It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Pictures of American Armed Forces

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:13 PM
Here are some links from a quick google on Stealth Ships: 0.html

But what about surface vessels? How to mask large, relatively slow-moving ships has been an ongoing problem, but naval engineers may have finally cracked the nut with three new high-profile designs: the Visby corvette, designed by the Swedish shipbuilders Kockums, the British Type 45 Destroyer, designed by BAE Systems, and the U.S. Navy's DD(X) destroyer, under construction by Northrop Grumman.

This site above also has a pretty good chart as well as images outlining some aspects of stealth at sea.

It did not take the Navy long to realize that it already had the rough outline for a new type of vessel to counter the threat posed by international terrorists. The Navy calls it a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). "Littoral Combat Ships have been part of Navy concept development and experi-mentation since 1999," says a spokesman for the Navy Warfare Development Center (NWDC) in Newport, R.I. "In the Title X Global war game series, in the DARPA-sponsored Capabilities for the Navy After Next war games, in Fleet Battle Experiments and in other field and lab experiments, [LCSs] have had capabilities ranging from information operations to mine countermeasures to anti-submarine warfare to supporting special operations. Fleet commanders and battle group commanders have praised their attributes." DARPA refers to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The future USS San Antonio, currently under construction at Northrop Grumman Ship Systems’ shipyard in Avondale, LA, is the first amphibious transport dock of the twelve-ship San Antonio class. San Antonio will be used to transport and land Marines, their equipment and supplies, by embarked air cushion or conventional landing craft or Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles, augmented by helicopters or vertical take off and landing aircraft. It will support amphibious assault, special ops, or expeditionary warfare missions through the first half of the 21st Century.

The San Antonio will be the Navy's first stealth ship, designed using fewer angles from protruding pieces of steel and a pair of eight-sided twin masts that reduce its radar signature.

The Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, "USS Hopper" was commissioned in May of 1997. "Hopper" incorporates sound isolators or "shock absorbers" to improve its noise signature. A low profile and an angular design gives "Hopper" a reduced radar cross section.

The design of the ship's hull and superstructure benefited from information obtained when the Skunk Works developed "Sea Shadow". The Navy considers the Hopper one of the most capable warships ever built.

Submarines have been utilizing stealth principals for a long time. Since 1776, when David Bushnell's one-man human powered "Turtle" attempted unsuccessfully to sink the British Warship HMS "Eagle", submarine stealth has been evolving.

The cutting edge of this evolution is the Ohio Class Trident Ballistic Missile submarines, typified by the USS "Pennsylvania". The Pennsylvania's keel was laid down in January, 1984, and was launched in April, 1988. The most important defensive feature of these submarines is their stealth characteristics. They are among the quietest nuclear-powered submarines ever built.

A submarine's stealth derives from its ability to submerge and remain there, virtually invisible in the ocean's depths. They can operate undetected for weeks or months, even in contested waters. Stealth gives the submarine the many advantages of covertness.

Take a look at the links, and also at the designs as well as the concepts involved. This link shows what is supposed to be the Navy SEALs new boats.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:41 PM
I'd think those MIRV pics would satisfy the requirement for "super cool black stuff". and it seems quite clear why there's an interest in arming a few conventionally. Still, for the task of making someone right there die right now, because the soldier a block away needs him to, I think the AC-130U is probrably the best tool there is.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Sep
Hopefully these ugly weapons of war will not be used by either side, and a peaceful solution can be found to this problem, because at the end of the day it is always the civilians and the weak who are injured by wars.

Have a WATS on me Sep. You're a man after my own heart (granted that my heart has only started to go that way in the last year or so).

I see why we keep militaries, I see how their use can be a lamentable necessity at times, and I'm fascinated with military strategy, but that doesn't mean that we should support letting every little national dispute or pissing match be decided by the blood of our respective patriots (much less any civilians unfortunate enough to get caught in the middle).

I've said it before recently and I'll say it again: China and Russia are working with Iran, America has successfully negotiated with these nations before, and the obvious answer is for America, China, Russia, and Iran to sit down and talk about what everyone NEEDS, what everyone WANTS, and which WANTS they will sacrifice in order to recieve what they NEED.

The cooperation of 3 of the most powerful and influential nations on this planet would be more than sufficient to peacefully accomplish the two things that must be done to get us through this problem. Those two things are 1. Strongly protect Iran's national security by non-nuclear means. 2. Allow Iran to have a legal nuclear energy program which does not have the potential to generate illegal weapons.

If it comes to blows, there will be varying degrees of blood on the hands of all 4 governments, and in the case of America and Iran, some of it will necessarily be that of their own people.

May cooler heads prevail.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:36 PM
Go get a game called "Lock On" and fly some of them puppies. Takes a bunch of RAM and some serious CPU, but it is a serious kick.


posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:22 PM

external image

external image

external image

external image
external image
external image

external image
Now everbody remember where you parked

[edit on 7-4-2006 by uuhelpus]

(Mod edit: Resized some pictures)

[edit on 2006/4/8 by Hellmutt]

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:58 PM

Originally posted by uuhelpus

Ah, the good ole days of the water burners.
My father used to be a B-52 maintenance guy. He said that when they had an ORI, and the water burning B-52s and KC-135s would take off, by the time the third one went down the runway, you couldn't see anything at all until they were miles downrange and had climbed above the smoke. The crews rolling down the runway spent the whole time on the runway, until they were airborne praying that the guy ahead of them didn't have to abort his takeoff.

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by mad scientist
external image

This one is actually an MC-130E Combat Talon. They fly in with the MH-60s and refuel them on the way in, and have some jamming capabilities as well.

(Mod edit: resized picture)

[edit on 2006/4/8 by Hellmutt]

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:55 AM

Originally posted by uuhelpus

Can you name a military force that did well against an Insurgency In the past 250 years?

yes i can

the Brittish campaign during the malay crisis

the brish [ again] in oman

britain [ yet again ] during the mau mau uprising

britains commitment in Sierra Leone is ongoing , but very sucsessful

ok enough hubris , i think you get the point now

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:35 AM
MINUTEMAN III warhead configerations

W87 MIRV warheads being loaded onto an LGM-118 Peacekeeper



external image

Reentry vehicles from a recent Peacekeeper flight test streak into the Kwajalein target zone. Materials used to protect the vehicle upon reentry were tested at AEDC.

Flight test of the Advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle in early 1980. The path of the reentry vehicle is the upper streak of light, with the booster tanks immediately below. Lights from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific can be seen in the lower right corner.


external image

SHARP-B2 reentry vehicle before flight with two of the four Ultra High-Temperature Ceramics (UHTC) strakes visible

SM-65 Atlas





And the big daddy the TRIDENT II D-5 SLBM

(Mod edit: fixed some pics)

[edit on 2006/4/8 by Hellmutt]

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:44 AM

A pissing contest

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Sep
I guess as an Iranian it is traditional for me to start the pissing contest with a inflammatory comment, seeing as that is how all the Iranian threads are treated by our American friends. But I'll pass on that, and congratulate our American friends on the strides that they have made during the last century, and the growth in technology, which they have generated. Hopefully these ugly weapons of war will not be used by either side, and a peaceful solution can be found to this problem, because at the end of the day it is always the civilians and the weak who are injured by wars.

so very very true my friend, you would think with all that technology we would be able to come up with a peaceful solution to the worlds problems

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:44 AM
Allow me to introduce you to the reason why the A-10 is the biggets bad*** on the block.

Meet the GAU-8 Avenger carried by the A-10 Warthog and the round it fires


posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:25 AM
^^^Arent those the ones tipped with Depleted Uranium ?

30mm Avenger with 1400 rounds of those babies is going to make any tank crew piss its pants !

Video of A10 Strafing !

Here is a cool vid on ICBM launch:

Tomahawk Lauch Video

Video on H-weapons :

[edit on 8-4-2006 by IAF101]

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:14 AM
you gotta be joking, those rounds are HUGE!! and the gun is just.....


posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:24 AM
On the A10 video.
That growling humming sound. Is that what I think it is?
Is that the barrels whirring and firing THAT FAST?
Thats an evil sounding weapon..

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:32 AM
That's exactly what it is. Here are the techincal specs for the GAU-8.

Gun Type Seven-Barrel, 30mm, Externally Powered Gatling Gun
Weight 620 Pounds (281 kg)
Rate of Fire Up to 4,200 Shots Per Minute
Dispersion 5 Milliradians Diameter, 80 Percent Circle
Muzzle Velocity 3,400 Feet (1,036m) Per Second
Average Recoil Force 10,000 Pounds (44.5 kN)
Drive System Hydraulic, Electric, Pneumatic
Feed System Linked or Linkless

number of barrels 7
Feed: Linkless feed system
calibre 30 mm
Ammo types PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary [DU]
PGU-13/B HEI High Explosive Incendiary
PGU-15/B TP Target Practice
muzzle velocity 1067 meters/second
Armor penetration 69mm at 500 meters
38mm at 1000 meters
Maximum Range over 1,250 meters
Accuracy 5mil, 80 percent
80% of rounds fired at 4,000ft hit within a 20ft radius

cannon weight 281 kilograms
cannon length 6.40 meters

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 07:12 AM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Thats an evil sounding weapon..

Yes. Yes, it is.

You can hear the sound of the cannon firing over the engines. Also, if fired continuously, the weapon would stop the plane and begin to push it backwards. Though, that may not be the best of tactics for low level strafing.


[edit on 4/8/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 08:06 AM
Just wondering, how many people could we feed from the amount of what just one of the bombs that B-2 Bomber is dropping, let alone the cost of the bomber? I'm not against the guy/gals dropping those bombs, I'm against the leaders who seem to think everything in America is just great and we need to go out there in this mean old world and save everybody by dropping million dollar bombs on them. Imagine if we dropped millions of dollars on them, then would Americans still think it's OK. No. But it's OK to destroy in the name of freedom? Yes, these are amazing machines. Why are we not making the same effort in making amazing machines that make electricity. When is it enough. When everybody else is dead, because are enemies sure aren't stepping down because of the amazing death machines. If we sold just a few B-2's, no one in America would have to rent their home, or take out a second mortgage on the home their bank owns. And we would still have plenty of B-2's to protect our citizens. Just a little insight from a Gulf War Vet.

Is what I'm saying making you mad? What are you going to do. Come bomb me too, in the name of peace and freedom?

[edit on 8-4-2006 by stompk]

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 08:26 AM
Yes but IMO. If we literally dropped millions of dollars on them many of these regimes would collect it from the poor and use it to fund yet more bigger and more powerful weapons.

Many of the regimes these weapons will be used against will not stop 'their' military programmes. It isn't really the people to blame.. just the Governments. Their Government is the ultimate deterrent, in short cut the regime rubbish and actually listen to the people.. do not let a small minority kill the majority.

The Iraq war.. although many people disagree... I would damn prefer our troops have these bigger and better killing machines than be going in worse off with poorer equipment. And as for helping our own.. In a way I agree.. but surely the only way to make it a better world is by helping everyone and not hiding in a hermit shell from the realities of these evil, evil regimes.

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 09:13 AM
You know what it is. Our government has seperated itself from it's people. Yes there are evil regimes. They have also seperated themselves from their people. I sense that this thread isn't about weapons of war, but to intimidate anybody who disagrees with the mighty military, enemy or not. Who is the enemy? This line seems pretty gray to me. If I, as an American citizen, stepped up to protest endless buildup of all out global war, you don't think these fancy weapons wouldn't be turned against me. Well, if this happens, hopefully the smartbombs only get me, and not my children or neighbors. But if they do, I guess that would just be an "unfortunate side effect". Accidentally killing innocentes under the guise of war is not OK.

Question authority. Stomp K

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in