Advanced Weapons

Adaptive is an active camouflage technology developed by BAE Systems AB to protect military vehicles from detection by near-infrared night vision devices. It consists of an array of hexagonal Peltier plates which can be rapidly heated and cooled to form any desired image, such as of the natural background or of a non-target object. In 2011, BAE Systems announced their Adaptiv infrared military camouflage technology, likening it to "a thermal TV screen". It uses about 1000 hexagonal panels to cover the sides of an armored vehicle such as a tank or personnel carrier. Infrared cameras continuously gather thermal images of the vehicle's surroundings. The Peltier plate panels are rapidly heated and cooled to match either the temperature of the background, such as a forest, or one of the objects in the thermal cloaking system's "library" such as a truck, car or large rock. The system is able to gather and display thermal images while the vehicle is moving. The result is to "cloak" the vehicle from detection by heat-detecting night vision devices (thermographic camera systems). For crypsis, the panels can display an infrared image of the vehicle's background; this can be updated as the vehicle moves. For mimesis, an image of a chosen object, such as a car, can be retrieved from Adaptiv's library and superimposed on the background. The illustration shows Adaptiv mimicking a four-wheel drive car, using part of the panel, while the rest of the panel is cryptic, imitating the natural background. The technology is said to reduce the range at which a vehicle would be detected to less than 500 meters. The panels forming Adaptiv's pixels are hexagons approximately 5.5 inches (14 cm) wide. They are robust, contributing to the armor of the vehicle that carries them. The system allows its operator to "grab" a thermal image from a vehicle or other object for display. Adaptive was developed by BAE Systems AB's survivability programme at Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, initially for Combat Vehi.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Amongst the things that are generally accepted as relevant to such an issue and exist the fact that such Technology apples as a deterrent to anyone in general who would consider messing with the United States, One way of relating to, such an issue are that the last thing, an individual or group of individuals would ever want to do is take on a crew that was running something like that. Yes, it's a terrible situation but to be honest, it is pretty much been we as a species, interact with each other, upon such scales.

In consideration, let's take seriously that such a platform is more than capable of fire a tactical nuclear weapon that provides a Five Kiloton Yeald.

Thoughts?

And just to be clear I am presenting that at this very moment there are shells that can be fired from modern tanks that once detonated result potentially in the equivalent to 500,000 pounds of TNT.

Thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
And just to be clear I am presenting that at this very moment there are shells that can be fired from modern tanks that once detonated result potentially in the equivalent to 500,000 pounds of TNT.

Thoughts?

Where does it say that?

a reply to: EA006

The M1 Tank Fires Nuclear Bombs

www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

a reply to: Kashai

Pretty neat. I remember seeing something about this years ago. I wonder what one would do to counter this.

originally posted by: EA006

originally posted by: Kashai
And just to be clear I am presenting that at this very moment there are shells that can be fired from modern tanks that once detonated result potentially in the equivalent to 500,000 pounds of TNT.

Thoughts?

Where does it say that?

I would say something scaled down a bit would probably fit in a tank.

Tactical weapons include not only gravity bombs and short-range missiles, but also artillery shells, land mines, depth charges, and torpedoes for anti-submarine warfare. Also in this category are nuclear armed ground-based or shipborne surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and air-to-air missiles.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Ok so essentially there are, SAM's that can fit into the weight restrictions to be fired from an F-15, whose warhead when detonated, potentially could result in anywhere, from one quarter to a five kiloton yield.

Considering that is the only weapon it is carrying and is customized to carry it as well, of course, deliver it.

Pure and simple.

Thoughts?

Moab (/ˈmoʊæb/; Moabite: 𐤌𐤀𐤁 mʾb; Arabic: مؤاب‎ muʾāb; Hebrew: מוֹאָב‎, Modern man, Tiberian mōʾāḇ; Ancient Greek: Μωάβ Mōáb; Assyrian Mu'aba, Ma'ba, Ma'ab; Egyptian Mu'ab) is the historical name for a mountainous tract of land in Jordan. The land lies alongside much of the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. The existence of the Kingdom of Moab is attested to by numerous archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over an unnamed son of King Omri of Israel.[1] The Moabite capital was Dibon. According to the Hebrew Bible, Moab was often in conflict with its Israelite neighbors to the west.

en.wikipedia.org...

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB pronounced /ˈmoʊ.æb/, commonly known as the Mother of All Bombs) is a large-yield bomb, developed for the United States military by Albert L. Weimorts, Jr. of the Air Force Research Laboratory.[1] At the time of development, it was touted as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal.[2] The bomb is designed to be delivered by a C-130 Hercules, primarily the MC-130E Combat Talon I or MC-130H Combat Talon II variants.

The MOAB was first dropped in combat in the 13 April 2017 airstrike against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militants in Afghanistan.p

en.wikipedia.org...

The really interesting, about these weapons is that a submarine or perhaps any other Naval vessel.

And then there is a C5 Galaxy.

A major problem actually using Nuclear Weapons is that of the Radioactive Cloud produced by such an event will in its drift cross borders, in relation to Nation-States. But in consideration miniaturizing conventional weapons to the extent a device, like MOAB, can be fired from as many tactical militaries platforms as humanly possible?

A tactical advantage would be there would be no radioactive cloud.

Nvm.

Its common knowledge and even here at ATS that Nuclear Submarines carry Nuclear Torpedoes to deal with sonar contacts that involved, enemy Submarines who they, hear open their doors to launch an ICBMs.

originally posted by: Kashai
Its common knowledge and even here at ATS that Nuclear Submarines carry Nuclear Torpedoes to deal with sonar contacts that involved, enemy Submarines who they, hear open their doors to launch an ICBMs.

your data is out dated or wrong. Zaphod not talking is a sign ya might be off.

a reply to: yuppa
pmdngafwz is thinking.

Anyway, it is really possible that the United States of America currently not only Nuclear Arsenal but also s Conventional equivalent and is capable of deploying that capacity to the same extent as its Nuclear Arsenal.

Including this.



Thoughts?

a reply to: yuppa

Maybe you should elaborate?

Rods of God.

BY CHANCE, the same day that Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was released in theaters across the country, the world learned of the Bush administration's plans to weaponize space.

So while critics speculated about the parallels between the Evil Empire and the Bush administration, pundits debated the merits of "space superiority"--the allies it would alienate, the treaties it would violate, the billions it would cost. The irony was not lost on Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, whose insistence that the world would not "accept the U.S. developing something they see as the death star," was carried in the pages of the New York Times.

Among the weapons, the Air Force might deploy are space-based lasers, a space plane capable of delivering a half-ton payload anywhere in the world in 45 minutes, and the "rods from god." The rods are currently just a concept--and have been since the early 1980s--but, if the myriad technical and political hurdles to deployment could be overcome, the system could represent a tremendous leap forward in the military's ability to destroy underground, hardened facilities of the type that have allowed Iran and other rogue states to violate the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty with impunity.

www.weeklystandard.com...

a reply to: Kashai

The BAE camo is old news. it can mimic vehicles and even the forest infra red signature.

optic camo that bends light would work well with that.

RODS.too exspensive too transport to orbit currently.

rail guns on tanks can produce multi ton force impactors when they are perfected on ships.

nuclear torps and tomahawks are not deployed currently in the us navy. they are in storage pending need of them.

also f-15 are not carrying nuclear missiles of either air to air nukes or air to surface nukes. russia still has them though as well as SAMs.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Scaled down is pretty difficult, there are minimum sizes for nuclear criticality. The 200mm artillery shell (bigger than standard artillery) is probably about what you would want.

And there are no command and control-systems for nuclear weapons in any armored ground vehicle I know about; furthermore, transport and logistics risk are high.

There's no need and lots of superior alternatives, like GPS guided bombs and cruise missiles.

a reply to: Kashai

Nope. Orbital kinetic penetrators are extremely expensive for their capability---there are limits on their performance in physical studies outside science fiction.

Air dropped penetrating conventional bombs are superior for most uses and enormously less expensive. And potentially more accurate, being able to actively guide themselves on the way down with fins & control systems instead of being on entirely ballistic unpowered, uncontrolled trajectories surrounded by an impenetrable ion sheath like ICBM warheads.