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.

 

Advanced Weapons

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: Kashai

He was being pretty polite, seeing as he's the only member engaging with you and your thread which was previously just you talking to yourself. But sure, he's special needs


apparently he dont know the difference between kinetic MIRVS and actual RODS. GLOBAL STRIKE isNt RODS. IT USES SMALLER IMPACTORS. Its hilarious this person thinks he knows more than Zaphod 58 in this subject.
the man is trolling us.




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Again, I never said that fighters can't carry them, only that one specific one can't, but your understanding of it is so far off its not funny. The weapons hung on the aircraft have to interface with the aircraft. That's especially true of nuclear weapons. The pilot has to be able to arm them. You can't just say "aircraft A can carry X pounds, so we'll hang bombs on it today". There is a reason they spend years doing separation and captive carry testing before hanging weapons on aircraft.

There are many videos of drop tests of weapons going horribly wrong. There's a hell of a lot more to it than just payload capacity.
edit on 12/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You clearly do not understand that the only real issue is weight restrictions and the technology needed to miniaturize weapons and otherwise.

You apparently seem ignorant of the fact that if a technology is tactically relevant and feasible, then it is applied as a means of defense.

It's like you are living in a fantasy world where the technology of nuclear weapons has not been miniaturized where it conforms to the weight restrictions of an F-15 as a short-range missile in this case.

Feel free to live in whatever fantasy world you care to but in this case, it makes no real sense, you really have any idea as to what you are talking about.

Realistically.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Obviously, the world would have been better off if the Eastern Hemisphere was not so messed up.


Definitely dysfunctional in comparison to development in the Western Hemisphere which is obvious.
edit on 2-12-2017 by Kashai because: Added content.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

No, I'm afraid it is you who are wrong.

Weight is not the only thing to depend on whether or not an aircraft can carry a nuclear device.

As Zaph has pointed out (several times I might add) the interface for these special weapons is important. You can not just stick a nuclear weapon on any aircraft.

Tech protocols must be in place to interface with the special weapon. If those do not exist for that aircraft, then the weapon can not be launched properly.

You do not get to just put a nuke on a rail and shoot it. It has to go through a special arming sequence in order for that weapon to work.

The main consideration for any unit that deploys a weapon is it's mission. The US is not in the habit of making kamakazi type missions. Aircraft that deploy special weapons must also be able to handle deployment of that weapon, and being able to return from the deployment.

For example: The ships I served on had small special weapons on them. In order to deploy those special missiles, a arming sequence had to be followed (which was removed when the ships I was on no longer cared these special weapons).

When shooting these special weapons we had to do so in a certain way in order to ensure that the ship and crew would survive with both minimal damage to the ship and crew. This involved doing a power run away from the target and deploying the weapon at the last possible moment of it's range.

So NO you can not just stick a nuke on any damn aircraft you desire.

Please stop insisting that you can, because as a weapons expert in this area I'm here to tell you that you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Uhm, unlike you, I've actually worked on these aircraft. I have a significantly better understanding of it than you do. The computers on the aircraft need a link to the weapons, it needs to talk to them so that the pilot can program GPS coordinates for GPS guided weapons. For dumb bombs the computer has to be able to calculate the impact point. If it's not programed to, it can't do it.

For a nuclear weapon, the aircraft needs to talk to it so the pilot can arm it. He needs to input the correct codes to arm the weapon. They don't take off with them armed, and don't arm them until they're about to drop them.

Then there's the minor matter of airflow around the aircraft. I'd link a few videos, but obviously you don't care about facts. Aircraft specifically designed to carry and drop bombs have released them in tests only to see them fly back up and hit their aircraft, or the chase aircraft that was taping the release for later study. Several aircraft crashed as a result of drop testing.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

What is actually pathetic about your commentary is that you are actually suggesting that any aircraft designed with a thrust to take such an aircraft at the speeds cannot be modified to carry any payload those who wanted it designed to do so.

One cannot as you say "stick a nuke on any aircraft you desire", but in reality, one could in potential consider the C5
Galaxy as one example.



One thing for certain about the United States is that we do not engage in appeasement.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

The C-5 was carrying a missile internally. That is completely different from hanging a bomb on an aircraft and expecting it to work. The missile received its commands remotely after release from the C-5, where hanging a bomb on an aircraft requires it to talk to the aircraft to receive the commands.

a reply to: Kashai

We've established many posts ago that the F-15E can carry the B61 tactical weapon.
edit on 12/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

"I have a significantly better understanding of it than you do.'

if that is the case then how you explain my last Youtube video?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

You mean the one of the F-15E releasing a B61? The same F-15E that I said in like my first post that can carry the B61?

If you actually read what I have been saying, I said that the F-15A-D, which is a significantly different aircraft than the E model can't carry them.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

"We've established many posts ago that the F-15E can carry the B61 tactical weapon.'

I personally do not give a crap that you claim any mechanic trained to load specific ordinance to an F-15 is not trained to modify the aircraft to carry a nuclear weapon if so ordered to do.

That would be stupid and in general to the function of mechanics who are assigned to working with such aircraft.

I mean in all sincerity that is ludicrous and at the very least there would be a field instruction manual.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You seem to keep insisting you know what you are talking about but thus far you have shown that you do not know #.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

That's not even close to how it works. Almost no modifications that significant can be done in the field. It would require computer upgrades, weapons bus upgrades, upgrades to the cockpit weapons panel to put the interface in, and more. It would require manufacturer support, and a Depot team to do it. Not just the mechanic in the field.

The mechanics that work on these aircraft are trained to work in very specific fields. The only one that works on every system on the aircraft is the crew chief, and even he couldn't modify an aircraft to carry a nuclear weapon.

The B-1 bomber had its nuclear weapons capability removed. To reactivate it would take two to three days minimum, and Depot level work teams to do it. You are wrong again.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

In your world maybe. Try going to people that actually work on these aircraft and tell them this and sit back and watch as they laugh.


(post by Kashai removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As I have already explained my Stepfather worked of the military division for General Motors, or in your fantasy world is that not possible?



edit on 2-12-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

They would be laughing based on the evidence that I have provided that you actually are making a fool of yourself.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

So that makes him an expert on aircraft and their nuclear capabilities?

Wow. Who knew that working on trucks and radar makes you an expert on nuclear weapons.

a reply to: Kashai

If that's what you want to believe.

You go right on believing you made me look like a fool. I'm done with this inanity.
edit on 12/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

WTF makes you think that that is what he worked on? are you psychic?

And again there was my father.

Perhaps you should do actual research on the topic than stroke your proverbial ego with respect to your pet theories, that do not take into consideration. that in reality, you have provided no evidence that what you are claiming actually
is real.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join