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.

 

Homeland Ministry Plans Raytheon "Ray Guns" at Airports

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Unless you actually SEE the missile coming at you, you aren't going to know what it was. In at least once instance the pilots thought it was a rocket someone had launched. All they saw was the smoke trail. That one was shot at an American Airlines plane out of LAX, and fired from the beach.


Using a high-powered microwave "Ray Gun" to take out terrorist SAMS?


My primary concern would the "collateral" effects on surrounding operations.

Discharging a burst of microwave energy in the immediate proximity of the sensetive radar equipment (not to mention the other elctronic devices likely to be present) an airport needs to maintain public safety seems a dangerous idea in the extreme.

What happens if this "ray gun" jams or damages the ATC radar system?

Given the intensity such a beam would require (to knock-out a SAM's guidance/avionics) would there be any risk of "beam leakage" resulting in instances of induced electrical arcing; damaging, or destroying nearby electronics? In effect, setting up a kind of "localized EMP" effect.


What about any other aircraft inadvertantly crossing the path of this device while its firing at its intended target?

Tragic irony if the weapon meant to defend an airliner, instead, itsself causes the destruction of that airliner.



As to rockets, I've built a few my self, and been on the launch crews of many others. For less than $1000USD you could easily build an un-guided, shoulder-launched (only means of aiming) rocket that could take out a an SUV; depending on how you want to define "take out".

Frankly, I too am suprised that we have not seen more SAM attacks on airliners, in EVERY country. Sophisticated weaponary is available to the "terrorists" for the right price; and they do not lack for funding.

And even if the sophisticated stuff was not available, the terrorists seem to be amply endowed with "creative destructivity".

If I could build what was essentially a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher out of cardboard and packing tape, why haven't we been assulted with terrorist devices far more sophisticated and deadly?




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


OK one last time for you guys. It isn't a question of if they can or cannot. It is quite obvious that they can. It is a point of why they do not do it more often. My point is that I do not think this is an idea that needs to be implemented at our airports. Whether you agree or not, I could care less to be honest with you. You guys that are in love with military weapons that do not seem to be justified always get your panties in a bunch whenever someone doesn't think it is a good idea. It is called an opposing opinion. I feel there are much better things our defense money could be spent on. I do not disagree with everything that is implemented. This ray gun just happens to be one that I do disagree with. Pretty simple. I don't think this is a great idea. If you can't handle that, then I am sorry and maybe you should just move on. Please do not be so eager to claim ignorance on someone just because they do not agree with you.



new topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join