[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hmmm…it looks visible to me.[/quote]
Looks 1/2 visible to me…as in they were only making 1/2 of it invisible for the purpose of showing it off.
But maybe I’m blind in my old age.
AD
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Fox at its usual best…[/quote]
Jesus, here we go again. I was a tank killer for 4 years. I drove around in a Humvee armed with an anti-tank TOW missile. If my enemies were invisible that would be very bad for me. Sure, I could find a dust cloud, but I still have to know where to shoot.
I also have thermal vision on my weapon, but it’s a pain in the ass and it gives away my position because it’s so loud. It also takes a lot more battery power. Tank killing isn’t as easy as playing “find the tank”. You often are aiming for particular spots on the tank where the armor is thinner. Mix this with the fact that I am trying to kill the tank at the maximum effective range of my weapon which is 3750 meters.
Also, by playing the dust game you are assuming that I’m fighting in the desert. There are other battlefields man. The bulk of future warfighting is going to be in urban areas anyshit. You also assume that you are dealing with moving tanks. It seems pretty easy to me to set up an ambush when you are always on the lookout for noise and smoke trails.
Saddam used his T-54’s in the first Gulf War almost like artillery pieces. He dug them in well and kept them stationary because he knew he would lose a tank battle.
Bitching about this shows nothing short of a lack of vision on your parts. This IS a big thing. Guys like you laughed at the first muskets because they were inaccurate and their powder wouldn’t light or whatever. When muskets were first used they still stuck pikemen amongst them but they didn’t just ignore the musket. No, we took the primitive musket and improved on it, like we will with this tech.
If we laughed it off as sensationalist garbage then we’d still be fighting our wars with sticks and rocks and LOSING. Crack Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson. It’ll give you a good start as to why Western Civ kicks ass. I don’t agree with it all, but he’s got a few good points.
Now by linking this to Fox you just show yourself to be a political zombie. You didn’t even really consider the credibility of the story, you just assumed that since it was Fox it was crap. I’ll admit, I get my cable news from the Brit Hume Show, but I get my radio news from the BBC and NPR. That doesn’t mean I buy into everything I hear. I don’t just lambast an entire network because other people tell me it is biased. I go into my news watching with open eyes, wary of bias instead of just crying bias when I hear something that doesn’t line up with my political views.
Then again, perhaps it’s good that most libs bitch and moan about Fox being a propaganda network. They’ve demonstrated sufficient lack of mental clarity and independent thought that they would ultimately buy into everything they heard on the damn network and I’d be fighting an army of Bill O’Reillys instead of an army of Kieth Olbermans.
mike
Holy Shit. Here’s a better demonstration of the technology complete with soundtrack.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And THIS is why I hate FOX. I don’t LIKE the conservativeness, but that’s not why I hate it.
Sensationalist CRAP like this shit makes me want to strangle the media.
Its from 3 British newspapers. I thought Britons were all objective and fair while American media is all slanted and everything.
[/quote]
Its a British thing. I’d expect it to be in the back of a brit paper. Important news, this is not. This is digg worthy, blog worthy, not news worthy.
It could have practical uses. Beyond this simple optical camera/projector type effect, with new metamaterials being produced they have begun to develop materials that can be mostly transparent to various kinds of waves, like microwaves, which may lead to various types of radar-invisible vehicles separate from physical visibility. To clarify, this is different than the current “stealth bomber” technology that is used.
Invisibility is not news?
Seriously? Invisibility is not news?
Talk about biased.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Holy Shit. Here’s a better demonstration of the technology complete with soundtrack.
[/quote]
from this video, it doesn’t look like it would be nearly as effective at close range. But from a distance, yea, it’d definitely work. Btw, the dust cloud problem is an easy one to fix when you use…your imagination!
I am seriously amazed at all the negative posts regarding this topic. Do you not understand that this is prototype level tech? Of course it has its flaws and imperfections! But if they are able to do what they claim they have done that’s just incredible! And think what they will be able to do once they perfect this new technology!
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And THIS is why I hate FOX. I don’t LIKE the conservativeness, but that’s not why I hate it.
Sensationalist CRAP like this shit makes me want to strangle the media.
Its from 3 British newspapers. I thought Britons were all objective and fair while American media is all slanted and everything.
Its a British thing. I’d expect it to be in the back of a brit paper. Important news, this is not. This is digg worthy, blog worthy, not news worthy.[/quote]
I hope you read Mike’s post just above yours. He makes a hell of a lot of sense. Also, being young, you might get to experience all this, kind of up close and personal… 
[quote]GunnyBear wrote:
I am seriously amazed at all the negative posts regarding this topic. Do you not understand that this is prototype level tech? Of course it has its flaws and imperfections! But if they are able to do what they claim they have done that’s just incredible! And think what they will be able to do once they perfect this new technology! [/quote]
Yup. With the price of oil soaring to new heights, I’m guessing we might want to pay a little ‘social call’ on some of our suppliers. What better way than a ‘surprise party’???
Now if we can just make them invisible to IEDs, right?
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Now if we can just make them invisible to IEDs, right?[/quote]
Better yet, you can now claim that the Iraqi WMDs were equipped with this technology.
They’re here but you just can’t see 'em. Just take our word for it.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Invisibility is not news?
Seriously? Invisibility is not news?
Talk about biased.[/quote]
…It’s invisible from a certain angle, some of the time. Once again, section D back page worthy, and certainly ten minuets on a blog worthy. Not OMG LOOK AT THIS TANK worthy.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Invisibility is not news?
Seriously? Invisibility is not news?
Talk about biased.
…It’s invisible from a certain angle, some of the time. Once again, section D back page worthy, and certainly ten minuets on a blog worthy. Not OMG LOOK AT THIS TANK worthy.[/quote]
When you’re closing in on an Iranian oil field in your Abrahms, you might think differently on this issue. And maybe if the scum can’t see you, they won’t know when to set off the IED.
You KNOW the Dems will bring back the draft sooner or later (See Charlie Wrangel) and you’ll be on your way to Iran or North Korea. You should be thrilled with all the technological improvements scientists are making to protect you. It IS big news.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Bitching about this shows nothing short of a lack of vision on your parts. This IS a big thing. Guys like you laughed at the first muskets because they were inaccurate and their powder wouldn’t light or whatever. When muskets were first used they still stuck pikemen amongst them but they didn’t just ignore the musket. No, we took the primitive musket and improved on it, like we will with this tech.[/quote]
First, I’m no liberal by any means but this technology is still a joke. I don’t doubt the power of invisibility on the battlefield. I very much doubt the sophistication and usefulness of this “technology” on the battlefield. You say we laughed at the musket, you’re wrong. We laugh when people show up on the modern battlefield with muskets and claim it to be the latest and greatest breakthrough ever.
No this is more like shooting nitroglycerin-packed targets with a musket and claiming you’ve invented incendiary ordinance. If you’ve ever stood up in front of a projector and had the picture cast on you, that’s the “technology” that’s being presented here. They’re even creative enough to downplay the part about knowing where your observers are, what their POV of you is, and having a projector oriented appropriately to complete the illusion.
It’s one step beyond painting walls to look like the the background and then driving the tanks behind them the morning weatherman standing in front of a blue screen is more sophisticated. It’s Bugs Bunny shit that needs to be laughed off the battlefield. More importantly, it’s consuming resources for real magic.
http://sciencenewsmagazine.org/articles/20070324/fob3.asp
BTW- I don’t know what thermal imagers you are/were used to using but if they can build IEDs of any complexity in Iran/Iraq, they can build (or just order) silent personal thermal/IR imagers.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Invisibility is not news?
Seriously? Invisibility is not news?
Talk about biased.
…It’s invisible from a certain angle, some of the time. Once again, section D back page worthy, and certainly ten minuets on a blog worthy. Not OMG LOOK AT THIS TANK worthy.
When you’re closing in on an Iranian oil field in your Abrahms, you might think differently on this issue. And maybe if the scum can’t see you, they won’t know when to set off the IED.
You KNOW the Dems will bring back the draft sooner or later (See Charlie Wrangel) and you’ll be on your way to Iran or North Korea. You should be thrilled with all the technological improvements scientists are making to protect you. It IS big news.
[/quote]
A) If I’m going, I’m serving as a field medic. Life over death, my friend.
B) They find a way to mass produce this inviso-tank and work out all the bugs in it by the time I’m serving after a Democratically initiated draft and I’ll eat my own asshole. WIth a spork.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yeah baby, you fuckers are toast!!
[/quote]
Dude, this is where I draw the line between us. Can you just not wait to shed some Iranian blood or something? This is serious stuff man. I really hope you don’t project this attitude at work.
I have 2 issues here:
-
Your cavalier attiude toward a destruction of a country and hence it’s people.
-
Fucking media…WHY THE FUCK DO THEY REVEAL MILITARY SECRETS BEFORE IT’S ACTUAL APPLICATION IN WAR? Why not just tell them the full plan details of our invasions too?
We want to DISABLE Iranian nukes, OR change the regime. All out invasion hell and war like you suggest would be a bad move. If we are smart we can take it out remotely through various covert ops and a/or air power.
HH, quit parading around a war chant while claiming to be a representative conservative. This is not how my kind of conservatives represents. Add this to the fact you use radical Ann as a source of data constantly…you shoot yourself in the foot.
The media issue…it’s just shamefull!
HH many times I agree with you…but your style is too radical for you to truly be taken seriously.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…It’s invisible from a certain angle, some of the time. Once again, section D back page worthy, and certainly ten minuets on a blog worthy. Not OMG LOOK AT THIS TANK worthy.[/quote]
First of all, if applied properly, it works all around, not just at one little angle. Looking into this, I found information that shows it camouflages at 20 feet or greater, and makes the tank, or other object about 85% invisible.
Again, they have invisible tanks. invisible.
And I did know about the technology years ago, and wondered how long before it became a military technology. I was shocked it wasn’t front page news then.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
BTW- I don’t know what thermal imagers you are/were used to using but if they can build IEDs of any complexity in Iran/Iraq, they can build (or just order) silent personal thermal/IR imagers.[/quote]
The military links also show an IR blocking cloth. Again not perfect, but you will be able to get close before anyone can see you.