Dynamic Amor Protection System?

 

Force Shields?

 

What the heck is that?

Babylon 5 [TM] energy web, about two hundred years earlier than expected.

 

Herald 

I've never heard of DAPS before and I've been a daily reader of Strategy Page for more than five years.

 

If the folks at Strategy Page are reading this, I think I speak for a lot of the other readers when I say that I'd very much like to hear more about electromagnetic armor--what are its projected capabilities, who is developing it, when it can be expected to enter service, and so on (all unclassified of course).

 

Thanks much.

I think its more an issue of terminology firming up rather than a new "technology".

The new generation technologies are pumping out 35 megawatts in packages that are 1/3rd the physical size of current solutions.

 

So, in the same footprint, if you elected to maximise the space and insert a physically similar sized generation package, you are going to end up with onboard generation of 100 megawatts (or more).  At the current rate of US development, they will be doubling or tripling that capacity within a decade.  Extra power in the same footprint means a lot more opportunity to load up electronic warfare and weapons solutions.  It means higher reload rates for e-weapons such as metalstorm, disparate laser weapons, focussed "beam" weapons (eg AESA based weapons).  It means active signature management way beyond some of the current sub capabilities, it means active degaussing capability, it means focussed "charge" active sonar solutions, it means persistent ABM killing solutions. 

 

the dynamic armour contribution is because the use of electronic propulsion (instead of turbines, CODAG, diesel)
etc ... means that you can start to manage the acoustics and sig generation in real time.  Its akin to what is being done in a few submarines at present. the armour isn't resistant per se, but its a dynamic event management solution.  ewarfare is armour in its own right.  some still look at armour in the old paradigm - and thats just no longer relevant. (although a relevant contributor)

 

Its about 10-12 years away, but IMO, the US is about to throw other navies back into the maritime stone age. 

 

Personally, I see the newgen solutions as being tipping point technologies, akin to the introduction of the dreadnought, radar, LO/stealth management

 

So you are saying, our new tech makes our old tech obsolete, and our potential enemies have not even caught up with our old tech yet... That's a very nice place to be. With the rate of technology increase continually increasing (the so-called "technology singularity") it is also a place we should be able to stay unless we do something stupid like defunding our military.

 

On the other hand, it is also a powerful motivator for our enemies to develop asymetric ways to fight--and I don't necessarily mean the cliched use of asymetric=terrorist, but rather any method of fighting that does not face our strength with similar strengths but rather avoids our strengths and find weaknesses to exploit.

 

 

Persuading us to defund our military (because hey, we are so dominant why do we need to keep spending billions of dollars...) would be an excellent asymetric option.

What I'm reinforcing is that at a holistic systems delivery level, the US is currently without peer - and IMV will be a golden league ahead of everyone else in 10 years time.

Sure there are pockets of capability where euro and other allies kit is superior to US kit (and the US acknowledges that - its why since 911 they have engaged in their annual tour of allied partners technology developments).  In fact the US has been pro-active in getting their partners assistance where they want or need it for tech development. Of course their interests are self serving - but they do not hide that fact in those sessions. (eg every Oct/Nov they are in Australia assesing new technologies for poss use in US projects and plans, similarly they engage NATO and PACRIM partners throughout the year)

 

In mat science, integrated sensor systems, electrical generation, miniaturisation, hi speed comms, precision delivery, workable LO technologies, USV's, UAV and ROV technology - nobody is even remotely close - and when you look at theatre delivery, nobody will be close for a long time.

 

Where china (for example) has an edge is in political persistence and in (to coin a phrase) a "triumph of the national will".

On that basis, they will eb prepared to short term overheat their economy to reach parity (something that the Sovs didn't learn about properly either).  China is employing the maxim of selling the rope to which the buyer will eventually hang himself if not careful (and walmart, GE et al have a lot to answer for IMO)

 

 

 

The interesting irony is that in order to run their economy at the current level, China is having to invest heavily in their human capital, not simply by educating them but by giving them significant economic freedom. The problem this poses for China is that freedom is a very slippery slope. In a way feeding their growth may end up being the rope that the CCP hangs itself with. Economic freedom may be as much of a step onto that slope for China as glasnost was for the Soviet Union. My hope is that the CCP understands this, that Tianamen square taught them that they wouldn't be able to hang onto the reins of power forever but that they could at least make China a rich free nation instead of it being a broken mess like Russia. I hope this is the plan, or at least will become the plan when it becomes clear that it is what is happening. The only way to turn this course around would be an event on the scale of the Great Cultural Revolution.

 

Or an all out war.

 

Unfortunately I'm not sure Taiwan would be enough of a distraction. I think it would take rebuilding the Mongol Empire. And if their current economic, technology and military growth continues at the current pace, they might just succeed. Shivvers.