DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Armor » Romulans Look Out, Here Come Cloaked Abrams

Romulans Look Out, Here Come Cloaked Abrams

predator-invisible.jpg

Imagine planes invisible — literally — to radar; a sub slipping beneath the waves hidden completely from any attempt at a sonar ping; a tank impervious to infrared sensors.

According to an article in Science Daily, this could be possible — but not in the way we’ve seen in recent attempts.

With planes it’s geometry and materials. With subs its materials, tactics and sound alleviators. With tanks — well, we haven’t gotten there yet. But scientists have successfully tested active cloaking from certain types of radiation, including microwaves.

“It’s a brand new method of cloaking,” Milton adds. “It is two-dimensional, but we believe it can be extended easily to three dimensions, meaning real objects could be cloaked. It’s called active cloaking, which means it uses devices that actively generate electromagnetic fields rather than being composed of ‘metamaterials’ [exotic metallic substances] that passively shield objects from passing electromagnetic waves.”

Milton says his previous research involved “just cloaking clusters of small particles, but now we are able to cloak larger objects.”

For example, radar microwaves have wavelengths of about four inches, so Milton says the study shows it is possible to use the method to cloak from radar something 10 times wider, or 40 inches. That raises hope for cloaking larger objects. So far, the largest object cloaked from microwaves in actual experiments was an inch-wide copper cylinder.

According to the report, this method could be more effective across a wider range of bandwidths. In other words, one active cloaking module could render the object invisible to many sources of emissions. Previous iterations involved materials that cloak against a single bandwidth or wavelength.

“The problem with metamaterials is that their behavior depends strongly on the frequency you are trying to cloak from,” he adds. “So it is difficult to obtain broadband cloaking. Maybe you’d be invisible to red light, but people would see you in blue light.”

Most previous research used interior cloaking, where the cloaking device envelops the cloaked object. Milton says the new method “is the first active, exterior cloaking” technique: cloaking devices emit signals and sit outside the cloaked object.

Be sure to read the scientists’ article in Optics Express journal HERE and watch the demonstration video. Can it cloak me from my boss, I wonder?

Broadband exterior cloaking from Fernando Guevara Vasquez on Vimeo.

(Gouge: MP)

– Christian

Share |

August 19th, 2009 | Armor | 469033 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/08/19/romulans-look-out-here-come-cloaked-abrams/Romulans+Look+Out%2C+Here+Come+Cloaked+Abrams2009-08-19+12%3A12%3A11jnoonan You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « More Bombs Less Butter | I fear Russians, even when they bear gifts » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. The Cenobyte says:
    August 19, 2009 at 10:44 am

    Nothing really that new. They have found ways to bend microwaves and block some kinds of reflextions and emissions but it really hasn’t come close to practical yet.
    When it comes to tanks, the really issue is not being able to see it with your eyes but being able to see it in a thermal. Infrared does not pass well through most glass so it’s easy to block. However the problem with this is that infrared is caused by heat in a material. So if the glass heats up it will start to emit infrared, or if the air or ground around the tank heats up it will emit infrared (In a specific wavelegnth based on the amount of heat).
    As a result of infrared you need something that not only blocks the EM from the tank itself, it also needs to block the air and ground around the tank as well as not heat up itself and emit EM.

    Reply
  2. esmoore5 says:
    August 19, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Using electromagnetic waves for cloaking, instead of metamaterials?
    Now we’re getting into “Philadelphia Experiment” territory.

    Reply
  3. Anthony says:
    August 19, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    im assuming that the higher the frequency the harder it would be to cloak. On the issue of heat, Infra red has a shorter wavelength than microwaves, but Longer than visible light. So by the time they get the tech down to make it invisible to our eyes, it would have already made it invisible to infra red. i think
    And while i was at it i just thought of a new technology for another app.
    first, starting with the highest frequency — gamma>xray>Ultra violet>visible light> Infra red> Microwave>radio wave.….i think i got that .
    Now ! if they can make something “invisible” to our eyes , wouldn’t the same technology be applicable to NASA, say making the manned mars ship “invisible” to UV, X, And Gamma radiation. That would solve the problem of protecting astronauts from the dangerous radiation in space, without all that extra lead!
    Its exponentially harder and harder as the frequency increases, but cloaks could be used in many areas of science, not just the sweet awesome area of being invisible, jumping from tree to tree, hunting enemies down, and using shoulder mounted plasma cannons and razor claws to maul them. watch out for that triangle laser target lol

    Reply
  4. arabyana says:
    August 19, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Thank you for the great post
    http://​sites​.fatakat​.com
    http://​arabyana​.com
    http://​food​.fatakat​.com

    Reply
  5. stephen russell says:
    August 19, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Imagine this for the White House limo or AF1 to be “cloaked” aside AF & Navy jets alone.
    Or tankers.
    Later GIs can hide with dual cam suits: 1 for natural camo 2. for cloaking.
    Radical.
    Star Trek Romulan, Klingon tech has arrived.
    Or 007s invisible Aston Martin?

    Reply
  6. Sgt Mac says:
    August 20, 2009 at 12:44 am

    It seems to me we have to take into consideration the energy fields created around personnel and the detrimental effect it would have on them. Perhaps it will be confined to unmanned vehicles.
    Food for thought.
    At some point they will be able to do it to an object large enough as to contain a mammal within the object and the confines of the field. It won’t be a good day for the mammal, I assure you.

    Reply
  7. Wembley says:
    August 20, 2009 at 7:47 am

    As the article makes clear, this technique cannot be used to shield macro objected (likes tanks, planes or people) from anything shorter than microwaves of several centimetres. So no invisiblity in visible, infra-red, or short-wavelength radar.

    Reply
  8. Retiredd says:
    August 20, 2009 at 9:21 am

    Great explanation. Between this, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics ads etc. lets make it easy for those who spy on us or need to make a counter to all of this to render it useless.
    I’m all for an open society, but screen doors on submarines are counter productive. At least make the bad guys work to have to find this out.
    What ever happened to “Need to know.”??

    Reply
  9. John Adams says:
    August 20, 2009 at 11:03 am

    as soon as the DOD or whichever agency comes up with an effective methodology, will the NY or LA Times divulge this technology under headlines on page one or will it be CBS?

    Reply
  10. sfcham1962 says:
    August 20, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    Great!! When will the Chinese start building it!!! and when do we start selling it to our enemies.

    Reply
  11. John says:
    August 20, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Interesting theoretical bits, thanks.

    Reply
  12. John says:
    August 20, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    Interesting bits, thanks.

    Reply
  13. Manny dj says:
    August 20, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Please, can we cloak our politicians. So we don’t have to see them wasting our money,oink-oink.
    Politics (poli, we know what that means#
    tics #we know what they do)

    Reply
  14. Rhyno327 says:
    August 20, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Are we buying the components from the Chi-coms?? Hell, they make everything-from soup to nuts.

    Reply
  15. CENSUSGUYz says:
    August 21, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    when every electronic signature has a countermeasure the emp or an airburst makes it the most inportant sopening shot in battle and returns the king of the battle field to prominence-the infrantry– cus if you aint inf. …

    Reply
  16. Lothar says:
    August 25, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Instead of trying to make tanks invisible why not use the same money to make tanks themselves obsolete? Hint: we already control the space industry.

    Reply
  17. tiffany bangles says:
    September 11, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    buy cheap digital camerasAre you sure?I can buy
    high-difinition camerasand discountdigital camcordersI am first to find high performance digital camcorderswhat’s more! beautiful digital picture frameJewelry is of women’s beauty,buy cheap tiffany
    buy cheap link of londonYou will get more and more beautiful!
    fashion tiffany on sale
    tiffany rings

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The real issue is not what type of plane but trying...
      Bill
    • Paris Hilton: Patriot
      Omg! You can find her pictures and video here...
      WebWarez
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Marine Air Light? Wait…don't they...
      LtCol Ben
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Except its really not that stealthy… The...
      chaos0xomega
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Is an F-22 capable of landing even on a big deck carrier,...
      joe
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      From a national security perspective we should do all we can to keep...
      mike
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Please define what is "best". Boeings plane is cheaper and...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      F4 was origionally a Navy Fighter, so coming up with a...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The US Navy was right to bypass congress and develop the...
      Tony C
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The fly-away cost of a F-22 is between 130 and...
      The Norwegian
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage