't mean that they hadn't lost the war; it just meant that they hadn't realized yet that they'd lost it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
careful what you wish for, if it weren't for its "allies" ukraine would not be in ruins and with several millions of displaced right now, so good luck with that ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if it weren't for Russia ukraine would not be in ruins and with several millions of displaced right now
FTFY. There really is only one party to blame for this mess. And it's not Ukraine, not their allies, not NATO. If it weren't for Ukraine's allies (and their own stalward army), they'd be under the Russian boot by now.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
FTFY. There really is only one party to blame for this mess.
reality is never that simple. russia has indeed a share of the blame, but there are many parties to blame for this mess.
if rather than pointing fingers at imaginary villains echoing the newest fad of western propaganda you would like to educate yourself with a rigorous analysis of the unfolding of the events that lead to this mess, here's a very good starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
reality is never that simple. russia has indeed a share of the blame, but there are many parties to blame for this mess.
Really? Who forced Putin to invade Ukraine? No, I'm not going to watch your video, experience tells me that is always a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
well, it's a highly acclaimed and respected political analyst, and it's actually a lecture from 2015 where he pretty much predicted most of what has happened since, meaning his theory does have some solid basing indeed. but you do you, of course.
in short answer to your question, the us forced the russian regime into a desperate situation where a quick invasion was one of the alternatives. it probably wasn't the best, and it played out miserably, but that's another story. the point is that it happened for a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how this got modded up.
Probably just because they opposed me. I get mod bombed most days. The conservatives are always trying to cancel me.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how this got modded up. I'm not going to watch a lecture but I would read a transcript.
he has written several books on the topic. i'm not going to bother digging up references for you because from the rest of your post it is quite clear that you are very comfortable in your castle of beliefs which are, not by coincidence i guess, completely overlaps western propaganda. i know, it is astonishingly pervasive as much as it is stupid.
no worry, it will be dispelled in a few years when it no longer matters. just like colin powell's weapons of mass destruction, remember? if we don't nuke ourselves
Re: (Score:2)
aren't you a snowflake, drinky :-D
just kidding. or not. :P
Re: (Score:2)
aren't you a snowflake, drinky :-D
I'm not gonna cry about it, but I do find it to be a bit ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
the us forced the russian regime into a desperate situation
That's nonsense. The Russian regime put itself into a desperate situation by facilitating the sacking of the country by oligarchs instead of public works projects that would improve infrastructure and employ people, the same shit we're [not] doing here in the USA. Nobody was going to invade Russia. The only nation for which that might make any sense would be China, and they're not dumb enough. NATO wouldn't even exist if Russia weren't expansionist.
Re: (Score:2)
> reality is never that simple
Exactly.
Conflicts are often oversimplified and discussions broadly painted with an either you're for or against us mentality, a mentality that itself depends on oversimplifying a conflict and its history. In some contexts that's understandable in an effort to support your troops, but that kind of rhetoric also foments conflict and in so doing becomes another cause of civilians' suffering.
In other words, for the good of everyone, the complexity of conflict can't be dismissed.
Remarkably bad story illustration (Score:3)
So this story is all about how great camouflage is becoming; but the photo they chose to use for the story shows some markedly visible soldiers and equipment using forest camouflage... on a flat, grassy field in front of a red brick wall [livemint.com]!
Talk about phoning it in!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there are some in the photo who are so well camouflaged that you can't see them.
Some of them are hard to see, like the sniper in the red brick ghillie suit in the upper right. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Well you are focusing on the visible soldiers. Maybe there are some in the photo who are so well camouflaged that you can't see them.
Whoa. Mind BLOWN.
That's great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is we're human, and even though we're evolved, we still have lizard brains that believe just because someone else is different, they're evil and must be eliminated at all costs.
So either we have to eliminate all humans, or we're stuck having to deal with a social problem using technology. It's a waste of money, yes, but war is unfortunately going to occur just because we cannot get along.
The only reason we haven't blown ourse
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, we do. But we also have to be aware that despite our best efforts, another war is going to happen. The probability is 100%. All of our efforts won't reduce that percentage by even 1%. That's because people disagree. Usually, those disagreements can be handled through civil means, but sometimes they will boil over into war.
Consider this scenario. Some Republicans feel that the 2020 election was "stolen." Some of them feel so strongly about this that they were willing to attempt to take over the US Capit
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we do. But we also have to be aware that despite our best efforts, another war is going to happen.
It doesn't have to. The number of wars has been decreasing over time. Very few people actually benefit from war.
In your effort to make sure that another war doesn't happen, are you willing to give in to their demands and reinstall Donald Trump as President?
This example doesn't make any sense to me. I think you can come up with something better if you try.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should check your sources. According to this tracker, the number of wars is not at all decreasing.
https://www.war-memorial.net/w... [war-memorial.net]
Year # of wars
1900 7
1910 8
1920 21
1930 6
1940 4
1950 13
1960 11
1970 27
1980 31
1990 42
2000 36
2010 32
When people go to war, they aren't carefully analyzing whether they will benefit. They fight despite the fact that both sides will lose.
Of course, my example doesn't make any sense t
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a graph that shows the number of wars [vox-cdn.com]. Basically the only wars left today are civil wars and a few outliers. There are still potential wars out there, but we're losing the taste for it.
The world is full of people who do NOT think as rationally as you do about things like war and power.
It's worse than that, there are a few people who do benefit from war, and sometimes they get into power.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a link that might work better. https://www.war-memorial.net/w... [war-memorial.net]
Your graph, and my stats, can both be true at the same time. Your graph shows number of battle deaths per 100K people. That's a very different statistic than mine, which was number of distinct armed conflicts since 1900.
There are a couple of reasons why the number of battle deaths per 100K people is decreasing.
1. The world's population is increasing. In 1940, it was 2.26 billion, today it is 7.9 billion. So if the same number of people d
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if you look at the wars in your list, the vast majority of the currently remaining wars are civil wars, which are not the same as conflicts between countries.
Re: (Score:2)
On the linked page, there is a field labeled "Ongoing armed conflicts in a specific year. note." I put each of the years in my list into that field and filtered the list to show conflicts in progress that year. In 1900:
Name of War Years Fatalities Type Mem. Note
The Dervish State vs Ethiopia, Britain and Italy 1899 - 1920 6,000 1
The War of a Thousand Days 1899 - 1903 100,000 1
Philippine insurrection 1899 - 1902 20,500 1
Second Boer war 1899 - 1902 30,800
Re: (Score:2)
So in your opinion, are civil wars "better" somehow than armed conflicts between countries?
Yes, in the sense that it eliminates the reason for many wars, to invade your neighbor to get what they have (land, money, etc). It also eliminates the fear of neighbors. Of course we want to eliminate all types of wars, but you should not assume the solution for one type of war is the solution for all types of wars. We can divide and conquer.
In any case, as long as there are humans with differing opinions, there will be wars
This is not supported. In most cases when humans have differing opinions, they don't kill each other. That's the normal way for humans to interact, we do it all the ti
Re: (Score:2)
This is not supported
And yet, you have no counter-example to offer. Sure, most differences in opinions are resolved peacefully. But there are always those at the extremes, in *every* ideology, religious or otherwise, who are willing to lay down their lives for their cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, most differences in opinions are resolved peacefully.
Great, I'm glad you agree with me.
But there are always those at the extremes, in *every* ideology, religious or otherwise, who are willing to lay down their lives for their cause.
This is to be expected. Most people are willing to lay down their lives for some cause or another. That doesn't mean there has to be bloodshed. A good example is the US bill of rights, which includes freedom of religion. Since many people are willing to die for their religion, it's better to not force them into a religion they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Laying down one's life literally involves bloodshed. And our Bill of Rights was a document for which much blood was shed. "It's better not to force them..." Why yes, it is. But that's a rational person talking, not a zealot. And zealots will not let rational thinking stand between them and bloodshed. This is precisely what we see in Israel, and Iran, and Afghanistan, and many other places today.
Re: (Score:2)
But even Iran managed to hold peace talks with Saudi Arabia recently.
Re: (Score:2)
You can think about a specific situation correctly or not, it does matter, fighting is still happening. You might agree with the position of the Palestinians, or Gaza or whichever faction, that agreement or "correct thinking" doesn't stop the war.
Meanwhile, there are active wars in Syria and Yemen and Kurdistan, and simmering conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan. And you think the Middle East is stabilizing? You have an interesting idea of what stabilization looks like. That reminds me of how the BLM movement
Re: (Score:2)
What we have here... Is a failure to communicate.
What's so civil about war?
Re: (Score:2)
Look at your young men fighting, Look at your women crying. Look at your young men dying,The way they've always done before
Look at the hate we're breeding. Look at the fear we're feeding. Look at the lives we're leading. The way we've always done before
My hands are tied, as The billions shift from side to side, And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights, And all these things are swept aside By bloody hands time can't deny And are washed away by your genocide
And history
Re: That's great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To count, I went to the page https://www.war-memorial.net/w... [war-memorial.net] and entered each of the years in my list in the field labeled "Ongoing armed conflicts in a specific year. note." Then after clicking the corresponding "Find" button, I counted the rows.
Regardless of nit-picking the specifics of the numbers, the fact remains that there are quite a few armed conflicts still going on in the world today, and that reality is not likely to end in any of our lifetimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
On the bright side, those insurrectionists will never read this article.
They will still gather together dressed head to toe in 2nd hand camo in a tight clump in the middle of the city square.
This, they believe, is the correct use of camouflage. Stand out from a crowd and look frightening!
They will have a very short, but very exciting, revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I were as optimistic as you. The Donald Trump movement may be misguided, but they are not (all) stupid. Certainly Trump himself is not stupid. His plotting has been moving forward ever since he lost the election.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma... [theatlantic.com]
We are doing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I can't see anything!
Camo is dying leaving shelter and APS (Score:2)
Ubiquitous Active Protection Systems for vehicles and area defense (CIWS etc) will be even more important than ubiquitous AAA weapons in WWII.
That's going to be expensive and require a mix of for example lasers and kinetic kill systems depending on what's inbound.
Note even if your tank etc is invisible those tend to leave tracks as we see in Ukraine videos (the best are on Telegram channels).
why, editors? (Score:3)
Why post a Mint link to an Economist article?
Lazy, or greed?
https://www.economist.com/scie... [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So no shade on you at all, then, thank you. /. editors are DELIBERATELY replacing direct-links to articles with more 'profitable' aggregator links?
But the question then becomes bigger (IMO) - so
That's pretty shitty.
TNO? Sniper Suits? (Score:2)
I did a search: lots and lots of links to that "Netherlands-based TNO makes "battery-powered sniper suits" embedded with 500 LEDs..." statement, but nothing to the suits themselves. Nada, zip; not even at their home page. Somebody making this up?