It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Future Combat Systems!!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Its just that they don't store plans for B-2s in there,thats why the pentagon doesn't care if they got haxxored




posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
If all gamers were to fight wars then S.Korea would be an Israel

Amazing gamers they've got....Too freaking fast and tactful!!



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Wow, all those fancy video's definitly hype it up...

They definitly have some interest vehicles, Is there any information of what they will be armed with?


I dunno, if so, where?????

P.S. The weapon the infrantry were using, WHAT WAS IT???????????????





posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I think its the XM8
As i said in your other thread.
Will replace the M16.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
In my view there are only two things standing in the way of controling our whole battlefield electronically. Autonomous vehicle motion ( Getting from current location to specified destination) and enemy recognition. The autonomous motion is being HEAVILY invested into at the moment by darpa. I really have no idea how a machine would recognize soft targets as friend or foe though. (Read soft targets as non military vehicles/bases.. IE Big ass gun in a little truck.. or that hospital across the street with 15 rpgs sticking out of it)

Once that is done they already have the basic software and controls needed to coordinate everything else. GPS or a GPS like system would control coordinates of movement, and strikes.

The overall system would probably function much like todays strategy games albeit not as graphically pleasing. The graphics wouldn't be necessary and they would hinder performance and ability to expand it into a truly global map scalable to within a few feet.

For special forces and other smaller tasks I'm sure it wouldnt fall far from our FPS games of today. They already have all functions necessary to control every aspect of any weapon, all that is needed is to change it from only updating display coordinates to updating coordinates on a actual weapon.

This FPS scenario is actually used today with predators and the likes. The strategy scenario is somewhat implemented with the armies 8th? division in their humvees and apcs. That division uses a overhead display in the command tent/bunker to watch the postion and relay orders to all or specific units.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
My favorite systems of the FCS are the non line of sight cannon with target cordinates it's cannon could fire extremly far and act as a fire support vehicle. Also I like the tank with its BLOS missiles and powerful gun it will be a force to be reckoned with.

I have one question though are all the big guns going to be electro-magnetic ?



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by blue cell
I have one question though are all the big guns going to be electro-magnetic ?

If so then one big problem could be what if they are fighting near iron?
OPPS the turrets just aim downward before fireing.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

[

If so then one big problem could be what if they are fighting near iron?
OPPS the turrets just aim downward before fireing.


Maybe there make different variants of the tank one for more urban warfare and one for open battlefields.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by blue cell
Maybe there make different variants of the tank one for more urban warfare and one for open battlefields.

Well it really depends what the charge of everything is.
Lol you could cheat the range tests by putting a cable behind the target, mabye some 50 metres behind it , and putting a large amount of power through it.
Imagine the tank gunner.
"I dont get it , on the range its bullseye everytime but out in the field they miss!"



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
here is some links I found about light armor concepts for the FCS family of vehicles.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The difficulty with hackers is that Military programs are extremely difficult to hack, I mean, how do you expect UCAV's to be of such value? Would they be of such value if they were so vulnerable? You would have to have been the designers of the software to basically be able to hack into it, and even then, security blocks are put in measures.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Here is a link I found about the non-line of sight cannon demonstrator, pretty intresting stuff.

NLOS-C demonstrator FAQS





[edit on 14-1-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
with ths stuff we hold on for 20 years then everybody wll have it



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Maybe it won't be as effective as they are put out to be. Remember the Ak-47 vs M-16 in Vietnam? I have a feeling history will repeat itself.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I think there's a huge difference between something as massive as the FCS program, and a relatively cheap weapon given to infantry.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The difficulty with hackers is that Military programs are extremely difficult to hack, I mean, how do you expect UCAV's to be of such value? Would they be of such value if they were so vulnerable? You would have to have been the designers of the software to basically be able to hack into it, and even then, security blocks are put in measures.

Shattered OUT...

Just to build upon what Shattered said regarding hacking into a UCAV's operation...
Please note that the following statement pertains to UCAV systems that are coming online - (not sure about the current crop of UAV's).

The first thing a hacker would need to do is find the authentic dataflow as there are multiple subcarriers in the signal and the real dataflow rotates within the subcarriers with superfulous data streaming in the other subcarriers.

If the hacker were ever able to crack into the correct stream he would encounter a heavily encrypted dataflow that has taken NSA supercomputers over 9 months to decrypt and that's when the key is provided

Bear in mind that the average UAV mission is only 12-48 hours, not 9 months and keys may change each mission.

Now the hacker would have to speak the language of the UAV's program - good luck...

Ya know, rather than hacking a UAV it would be a heck of a lot easier to just jam the signal...

Oh but wait! They are largely autonomous and not only is the stream hardened to jamming the UAV itself will be pre-programmed to take measures to resist jamming...

...I think you'd better just shoot it down. ;-)

Incidently, most future UCAV's are stealthy, maybe you can see them on low freq radar but that's not practical for weapon targeting systems, so maybe you should just try plinking at it with your triple A...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join