It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Mine resistant scout and convoy protection vehicles WE CAN DO BETTER show us your ideas for better v

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


An IED is already well insulated from the ground and earth above it. You are trying to make a swiss army knife for the IED. The IED can come in various different forms. It is nearly impossible to have a one solution fits all. If you try to do the radio jammer, then the command wire will show up and vice versa. If you use your piezoelectric idea, then something else will show up.

If you read the links I sent you it shows that the radio spectrum in Iraq is one of the most complex ever, even mores so probably than US. Because so many have unregulated cellphones and everyday devices you may be able to put a dent in the effectiveness of the ied, but not get it down to 0%.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The idea is NOT to get the danger level from IED"s To zero... the idea is to make it as safe as possible, through various technological means and with TTP's that create a non permissive environment for the IED emplacer.

War is an EXTREME SPORT... perhaps the original extreme sport by which all others can be judged and found lacking. If you want to have a 100% chance of getting killed by IED's war is not the place for you. There is no 100% safe period end of story EVER!

What I am trying to do is mitigate the risk and make it as difficult as possible to hit the vehicle while making the vehicle as survivable as possible WHEN it gets hit. More or less the standard procedure for any vehicle design really. I set a series of parameters and worked to the best of my ability to design the best vehicle possible while fitting the parameters.

Project VXN,

WOW is all i can say to your two links! I have often thought that the core "hull" of this vehicle should be steel or low magnesium armor grade aluminum. I'm leaning towards some of the newer super steels that are coming out or just plain super bainite armor super bainite armor cheaper to produce than normal armor steel by far

I am champing at the bit to get to work on this project.... Currently I'm working on modeling a basic hull structure in 3d. Unfortunately it's taking me awhile to get it the way I want it but I will post drawings as I finish them.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I think some sort of vehicle surrounded by a 10 foot thick layer of Kevlar covered neoprene. The wheels could be on extensions that are easlily replaced.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


And how would you navigate such 30 foot wide vehicle through anything else than the North American Plains? I advise you to visualize an idea like that first before approving it as a valid idea



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 


My tank will kick your tanks ass.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
See when I envision this thing's suspension I envision something kinda like this CHAIN LINK Super 4 x 4

I've had trouble articulating what I thought could be done with the two boom style suspension until I saw this vehicle on a show called mad scientists!

Now this vehicle I am showing you is an EXTREME version of what I would be looking to do.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I'm bumping this thread in the hopes that someone will see it and maybe renew the discussion. I really enjoyed this discussion. Does anyone else have any armored vehicle ideas? Ideas for some other piece of military equipment?

Anyway I'm hoping this resurrects this thread.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I think armor will always be at a disadvantage because it is a large target and the attacking weapon can be smaller than the target. I it simple economics, the occupying forces will not succeed. For instance it is only a matter of time till anti-tank weapons like the TOW or Javelin type systems will be fielded by these people. That is literally a flying IED, how do you counter that with current technology...?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The answer is simple ,I cant put a picture up so work with me here.

We are losing personell without a doubt to IEDs we generally have air superiority,I also respect anyone fighting to make this a humanitarian world,so we only need to consider the aspect of force transfer from the ground level to the transport substructure.

Simply put we need to get high,high ,higher up from the ground.No other option.

So lets put em up thirty feet in the air and change the playing field

Distance equals time in a detonation and time changes everything,this is easy .

Do the math ,up is the only way to go in this instance and application,bigger isnt better,thicker armor isnt better due to the nature of the explosive results with todays materials,time is of the essence,as in height.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


IED's are really just an extension of guerrilla warfare, and the only thing that can combat that is a heavy hand. Meaning just level the place, and not allow anyone the chance to hide them. If you design a vehicle that will help this week, they'll just build a new type of IED next week.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Well ... while I agree that a different (less friendly) approach would work better when it comes to counter guerrilla operations. It just isn't going to happen and neither is a strategic pullback. This is why I started trying to think of a technology based solution to mitigate the issue.

It's really easy to point fingers and say well the solution is this or that... But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about what we can do to help the guys at the sharp end through technology and techniques designed to keep them safer.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


Encourage them to be smart and not take chances. A friend of mine drove an Abrams under an overpass, and they dropped a big ass bomb on his tank. He regretted not checking that bridge.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Talk about an ouch moment... the fact that your friend lived through it says something about the abrams though!

Training can only take you so far though. After that it's equipment that keeps you alive to come home.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


Roughly half of his hearing didn't make it.
It leads me to feel that if you can build it, they can find a way to blow it up.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Call me funny but even knowing that if we build they'll find a way to blow it up I still feel compelled to try. Maybe it's a character flaw but hey I'm going to school to be a mechanical engineer so this is all good practice for me.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The idea of actually having vehicles on the ground with humans in them is archaic. We just use the drones now. No need to run around with bait on a hook.



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

So it's several years later and both technology and my understanding of technology have advanced quite a bit in the years since I developed this concept. In a few posts over the next few days I'll be outlining the ways in which the concept has evolved and a basic outline of newer and better technologies and techniques that further enhance the design while potentially reducing the cost greatly!

*note: there are some key technologies I'm not going to be specific on because I've spent so much time and energy working them out. Nevertheless they do exist and WILL work but you're just gonna have to take my word for it.

Additionally this vehicle concept isn't the only one we are working on. All of this still stems from a desire to give our military better vehicles and equipment that better suits their needs and are economically viable to produce in large numbers.

Things that have changed:

honestly there's not much that hasn't changed, and this is a good thing. As the concept sits now the vehicle should be cheaper, easier to build, more capable, easier to maintain, and much simpler.

So, what say you fellow ATS'ers? Would you like me to lay this all out for you guys?



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ahh a real life version of the tachikoma assault support tank. nice



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Sorta, but not really...

The idea is to have things like this and it's siblings go out and drive around essentially looking for trouble in a counterinsurgency environment in order to take the initiative away from the other guy. By having something light fast mean cheap and bought / deployed in large numbers you're always going to have at least a few roaming around.

Between that and things like JIEDDO aircraft and drones in the sky working together you can secure large swathes of territory in a city from IED contempt of engagement attacks cheaply enough while still having a vehicle that can stand up and fight when they switch to ambush tactics.

Warfare is about setting your force up in a way that forces the other side into limiting their tactical options down to options you understand and know how to deal with.

That's what this is really about. By flooding the zone with units like this you limit the enemy's ability to emplace the big boomy IED's leaving you to deal more with conventional mines antitank mines and command wired EFP type stuff and or direct confrontation.

These vehicles are designed to take hits like that and be salvageable and put back into action quickly most ofthe time not losing crew in the process. Many times they'd still be able to slug their way out of trouble and limp home iif need be. Even if you do seriously mess one up though, your only reward would be 2-8 more plus a quick reaction squad or platoon converging on your position at high speed from multiple directions looking to f*** you up and chew bubble gum, and guess what the Bx ran out of this morning.... Bubble gum!

The entire concept is based around limiting the options for contempt of engagement attacks in order to draw out the type ofattacks it's best able to dominate.

There's also a bunch of roles something like this is able to fill in more conventional peer or near peer hot conflicts which I'll cover iif you want in another post.

I'll also provide explanations on how this beast has evolved in the several years since the post was originally written. But only iif people are willing to provide input and critiquing.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join