Well damn you, and your ancientness uppon these boards! A Pox uppon thee! A POX!

Yeah but thats the thing. IT's one thign to be in 'science fiction' it's a whole other story for it to be starting to be used in actual practical use. Weight is allways an issue. So yeah while 'if you use enough of it' works. The bulk and weight of it is an issue.

If it wasnt we'd have guys running around in suits of armor thick enough to stop a direct hit from a cruise missile.

The whole point was that what ever it is their using now to help absorb the hit isnt something thats in science fiction. But something that's actually being applied in a practical manner right now, in real life. Not in some book.

Of course they dont say a whole lot about it either. But it does at least show that that kinda thing is quickly moving out of the realm of theoretical into actual practical application.

The newer "shear thickening armor" concepts don't immerse the fibers in a bath of the stuff. It's actually embedded in the fibers.

Yeah: transition from prototype to field use. It's the "valley of death" for advanced materials projects.

Just because you've got a nifty item doesn't mean anyone's going to buy it. The inertia of current, in-stock equipment is incredible.

Nevermind the Chinese. We need to replace a lot of aging airplanes held together with chewing gum and duct tape. Since we're going to replace 30-year old F16s and F18s and Harriers (all designed for 10-year lives), we might as well make the replacement an improvement.

Absolutely true. Why change what you're currently using unless the new tech offers a measurable benefit? If you can't justify the cost of replacing all the existing tech, it will never sell.

So far the 'dream' of a thin gel pack that can harden instantly into an impenetrable armor plate is just that, a dream. No shear thickening fluid so far even comes close.

The best results so far are to merely improve the protective characteristics of existing types of soft armor. The benefits of which can be also be achieved by simply adding more layers of armor cloth. Which is more likely to be chosen?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that this is one of those technologies that will be rendered obsolete by ongoing improvement to existing armor materials, before the new tech can even come to field use.


-karma

Because simply adding on material makes the armor all that much heavier. Where as if you use the fluid, as was mentioned you get the exact same benifit as having added in those extra 3 layers, but with only the added weight of having added a single additional layer.

It might not get outmoded before it sees use like you might think. It might eventually and then resurface when new, vastly superior technology is discovered. Afterall what if say suddenly some one tripped over the formula for a liquid that instead gave the benifit of 5 additional layers at the exact same weight as the current stuff that only gives the benifit of about 3?

At that point it's more than enough to start being justifyable. Also if you really want to pack it on, pack on those 3 additional layers AND the liquid. What really will decide it is how economically feasible it is to do that.

I mean think about it for a moment.
Armor 1 has 13 layers and offers protection X. It costs $600
Armor 2 is identical but has 16 layers and offers not much more protection to the tune of $900

Armor 3 on the other hand has 14 layers and the liquid. Offering the same protection as armor 2, but also has the added benifit of not only weighing say.. 2lbs less, but also is cheaper to the tune of $850

$50 isnt much difference for a single vest. But what if your buying 80,000 vests? Thats a savings of 4 million.

Actually, items with very measurable benefits often fail to sell, too. It makes composites designers weep.

Yes, but buying 80,000 vests of Armor 1 will save you $240,000,000, or 60 times what buying Armor 3 is worth.