concept military vehicle - hog tank, simon cheng (3D)

[simoncheng]

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/cymon20581/hogtankview5.jpg
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/cymon20581/hogtankview7.jpg

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/cymon20581/hogtankview6.jpg

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/cymon20581/hogtankview4.jpg

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/cymon20581/hogtankview1.jpg

[Dtox]

It's a great model.

One thing though about the concept.

A battle vehicle has absolutely no use as a stealth craft.

The reason for stealth is so the vehicle can operate in non-battlefield environments and not be detected by radar.

They don't use the stealth aircraft for battle, they use it for gathering intel.

There's also the issue that the outer shell of your vehicle has a stealth design, but the weapons systems mounted on it don't.
Defeats the purpose.

Think about it though, if this vehicle rolls onto the battlefield everyone knows it.
Especially when it engages an enemy.

The concept would make more sense if the weapons retracted, creating a smooth top that deflects radar cross sections.
The missiles themselves would also need to be stealth or else the vehicles position would be detected whenever it fires one.
Another important factor with making it stealth would be that the top shell would need to not radiate heat.
Otherwise all the stealth properties are for naught.

[Piz]

Really Cool Simon! :thumbsup:

[DarkLimit]

-This is a great model, what kind of rendering style this is? toon?

[machadoj]

Great model and a unique style! Congrats! :)

[ArtisticEndeavors]

A battle vehicle has absolutely no use as a stealth craft.

The reason for stealth is so the vehicle can operate in non-battlefield environments and not be detected by radar.
Only correct when taken from a civilian perspective. Having been in a combat zone within the last 2 years I can tell you a stealth tank sorta like this would be totally AWESOME on the battlefeild. A vehicle that can get near an enemy camp without being detected rocks....one that can rock that camp.......well....awesome. Like I said your ideas on stealth vehicles is correct....from a civilian perspective. Do some research though and you'll find there are plenty of vehicles, land/air/sea, that are both built for stealth and have the ability to wipe out thier target.



They don't use the stealth aircraft for battle, they use it for gathering intel.

Hmmm I'm guessing you've never seen a stealth bomber in action then. The first use of the stealth bomber for an air attack was on a heavily gaurded base in Iraq back in the early 90's, which was bombed to hell and back. Just some info if you ever get to be on jeopardy lol ;) . (at least i think this is the first use...i may be wrong though) On an unrelated note, but of equal importance in this discussion, submarines are built for stealth.....and guess what they do besides collect intel. The PRIMARY use for stealth vehicles may be gathering intel, but this depends on the mission. For those vehicles with the ability to attack thier target, well......they get orders to attack thier target, if its called for by the mission they are on.

I do have to agree with you on one thing though.....this design isn't really all that stealthy, but having only about four missle bays (no real "need" for more on a stealth vehicle) actually imbedded into the tank itself would be good....ones the crew can load from inside so they can roll onto the next target, and lowering the entire chassis would help out alot.

The reason there isn't a need for this many missles is because a stealth vehicle isn't really built to handle damage, it's built for stealth....which limits its damage taking abilities.....which is exactly what it would be worried about around the launch of the 7th missle. But if all those missles were launched at the same time AND were stealthy.....well then they'd be fine....a bit overkill....but absolutely acceptable. Remember the whole idea with having a stealth vehicle attack is to be able to get as close as possible to the target and destroy it before it knows you're there.

But even though its not really all that stealthy (because of the hieght of the tank and the "form" breaking missle launchers).....it still looks pretty cool lol.


edit- after actually thinking about it, the hieght isn't to big of a concern as long as you could sorta have the body "flow" out around the wheels and down to the ground. The radio waves would have less of a chance to "bounce" of the ground and under the tank that way. But put that body to close to the ground and you lose the ability to move around in many terrains. So you gotta sorta balance your design between stealth and practicallity....you have a pretty good start here though.

[LouisCho]

wow, great analysis

I would say: great design but whoa, I wan to know what kind of bolts can support the stress effort at the junction of the missiles lunchers! Can you make a bigger mecanism for that junction?

Also it would be great and in the continuity of the stealth logical to have the missiles lunchers built in the main hull.

keep it up

[Maitreya]

expect for the 3d model

[simoncheng]

wow.
thanks for all the responses.
great analysis for stealth too.
can grab some info here too due to my concept work,
overall it is a concept work just like other.
the practical always behind the design. (that why we call concept work, not pratical work)
but sometime it hard to built a pratical concept in real life.

example: terminator' endoskeleton run on battery or fuel? or need to recharge or refuel?
the shape of millineum falcon(starwars) really can stand the speed of light?

but it is good to hav some discussion on it, at least we can exchange some info / detail.
so we can refine it into more detail and pratical.

i m really happy for all the response.
thank you.

[Pitipongp]

very nice work Simon
great concept :thumbsup:
should be put in strategy game :scream:

[LouisCho]

you're right and by my response I didn't want to mean that it's not a good concept. I love your design and your style.

It's just that as a industrial design addict, I am used to abbord the 'practical' side WITH the design approch. In that way, the equation in complete but hey, It's my view!

very great work

[Dtox]

Only correct when taken from a civilian perspective. Having been in a combat zone within the last 2 years I can tell you a stealth tank sorta like this would be totally AWESOME on the battlefeild. A vehicle that can get near an enemy camp without being detected rocks....one that can rock that camp.......well....awesome.
They also don't build vehicles just because they'd rock on the battlefield.
A stealth bomber doesn't go head to head with other aircraft because it lacks maneuverability and defensive weapons.
It simply delivers a payload.
Not the same thing as "battlefield" ready.

Building that vehicle would cost millions.
And it couldn't compete with a hardened vehicle like a tank.
Because the stealth design trades weight(armor and defensive weapons) for high altitude flight and speed.
But on the ground there is no higher altitudes.

So the design is flawed due to its purpose.
I give the artist credit for an interesting concept, and a good execution of it.
I realize that it's a concept vehicle that's created more for aesthetic purposes, and I'm not trying to debate that.
I'm debating the fact that ArtisticEndeavors is saying that the vehicle would be "awesome".
It would only be awesome to suicide bombers.
And the military doesn't build multi-million dollar machines that get taken out immediately due to flawed design or purpose.
From a civilian perspective or from a military perspective doesn't matter, the thing has no practical use.
And it doesn't take a soldier to see that.

On a real battlefield, it would be a suicide vehicle.
It would be a highly legitimate target from an enemy military perspective, so they'd utilize whatever resources needed to destroy it.
It doesn't have the thick armor that a tank has so it would be easier to destroy.
You don't have the option of high speeds and altitudes on the ground because of the laws of physics like you do in the air with a bomber.
So you'd have to rely on having the ability to take out all targets quickly and completely so they don't have the ability to attack the vehicle.
And that's just not plausible, you don't bank on having that ability because you most likely wouldn't achieve that.
That's a Rambo tactic, and that's not how the military really works.
You're a soldier, you know this!

If the only major advantage is that it can get close to a target without detection, and then destroy the target, why would anyone spend millions of dollars developing and deploying a vehicle that does the same job as a few guys on foot with a laser director and air support?
They actually stand a better chance against a tank than a thin skin vehicle and a stationary crew.
If not, that's what GPS guided missiles such as JDAMs are used for.
Or one of those heavily armored helicopters, or even one of those A10 planes that drop bolt missiles.

Our military attempts to be proficient, and I'm not saying they ARE, but they try to be.
That includes cost effectiveness and resource management.

Not only would their shiny new vehicle be destroyed, but their specially trained crew is dead too.
It cost alot to train new guys, and they try to avoid high casualty counts if possible.

And what would they accomplish?
Destroy a target that could've been taken out by existing, less costly and more reliable means?

Our military industrial complex is dumb, but not THAT dumb.
When it concerns money and greed, they always make the right decision.
From a greedy perspective, yes?

Also it would be great and in the continuity of the stealth logical to have the missiles lunchers built in the main hull.
Exactly!
You could maintain the smooth top that's required for stealth.

[scorpionmk]

Nice debate :)

Now, it's a concept based on a artists eye, not an engineers :) So we shouldn't be talking too much about the real-life version of this vehicle. But since you started...

The only thing I don't like is those huge rocket launchers, from both perspectives, as a concept and practical use. From a concept view they destroy the cool stealth look, and from practical use they lower the stealth abilities.

Now, I think Dtox is looking at the stealth-feature from a wrong point of view.
Every vehicle in the army has it's own part on the battlefield. Blaming a stealth vehicle for not being able to survive a 1vs1 duel with a tank has no point. Yeah, a good marine with a minigun can take down many soldiers on close combat, but where's his strenght when he becomes aimed by a sniper 1km away from him??

Think of some other situations, in a battlefield you're not always in front of their base. How about passing the borders, getting in a zone close to their position without getting caught on the radar? stealth has MANY possibilities. how about taking tanks from behind in a tank battle? your tanks come face-to-face with their, but your sneaky stealth vehicles with even one single rocket in them can be the key to winning the battle, because their tanks focus on their front, and their radars don't alert them to look back. How about a safe extraction of a general that took a bullet, getting him out of the battlefield in a zone where you have no air support?

The possibilities are endless, before you start thinking about how you're going to use a vehicle in battle, you should know who you are fighting, what do they have, how are they attacking you, the current positions in the battlefield, etc.

My opinion is that the old "face to face" battlefield rule is gone... heroes don't exist no more, it's not in the muscle, but in the brain. Intelegence, stealth, spying, these are the things that are winning the wars today and in the future. And even in the history some of the biggest heroes, with powerfull swords, got killed by assasins with small daggers. :)

Simon, correct those launchers, and you have a vehicle that may some day change history ;)

[CHRiTTeR]

Although i know this is your style and it does look nice i really would like to see textured and nicely lit versions of your design. Im sure they will look even more kick-ass ;)

[Dtox]

Blaming a stealth vehicle for not being able to survive a 1vs1 duel with a tank has no point.
How can you not see the point I'm trying to make?
It's a stealth vehicle that will be used on the ground, and on a "battlefield".
It's most obvious opponent in the environment it fights in is a tank.
And it's no match for it, so it serves no purpose.
This is simple strategy.

How about passing the borders, getting in a zone close to their position without getting caught on the radar?
Again, you're not thinking it through.
You're seeing it in a "Rambo" way.
The Special Forces and Navy Seals are trained for missions like that.
Why would they build a multi-million dollar concept vehicle for it?


Every vehicle in the army has it's own part on the battlefield.
Exactly.
And this stealth vehicle would be serving the same purpose as a tank, and a small team of well trained men.
Because it doesn't have the room(and can't sustain the weight) to serve as a troop transport vehicle, so its purpose must be to directly engage an enemy.
However, when it's on the battlefield with all the enemy tanks, it can't compete with them(except from behind).
So what's it for?
Do you honestly think ANY military in the entire world would build a vehicle that only stands a chance against it's most likely opponent if it has the element of surprise from behind?
No way!
Think!
c'mon!?

My opinion is that the old "face to face" battlefield rule is gone... heroes don't exist no more, it's not in the muscle, but in the brain. Intelegence, stealth, spying, these are the things that are winning the wars today and in the future. And even in the history some of the biggest heroes, with powerfull swords, got killed by assasins with small daggers.
That's about the only thing you've said so far that I can actually agree with.

However, they still use tanks.
All the time.
And if you're gonna put a new million dollar vehicle on the ground it better be able to at least sustain the impact of the machine gun on a tank, if not the main artillery gun.

This is a combat vehicle, made to fight other combat vehicles.
But it lacks some of the main features that would allow it to hold its own.

Maybe wars aren't fought 1on1 like they used to be, but they still build vehicles to compete with other vehicles in battle.
Otherwise they're troop or supply transports.

[scorpionmk]

How can you not see the point I'm trying to make?
It's a stealth vehicle that will be used on the ground, and on a "battlefield".
It's most obvious opponent in the environment it fights in is a tank.
And it's no match for it, so it serves no purpose.
This is simple strategy.

A bomber is used on the air battlefield, and It's most obvious opponent in the environment it fights in is a F-16. heavy big bomber vs F-16, you gotta be kidding me. Does that make it useless?

The Special Forces and Navy Seals are trained for missions like that.
Why would they build a multi-million dollar concept vehicle for it?

Because the navy seals can't run 100km/h :)

And if you're gonna put a new million dollar vehicle on the ground it better be able to at least sustain the impact of the machine gun on a tank, if not the main artillery gun.

I never said this vehicle is perfect ready-made for production lol :D

I was just saying that stealth vehicles MAY be very useful in combat.
And btw, how do you know what is this vehicle made of ? how do you know it's gonna have so small resistance? It's just a drawing, not an engineer blueprint :)

anyway, we're not getting anywhere like this, let's leave the military vehicle engineering to the army :D once again, I was just trying to say that stealth vehicles are not for the trash can, and maybe they have their own place on the battlefield :)

[Dtox]

A bomber is used on the air battlefield, and It's most obvious opponent in the environment it fights in is a F-16. heavy big bomber vs F-16, you gotta be kidding me. Does that make it useless? No.
It usually has an escort by 2 fighters when it's carrying so much weight that it can't achieve extreme speeds and/or altitudes.

What I'm saying is that some of the attributes of the stealth design don't apply to land vehicles.
And these differences would influence the design.
Such as the aerodynamic shape.
It's doesn't need to be there.
Cut that, you just reduced the development costs by 1/4.
It doesn't need to fly at such high altitudes.
That's more money off development costs.

These are things that would seriously dictate the design.
And that should be considered when creating a design for anything.

The attribute of being invisible to radar, has alot to do with the paint.
This is where the creators of the Matrix got the machine to study BRDF's.

So the vehicle above would not have the aerodynamic shape it has.
Presumably it should be somewhat smooth, but then the rest of the stealth properties exist in the shader.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.