Quote:

Original post by Talroth Can you show me a single system that was used to track and intercept a small arms bullet? The only tests I've ever seen that were successful in interception are either artillery (100+mm), or pre-calculated rounds for proof of concept.

After a 5 minute search on google I found this: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

Specifically these paragraphs:

Quote:

The Arena system does not react to: targets at a range of over 50 meters from the tank; small-size targets (splinters, small caliber projectiles); targets flying away from the tank, including projectiles fired from its own gun; slow flying objects (pieces of earth, birds etc.); shells and projectiles exploding around the tank; targets flying over the tank, i.e. not crossing the protected projection of the tank. All this resulted in radical reduction of false alerts and "unwanted" information entering the computer for analysis and processing and also allows operation only if a dangerous target appears within the system's zone of action and when this target is about to hit the tank.

What they are saying is they had to damp down the reactivity of the Arena system because it was capable of detecting and reacting to the shrapnel sent off from the exploded warheads, which would about the same size as "small calibre" bullets.

So although this is not exactly what you were asking for, it does show that since 1993 (when it was developed) they had the capability to not only detect, but intercept small fragments of material (although not with any real reliability at that time - but then it wasn't designed to do that). So, if they could do it in 1993, and technology has advanced since then, why is it so improbable that they can do it today?

They did it unintentionally back then and had to design around it because it was an unwanted effect. And that is with just 5 minutes of research.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth Basically for small arms the only tests I've ever heard of boiled down to "If we know where the bullet is going to be fired from, and when it is going to be fired, we might be able to hit it"

Then you haven't actually look hard. They have been capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting ballistic projectiles since at least 1993.

Today we have LIDAR, that even civilian systems can detect objects as small as a few centimetres at a distance of around 1km (and much smaller objects closer in).

These systems are not like a single barrelled gun that swivels to point in the direction, they consist of multiple barrels with overlapping fields of fire so that at any point at least one barrel will be able to fire an intercept shot.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth My point about the asteroid was we have TIME, we can detect it at long ranges, we can devise a plan, we can maybe build the needed equipment and get it there to change the course of the asteroid before it impacts. Mass and the actual sizes of the objects involved play very little in this, the TIME is the important thing. We have time to track it, time to acknowledge it is a threat, and time change its direction.

RADAR and LIDAR operate at the speed of light. However the processing time is longer, but still processors are fast enough today to make these calculations. The technology is there to do this kind of thing. Specialist processors can be made extremely fast at a given task. They are not doing these thing on general purpose desktop PC or anything like that. The "processors" in these things are not even like the processor in most computers, they are really a circuit design to make the calculations which means that the processing time for them is the speed of the electric circuit.


Yes, time is an issue, but the fact is the ability to detect and process the relevant data is well within the capability they have today. They had the processing power in the 1990's, and computing power has increased a bit since then.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth You will also notice that all the CIWS rely on range, and multiple systems. These start tracking at 10+ miles, most engage between 6 and 10 miles, and most have a minimum probable kill radius of well over a mile. (Meaning if something gets past that mile stage while traveling at high speed, the chances of interception drop to nearly zero.)

Yes, the Phalanx CIWS are trying to track missiles that can change their trajectory in mid flight, they are also at that point travelling at speed that exceed that of bullets fired form a gun. It is appels to oranges.

The Phalanx system has to deal with vastly different targets, behaving is vastly different ways and travelling faster than bullets.

So, if the Phalanx system can track these things and can shoot down their targets, then why can't a smaller system designed to track and intercept slower more predictable targets in less time?

I think you don't actually understand what is involved in these systems. Yes, the APS systems like what we are discussing are still experimental, and are at the cutting edge of technology today, but the facts remain that it is not like shooting down a guided missile travelling at supersonic speeds as they travel on far more predictable trajectories, and it is not like deflecting an asteroid that weighs several billion kilograms with something that weigh a millions kg.

It is a small target (but LIDAR and even RADAR is capable of detecting these sized objects and tracking them), and it is only a short distance (but processes are fast enough to make these calculations, especially since the targets are following predicable trajectories) in the required time.

Here is some more "meaningless" numbers:

A bullet travelling at 845m/s take 0.059 seconds to travel 50m. That is roughly 60ms. The processor in my desktop computer can perform 120,000 operations in that time.

The trigonometry for an intercept is less than 10. So theoretically, my computer could handle 12,000 intercept calculations in the time it would take a bullet to travel 50m. I think my computer could handle tracking and intercept at less than that distance don't you.

As you can plainly see, it is perfectly in the realms of processor technology to track and determine a firing solution to such bullets fired at a CIWS/APS.

The time it take a bullet to travel these kinds of distances is easily within the realms of detection (speed of light), and computations power (my desk top could do 12,000 of them in the time it takes a bullet to travel 50m).

So all your objections:

- That system can't detect such projectiles: The Arena system developed in 1993 had to remove such small objects from it detection systems because they were not what the system was designed to track.

- That processor speeds are not fast enough: My desk top is fast enough and specialised system are much faster at their designed task.

- That you can't destroy a bullet with another: They are not trying to destroy the bullet, they are just deflecting it.

- That you can't deflect a bullet: Yes you can, the physics of inertia say that you can.

- That you can't track a bullet with an gun: Well they don't use just one gun, they use multiple guns with overlapping field of fire designed such that they can intercept nearly all trajectories that come within the protective zone.

Are their any other objections to it? I think I have conclusively proved that such a system, while experimental at the moment, can actually do what it is claimed it can do. I have even agreed that such a system is not 100% perfect or ever could be. But the facts remain that it is perfectly plausible and physically possible to do.

I am not saying that the have personal CIWS/APS today. However, they do have them on vehicals, they have had them since 1993c (at least).

To the OP:

The biggest problem with what you're asking for is that you said you wanted to be as close to reality as possible but threw out a *big* realistic factor that sort of made most points argued here moot. Usually when creating a defense, the environment and scene need to be taken into consideration. Creating armor without a real setting just gives you armor that doesn't perform well, realistically.

But you have a setting: a world that prefers bladed, bludgeon, etc. type weapons to guns, rifles, etc. Ok. So what is the reason guns aren't use? Because technology as made guns irrelevant? Or as some posters said, the society prefers close range, or perhaps, human powered weapons for the sake of honor and such? If it's the latter, you probably don't have to get too deep into the details of long range protection or so and assume that a bullet or so won't be shot at you. Although throwing arrows and throwing blades into the mix, you might have to at least worry about those (and they could possibly carry as much kinetic energy as a bullet from a gun if you use the muscle enhancing concept and such).

So, we're more so looking at armor for close range combat then. I'd probably look at armor of the past when swords, pikes, etc. were used. If my memory is correct, and it might not be, they designed armor differently for different parts of the body according to the type of attack one might face. For example, leather is nice to protect against a sword slash (depending on thickness and such of course), but would probably be penetrated with a stab.

If you want to take care of the case that ballistic weapons exist, but are less effective in battle, well, that takes quite a bit of work and you'll probably need to throw out some more realistic limitations, like cost. Most of the super armors one would envision in comics and such were for what was suppose to be a one man army or so, so the fact that they were using a bajillion dollars for one suit was ok :P . But, throwing cost out as a limiting factor, you design something that can take care of ballistics (I say ballistics instead of projectiles as this is close range fighting and you wouldn't really launch a missile at someone 3 feet away, for obvious reasons i hope). Surely the enemy also has some defenses that makes sure you can't just use a gun as well. Er, I think I'm done with this point, it was mainly that you'd have to make things slightly unrealistic to fit your (unrealistic) setting, and they're clashing so you'd do well to make sure you sacrifice realism for fun :P .

So onto stealth. Most of the stealth tech discussed doesn't do much for close range combat. I guess this would more so be to counter long range things as you don't have the same energies to measure at long range that can limit a lot of things. Now, why stealth, in the examples mentioned before doesn't help much is mainly because they've mainly been visual. Assuming the enemy would likely create technology to counter you, they can train soldiers to fight blind, relying on sound and possibly pressure changes (air flow and such); or devices that enhance these senses. So either stealth is going to counter long range and not be used for up close fights, or you'll have to look into other things for those. Although, you'll spend ages going back and forth countering your own technology :P

If I were the one making this game with the idea to be as realistic as possible, I'd probably better define the setting and situation at hand, otherwise this is an open ended design, which is hell to solve. Things like what your enemy has available (counter his attacks while hitting his weaknesses), the environment you're in (desert? jungle? snow? urban terrain? we currently have different camo and different methods for handling these different environments), task at hand (infiltration would probably require different things compared to a supply line defending operations or so). As for suggestions, I've got millions based on tech we have today and tech that theoretically can exist, but that could take a while, so I'm just going to recommend working on your scenario a bit more (including the fact that different sub-scenarios will probably need to take place and one suit for all situations is hardly realistic [sorry Samus]).

Did you even look at the system in the link you posted? It is nothing at all like what we're talking about. It basically boils down to lobbing a grenade in the general direction of the incoming weapon, and hoping you've done enough damage to the warhead that it won't take out the tank when it impacts.

Reaction is NOT deflection.

Detection is NOT deflection.

Firing is NOT deflection.

Sure, the angles are small, and the math to calculate what is NEEDED for the deflection is simple enough. Actually doing it is another.

You show the math for how much 'time' you have to do all those calculations for a 50m, but you are failing to account for a lot of details.

Detection and filtering time. It takes time, yes on the order of a few ms but it is still time, to detect that something is actually coming at YOU. In that time, and possibly a little more time, you need to have projected a path. From the path you need to have determined a firing solution (next to no time), and then you need to train the weapon on it. And this is where things get sticky.

How do you train a weapon on an incoming projectile?

Step 1. you have to have established your firing base, basically calculating where the system is, its current motion, and velocity of all applicable pieces. (Not that hard time wise, but far from easy for engineering.)

(And some where along the line, select which weapon in the battery will fire (Easy/Quick))

Step 2. Train selected weapon on target (Not Easy, time or engineering wise). Why is this so hard? Because step one must hold true for the entire process. If your guy is running for cover, breathing hard, etc, he is going to be shifting the position of the system by fractions of a mm in the few ms it takes to aim the system. If this change in position is not accounted for in the aiming, then your hit probability goes out the window.

Step 3. Fire, in such a way as to not imbalance the above. There is also another problem presented here, the simple fact that it is very hard to know the trajectory of Your bullet until After it has left your weapon. Why? Because Chemical propellants are not 100% accurate, there is always a variance. Even with something like a railgun, you are going to get slight fluctuations in your power stream and magnetic fields that may offset your trajectories.

Step 4. Your bullet travels the distance to my bullet, with enough time to deflect it far enough off course to insure it isn't going to hit on target. This is actually where it gets really tricky, and the angles, masses, and velocities come into play. Too small or slow of a defending bullet, and you don't deflect the offensive round enough to push it completely off target. Sure you'll likely make it far less lethal, but a hit is a hit, and your solider who was lugging around heavy defensive gear is now a little bit slower, and a little easier target for the next round.

All of these issues add up to make for very easy misses, and very hard ways to deflect a bullet.


And we still haven't covered the issues of what powers this whole system. You can use a smaller bullet than what is being fired at you to get the job done, but there are limits. What safely deflects a .30cal or smaller round may not have the mass to safely deflect a 20mm+. What deflects a 20mm+ round is going to mean far less shots can be deflected because you can't carry as much. How much fire can such a system handle at one time? After all if we're tracking small bullets flying around the battle field, tracking something a massive as a human in a tricked out battle armour suit is going to be like finding the one lit light bulb in a dark room. And if we can have small weapons train on small bullets after calculating an interception point,... Well, why not big weapons training on the big man carrying the thing to deflect small bullets? Have mounted weapons all linked up to fire control systems, threat detected? All weapons in range open fire in a massive high velocity volley.


And then there is still the issue of how easy your system is to defeat. If you're relying on RADAR/LIDAR/Thermal imaging, then it becomes a very simple matter of two out of every three rounds I fire at you would be rounds that will explode into a cloud of hot metallic dust, which would basically blind your system to the point of impact from the weapon that was firing at it. Now you have to either blindly fire your defensive ammo though the cloud, praying to god that you are taking out the rounds you can't see/don't know are coming at you, or you wait till the pass though the cloud, are picked up, tracked, aimed at, and destroyed/deflected. But now you have a shorter time to do all this, and the next bullet you hit might throw up another cloud between the two weapons.

With 50ms time from point of fire to target, you're not seeing the second round firing from a modern rifle before you put up a cloud that makes it nearly impossible to accurately track the bullet (Because you can't tell if the bullet coming at you is solid lethal material, or one that will explode into a cloud on impact. One that may or may not be deadly even if it hits you). Now you've cut your time down to 30-40ms to track it, then 20-30ms, then 10-20ms, then less than 10 ms, then you're being hit by rounds.


Now, what if the weapons being fired at you aren't normal bullets? What if they're flechette rounds? Densely packed needles that fly in close formation when fired from a large bore weapon, 20 or 30 at a time? Not very effective at long range, but after closing to 50m with a modern assault rifle firing these, you easily get 600 dangerous projectiles of hardened, armour piercing material flying your way in just a single two second burst of gun fire. All from narrow cone of fire limiting the number of defensive weapons that can come to bare on target. Coupled with countermeasure rounds, a deflection system based on projectile interception looks less and less useful. Far better to just shoot the opponent dead before he can shoot you.

Then what if I design the bullets to be hard to track? To scatter the scanning beams? What if I use all three?

The system also doesn't encourage hand to hand combat, as there is still the cut off of how close you can get to the system before it becomes ineffective. Could it deflect rounds enough to miss striking you if your opponent was only 10 feet away? That is about what? 5 degrees deflection from a head on shot to insure it misses you side to side. More like 15 degrees to insure it saves you from being hit if you're caught standing in the open. That is a big angle of deflection for head on interaction, even if it has time to detect, track, fire, and intercept the round.

If I'm 10 feet from you and your defenses are likely to fail at that range, why am I going to try to drive a bit of metal into your meaty body with my hands? I'm just going to try and shoot you before you shoot me.

Such a system of personal defense might be possible, if not overly practical in the near future, and it might change warfare if it becomes cheap and wide spread enough, but it isn't going to encourage the use of swords which was what the whole goal of this was.

Quote:

Original post by: ddn3 There doesn't exist any CIWS system which tracks and deflects small arms, since a single ground solder is currently not valuable enough to warrant such a system.

True, but ground troops are becoming much more expensive. With many of the "planned" technologies, you are looking at millions of dollars for each soldier, and not just in hardware, but also in training and the social (and media) cost.

In the future it is likely that defensive systems for foot troops will exists as if the trends that are emerging continue then it will become economic to do so.

Quote:

Original post by: Talroth Did you even look at the system in the link you posted? It is nothing at all like what we're talking about. It basically boils down to lobbing a grenade in the general direction of the incoming weapon, and hoping you've done enough damage to the warhead that it won't take out the tank when it impacts.

Yes.

Perhaps you didn't quite follow my argument.

Let me sum it up:

1 ) It is state of the art and highly experimental technology today[/t] to be able to track and deflect an incoming bullet.

2 ) It was possible to detect a bullet sized piece of metal in 1993 and for this to be tracked and reacted to.

3 ) This device is over 16 years old (apply Moore's Law, which has held the last 16 years).

4 ) The physics of defection say it is possible.

5 ) The computations needed say it is possible.

5 ) The power and resolution of modern technology is more than capable of performing this task. The example I gave was of my Desktop computer, a 3 year old unspecialised device. A specialised device would be far better at it.

6 ) My rationale for this did not sole rely on this device - I also stated that once within 50m you could use other devices like flash bangs, smoke grenades and the fact that powerful rifle with high velocity bullets are hard to aim at a moving target (this is why soldiers are equipped with a side arm as it is far better than these high powered rifles at taking out a close, moving target as the mass and length of the weapon does not hamper the ability to move it)

7 ) We are talking about a future tech here, not today's tech.

8 ) This is at best a speculative exercise (and about a fictitious future at that) and we only have to make it sound plausible.

9 ) I am not trying to design a personal CIWS here.

10 ) I am not trying to account for all imaginable technologies here.

Quote:

How do you train a weapon on an incoming projectile?

Well, using technology that you yourself posted in an attempt to show that this would not be possible, you could have the bullets guided through the air (they have prototypes of this - for larger bullets, not small calibre ones, but the technology could be miniaturised - Moore's law again).

Or using multiple shots like say, oh I don't know multiple flechetts like things.

See all of this "tech" you are using to try and defeat the ability of these kinds of devices can also be use in it as well. SO if you have bullets that can steer and guide themselves, then so can the bullets form the CIWS.

If you are using ECM, then there is also ECCMs that can defeat them.

You are talking arms race, but only looking at one side of the arms race, and thinking that I am only looking at one side. I am looking at both, and assuming that an advance on one side is countered by an advance on the other side (a valid assumption in an arms race).

The only other assumption I am taking is that the advantage currently lies with the CIWS side as the OP's initial guidelines was that ranged combat is not effective and that Melee combat is. This means that for the purposes of this discussion, in the arms race that you are using, the advantage would be on the side of the tech that reduced the effectiveness of ranged combat.

Yes, the basic system I described does have counter measures (I am not a weapons designer and I am not attempting to design a fool proof CIWS system that could be implement in real life - remember we are only trying to develop a plausible system), but those counter measures ahve counter measures and we can go around and around in circles each one proposing a counter measure to the other's counter measure, but that would only confirm my position, that there would exist an arms race and that the advantage would swing back and forth between the two sides.

And so, to fulfil the requirements of the topic, I made the assumption that the current advantage is with the CIWS.

You have agreed that there exists system today that, although under controlled situations, have managed to achieve detection, tracking and deflection of a bullet. All I am doing is saying, if they can do that today, what can they do with that concept in 50 years time (including having counter measure to any counter measures that might get developed along the way - remember it is an arms race not an arms "teleport to the destination", so they would have time to respond to these counter measures along the way).