Metal foam armor
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
New type of armor or new to the trending news stories, either way, foam metal armor per the article says flexible and 1 inch equals class IV.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2979274/new-metal-foam-armor-can-disintegrate-bullets-on-contact-video/
Also aperantly stops radiation.
Hope it hits civilian market
So could this make planes invulnerable?
>>29552202
any other video? that one is shit
>>29552238
Just clicked the trending articles, ill look
>>29552202
Doesn't say how much it weighs...
>>29552202
>http://www.inquisitr.com/2979274/new-metal-foam-armor-can-disintegrate-bullets-on-contact-video/
>The first layer is of boron carbide ceramics. The second layer is made from the composite metal foam. The final layer can be either a strong aluminum 7075 or a Kevlar panel.
>The first layer is of boron carbide ceramics
>boron carbide ceramics.
>metal foam armor
>>29552248
https://youtu.be/FZvi8e51Nd0
>>29552202
Unless it's significantly lighter than ceramic or AR500 lvl4 it's just another dead futureweapon brand futureweapon doomed to be jerked off over by keyboard commandos. Did they mention how the porosity effects it's multiple hit capabilities?
>>29552351
Not in the article i read
>>29552351
It IS ceramic armor. But it uses metal foam as part of backing instead of kevlar or spectra 'convention' ceramic plates use.
>>29552357
Just gave the op article a read and didn't see that either, this thing kinda feels like one of those pseudoscientific inventions with a bullshit method behind it. Like that Korean "gill" rebreather or that hoverboard that only works on copper sheets. Could someone with better understanding of metallurgy explain the viability of the process they talk about in the article? I always thought you wanted to avoid gas bubbles in metal
>>29552427
Oh, it's probably not at all pseudo-science.
Metal foam is very very real.
And I wouldn't be surprised if a bullet going into the foam at a certain speed will fragment early (same as if you fire a 50 cal into a swimming pool, the round will detonate very early from contact with water. But a slow bullet could hit the bottom of the pool)
The pseudo-science part is the descriptions full of lies that leave out a combination of heavy ceramic front, heavy metal mid-section and metal or kevlar rear section is used.
It might require 2 inches total to equal 1 inch of ceramic... while also having worse multi-hit capability if the foam (which should be very weak) collapses in a large area from the very first bullet.
Suddenly anyone who isn't using a single shot bolt action rifle is better off against the over-hyped gimmick armor instead of a simple thick concrete plate or thick steel plate.
I can't imagine there is any infantry use for it.
Even if it is superior to have a 3" metal-foam-combo versus the same weight in a 1" armor, no infantry have a use for that huge extra thickness.
Rule infantry out and go to vehicles... and we already have fancy super-armor on vehicles like reactive armor, self-sealing tanks, ceramic-metal mixes, it'll be used lightly in one specific niche somewhere but the hype is complete bullshit.
>>29552427
metal foam has the highest strength/weight of any material that can be made in macroscopic volumes, that being said it is not nearly as strong as solid metal.
I am starting to suspect that stupid shit like this is just a dumb attempt to make our enemies actually think this stupid shit is real...
>>29553473
dont read too far into it. just more science click bait by reporters who have no fucking clue what they are talking about.
>>29552202
>foam metal armor per the article says flexible and 1 inch equals class IV
Calling bullshit on some or all of that. Metal foam's greatest strength is it's a rigid metal structure that's unbelievably lightweight.
>>29552232
No.
>>29552427
>Could someone with better understanding of metallurgy explain the viability of the process they talk about in the article?
The article is largely uninformed bullshit. This is just using metal foam to take the place of kevlar or open space in armor, which is an idea that's been kicked around for awhile, but it's hard to do when the go-to metal alloys easily burn.
>>29552427
>I always thought you wanted to avoid gas bubbles in metal
Imagine you could see through metal for a moment. Those unwanted air bubbles would look like all sorts of blobs just randomly scattered and of different sizes, really compromises the structural integrity of a solid block. Now imagine the entire thing is full of these little bubbles, each one roughly (or exactly) the same size. Sure, you have less total material but these bubbles provide something resembling a coherent structure that's much, much lighter in weight.
>>29553347
>it is not nearly as strong as solid metal.
For pure kinetic armor applications sure, but for structural material? Metal foam inside a solid metal structure is very, very fucking hard to beat, it's got a much greater strength to weight ratio.
