Oolite Bulletins

Ah, the mobile BAE Systems IR Advertising hoarding...

Ok good for stealth, I'll grant you, but how is it against a dumb old IED?
I can see this on the roof, (maybe combined with a laser scatterer in an anti-aircraft role) and shelters, bunkers, depots and the like.

but slapped all over a combat vehicle? It's got "be careful 007" written all over it.

well that's not it's purpose, is it? it's a stealthing attribute more than protection, so you'd assume any vehicle it was fitted to would be armoured for the intended arena anyway. and why would you need to fit it to bunkers? the entire purpose is to hide/mask vehicles etc. you wanna hide a bunker, just hoy scrimm over it.

Don't get me wrong it is cool. I can see the advantages. I would just want to see how those delicate looking heating and cooling units stand up to a fire fight.

Sure surprise is an excellent tool but sooner or later it all comes down to a slug match. I can see this as a useful thing to hide your forces behind. That's all I meant by using it on buildings. (you could also fake occupants) Now that would be useful.

ClymAngus wrote:

Don't get me wrong it is cool. I can see the advantages. I would just want to see how those delicate looking heating and cooling units stand up to a fire fight.

Sure surprise is an excellent tool but sooner or later it all comes down to a slug match. I can see this as a useful thing to hide your forces behind. That's all I meant by using it on buildings. (you could also fake occupants) Now that would be useful.

Presumably by the time the camo is taking incoming fire, how well it works after that point is moot. Anyway, given the ability of major governments to regularly and routinely equip their armed forces – at staggering, bewildering expense – with guns that jam, radios that fail, boots that melt, helicopters that fall out of the sky, stealth aircraft that don't work in the rain, etc. etc. I have a strong suspicion that these kind of corporate videos are more about giving politicians erections than they are about representing a realistic solution to an actual problem. As long as the great gravy train never stops, who cares whether these things work or not? Apart from the people inside the things, of course, but nobody's asking them ...

The MOD (and indeed the DoD) teaches the "Survivability Onion"

1. Don't be seen

If you're seen...

2. Don't be hit

If you're hit...

3. Don't be penetrated

If you're penetrated...

4. Don't be disabled

The IR stuff is supposed to take care of number one - being seen as something else (by an IR camera or tracker) is the same (effectively) as don't be seen.

Hehe. Monty Python had it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TctJhFY ... r_embedded

woulda liked to see a bit more test vid rather than CGI representations.

Apparently these plates can also be configured to make short words that will allow tanks to communicate using txt speak. I can just see it now...

"U got pwned lol"

I was at DSEi on Tuesday - and saw a live demo of the plating on the CV90 - it's impressive - but they refused to answer my questions when I asked how robust it was to small arms fire...

Disembodied wrote:

ClymAngus wrote:

Don't get me wrong it is cool. I can see the advantages. I would just want to see how those delicate looking heating and cooling units stand up to a fire fight.

Sure surprise is an excellent tool but sooner or later it all comes down to a slug match. I can see this as a useful thing to hide your forces behind. That's all I meant by using it on buildings. (you could also fake occupants) Now that would be useful.

Presumably by the time the camo is taking incoming fire, how well it works after that point is moot. Anyway, given the ability of major governments to regularly and routinely equip their armed forces – at staggering, bewildering expense – with guns that jam, radios that fail, boots that melt, helicopters that fall out of the sky, stealth aircraft that don't work in the rain, etc. etc. I have a strong suspicion that these kind of corporate videos are more about giving politicians erections than they are about representing a realistic solution to an actual problem. As long as the great gravy train never stops, who cares whether these things work or not? Apart from the people inside the things, of course, but nobody's asking them ...

Yes, absolutely. Military precision at times just enables the blunders to be more precise. Being a cynical soul, I fully expect these fine little items to not only to tinfoil under incoming fire but to add their own brand of poisonous coolant shrapnel to the party. Next stop crew compartment! Yehaw!

ClymAngus wrote:

Yes, absolutely. Military precision at times just enables the blunders to be more precise. Being a cynical soul, I fully expect these fine little items to not only to tinfoil under incoming fire but to add their own brand of poisonous coolant shrapnel to the party. Next stop crew compartment! Yehaw!

A further cynical thought occurs: if we're up against any sort of opposition against whom such camouflage would be useful – would we not be deeply, horribly screwed anyway? I mean, if we're taking on a real, genuine, equiv-tech (to borrow a phrase from the Culture) enemy army, does the ability to hide our tanks in IR matter, given what's likely to be raining down from the skies?

DaddyHoggy wrote:

I was at DSEi on Tuesday - and saw a live demo of the plating on the CV90 - it's impressive - but they refused to answer my questions when I asked how robust it was to small arms fire...

What version was on display? (Armadillo?)
I f I remember correctly, the Armadillo is the latest and greatest with enhanced armour fitted or possibly it was as an option.