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.

 

US army robot suits tested

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
It may not be Ironman, but the United States infantry of the future will each be better armored and carry more firepower than an up armored Humvee.


But will each 'armored' infantry man be able to carry four others or will they be able to run around at 60 miles per hour so as to do away with the need for armored transport? If the armored infantry man can carry more firepower than a Humvee that says's far more about the lack of weapons on a Humvee ( which was never intended to carry much if any weapons) than it does about what such a infantry soldiers might be able to carry.


With the support of their powered exoskeletons soldiers will be able to be oufitted with armor comparable to a Stryker or Infantry Fighting Vehicle and carry weapons normally only seen mounted on vehicles or tripods, like the XM307-XM312 Objective Crew Served Weapon System that can fire 25mm smart shells (including thermobaric rounds) out to 2000 meters or 12.7mm (aka .50 cal) with a maximum effective range also of 2000 meters, depending on configuration.


Sure but such weapons might be perfectly useless against other armored infantry soldiers of other nations or did you forget that these technological evolutions do not happen in a vacuum? And armor comparable with a stryker or average IFV ( does not say much either) given how vulnerable such platforms are to a whole host of anti armor weaponry. What infantry will become at such a time is equally expensive targets that are suddenly as vulnerable to tank main gun shells as other tanks tend to be without the protection required to actually survive the engagement.


Nothing short of an RPG or Anti Tank mine would stop one.


And given the real possibility of a serious reduction in agility those RPG's ( which can be carried in relative abundance by modern armed forces) are going to hit far more often than they otherwise would have. As for anti tank mine it's still going to be very cost effective to blow up soldier who costs tens of thousands of dollars to train,tens of thousands of dollars to equip and sustain in combat armored in hundred or two hundred thousand dollar armored suit all hoping that he does not die so the two hundred thousand dollar death benefit comes into play. Sure these guys will make terribly efficient strike troops ( imagine a armored division whose tanks and armored helicopter gunships/aircraft are supported by now truly mechanized infantry) but unless you fighting someone who does not have a chance to start with your likely going to bankrupt yourself whether you win or not.


Now take into consideration the development of Active Camo (aka Predator camo) being developed, various tactical combat support drones, and DARPA's SUSTAIN/FALCON (Military Spaceplanes and Spaceborne Paratroops/Space Marines) programs.


Yup! I wouldn't want to be where those systems operate but given how few will be deployed ( tremendous cost given the presumption that the budget does not increase or other capabilities are not seriously reduced) you might have the same odds of running into a Tiger tank or fighting a ME-262


You end up with real life Mobile Infantry Starship Troopers or what I prefer to call them Panzermensch.


Mobile infantry is probably the best description given the lack of armor those starship troopers displayed.
If you can manage all body defense against small arms fire ( 7.62) and chest, head ,upper leg and arm defense against 50 cal or 20 mm shells ( with the resulting capabilities against shell splinters in general ) while retaining the capability to hit the dirt FAST or displace to a new firing position in the same general time i think this will surely enable such equipped infantry to frontally engage conventional armed opponents thus doing away with the normal requirement of having to flank the enemy to force them from their position.


The US troops of the future will dominate the battlefields without equal.


If they keep fighting enemies that can comparatively afford very little in terms of both quantity or quality.


So if anyone wants to take a shot at the champ, they better get it in while they still have a chance. The window is closing and in less than ten years it will be closed.


Doesn't your chest hurt and what on Earth makes you so sure?


After that point I have a feeling any war against the US will look like a scene from Terminator films future portion, the US and its allies being like the Terminators and the resistance being the Resistance.



That's what military leaders keep saying but when the world wars break out we normally end up with exponentially higher body counts on all sides!

Stellar




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



But will each 'armored' infantry man be able to carry four others or will they be able to run around at 60 miles per hour so as to do away with the need for armored transport? If the armored infantry man can carry more firepower than a Humvee that says's far more about the lack of weapons on a Humvee ( which was never intended to carry much if any weapons) than it does about what such a infantry soldiers might be able to carry.


I dont think they'll be carrying anyone except casulaties away from the battlefield. I don't think they'll be running at 60 mph either. I couldn't even drive my Humvee in Afghanistan at that speed, try around 25 mph. In Iraq people only drive like that on the highways thinking they might be able to outrun an IED or sniper fire. So there is no need to go 60 mph.

Your right about the Humvee, it was only intended to be a support vehicle. They are already being replaced on the battlefield, by various new Mine Resistant vehicles. The weapon systems they can carry are equal to Russian vehicles like the BRDM and BTR series. So they arn't that poorly armed.



Sure but such weapons might be perfectly useless against other armored infantry soldiers of other nations or did you forget that these technological evolutions do not happen in a vacuum? And armor comparable with a stryker or average IFV ( does not say much either) given how vulnerable such platforms are to a whole host of anti armor weaponry. What infantry will become at such a time is equally expensive targets that are suddenly as vulnerable to tank main gun shells as other tanks tend to be without the protection required to actually survive the engagement.


Show me one other country other than Japan that is working on Powered Exoskeleton technology. This kind of technology will take the Russians and Chinese 20 years to catch up to.

Consider this we developed the Stealth fighter in the Mid Seventies and the stealth bomber in the mid 1980s, where is their's at? Its been Over 30 years where's their Stealth Fighter? Its been over 20, where's their stealth bomber? Where is their equivalent to an M-1 Abrams main battle tank?(which was also developed in the 1970s) Where is their Battlefield Command and Control Sysytems (FBCB2) with touch screens, integrated GPS, and satellite communications that can be found in a regular US army Humvee? We developed it in the 1990s. Where is their SuperCarriers? We built our first one, the Enterprise, in the 1960s, the freaking 1960s, and no one else has one yet.

I expect our allies to have them within Ten years of us fielding them, everyone else it could be from 20 years to never.

Those .50 cals and 25mm weapons can take out light armor. The 25mm could technically take out old Russian tanks like the T-55/T-62. Those tank series make up the vast majority of tanks seen across the Third World and most Chinese tanks are based on the T-62.

Infantry are more vulnerable in the Present to Sniper Fire, Small Arms, IEDs, Grenades, and Tank fire. The Powered armor reduces that vulnerabilty. It is what is known as a Combat Multiplier, these machines are not intended to operate alone or replace tanks. They will operate in Joint Combined Arms task forces, that will include Close Air Support from gunships and drone combat aircraft, main battle tanks, various combat support drones that range from scouts, medevac, supply, etc. They are only one part of system that covers a full spectrum.


And given the real possibility of a serious reduction in agility those RPG's ( which can be carried in relative abundance by modern armed forces) are going to hit far more often than they otherwise would have. As for anti tank mine it's still going to be very cost effective to blow up soldier who costs tens of thousands of dollars to train,tens of thousands of dollars to equip and sustain in combat armored in hundred or two hundred thousand dollar armored suit all hoping that he does not die so the two hundred thousand dollar death benefit comes into play.


Again you have to take all information into account, like comparing the costs of the suits to costs of vehicles. Instead of one easy to hit M2 Bradley, one is faced with numerous small targets. Believe me, smaller fast moving targets even in an Abrams is harder to hit than a vehicle. These targest are usually engaged with the coaxial machine gun, spraying them and hoping rounds hit. Coaxial machine guns will be useless against powered armor.

Unless we go to war with a Japan (If they build an offensive military) or Europe I don't see anyone being able to put up a real fight outside their home countries. Were not going to invade Russia or China, but facing them on the battlefield outside of their country, they will be at a major disadvantage. We on the other hand, we can fight anywhere at anytime.


Doesn't your chest hurt and what on Earth makes you so sure?


What makes me sure the window will close? I take into account a number of factors. Our Logistics, Communications, and Reconnaisance abilities are no where near being equalled by anyone. We have more modern combat tanks than Russia or China. We have the largest modern air force with the largest amount of modern combat aircraft, including numerous strategic bombers. We have numerous Carrier Battlegroups with SuperCarriers at their core. Thats all right now, current strength.

In Ten years more SuperCarriers will be added to the Navy, meaning more Battlegroups. We will have large inventories of tactical and strategic drones. We will have real time command and control of all assets on the battlefield, down to an individual rifleman. These forces will be able to deploy and engage anyone, anywhere at anytime. At this point only the UK, France, Germany and maybe a few other NATO countries will have comparable technology and abilities, though on a much smaller scale.

In less than Twenty Years, these powered armor exoskeletons will see widespread use on the battlefield. Missile Defense systems will make ballistic and cruise missiles useless. Tactical directed energy weapons will make smaller missiles useless. Railguns will be mounted on naval vessels, replacing cruise missiles and main guns. They will have ranges comparable to cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. They will also be almost impossible to bring down with any Missile defense system. Active Camo, Spaceplane transports and bombers, and the concept of Orbital Assaults will be introduced to warfare.

He who controls Space, will control the Earth.

How do we fuel all of this? While China is potentially bogged down fighting insurgencies in Africa and Central Asia for the oil fields, Russia is continuing to decrease in production and possibly bogged down in fighting in Central Asia and the Caucuses ( They peaked in 2007), the United States will be making full use of our abundand farmland for Biofuels and refining the massive amounts of Tar Sand and Oil Shale. We potentially have enough of these resources to meet any demand within our country for quite awhile. India and China dont have these resources and they will seek them out in Africa and Central Asia. These places will be torn apart and devastated. I can only imagine the number of Refugees that will be trying to come to Europe.

It is a very dark future, but the United States and Europe together are shining beacons of hope. We will help where we can and when we can.

The only thing that I can think of that could threaten our position is if us and the EU became enemies. We need to be building a strong bond with Europe, building somethhing like a Trans Atlantic Organization or Community that is more than NATO. Something like the EEC that lead to the EU. Maybe oneday we will have something like that, what I call the TAU or Trans Atlantic Union.

If we are to survive and bring hope to the world in dark times, the US and Europe will have to work together.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



Sure but such weapons might be perfectly useless against other armored infantry soldiers of other nations or did you forget that these technological evolutions do not happen in a vacuum?


Historically this has sometimes (but not always) been true. But what other nations are working on these systems to this level? I guess when the russioans or chinese finally get around to stealing the plans you could be right. But by then, who knows what will be coming off the U.S. drawing boards and assembly lines?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Historically this has sometimes (but not always) been true.


When you can't do without you tend to spend the resources required hence the fact that all European nations have standing armies which are not likely to be overcome as easily as the US security states recent victims.


But what other nations are working on these systems to this level?


These technologies will likely to be given or sold to the Europeans but what we should rather ask is if the Europeans are that far behind or consider these types of technologies all that important? Wouldn't it make sense to simply deploy more troops ( as allowed by the massive cost of fielding men in such armored suits) with weaponry that are able to penetrate such armor or at least prevent such troops from walking right over you? What happened to tanks even back in world war one when it was discovered that infantry had no means to effectively deal with them? Did the Germans surrender or did they start spreading out their field artillery so as to provide troops with direct fire support?


I guess when the russioans or chinese finally get around to stealing the plans you could be right. But by then, who knows what will be coming off the U.S. drawing boards and assembly lines?


The Chinese and Russians are well known for being able to steal ( when it's not just given or sold to them ) US technologies and implement counters before the US systems are widely deployed. I don't see why so many believe that the US has a natural capacity to always stay ahead in the technology race but i presume it has something to do with the education system that seems to focus it's energy on teaching confidence instead of actual skills.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   


India and China dont have these resources and they will seek them out in Africa and Central Asia. These places will be torn apart and devastated. I can only imagine the number of Refugees that will be trying to come to Europe.


BS, India has large resources of shale oil in north eastern regions , and as for China they are heavily working on innovative wind and solar technologies like Maglev wind Turbine(wind) which is potentially 100X more efficient than conventional wind mills



In Ten years more SuperCarriers will be added to the Navy, meaning more Battlegroups. We will have large inventories of tactical and strategic drones. We will have real time command and control of all assets on the battlefield, down to an individual rifleman. These forces will be able to deploy and engage anyone, anywhere at anytime. At this point only the UK, France, Germany and maybe a few other NATO countries will have comparable technology and abilities, though on a much smaller scale.


Good, more supercarriers , more sitting ducks for Supersonic ASCM's and hypersonic mach 4 Kh-22(tu-22m3 is equipped with this)



Missile Defense systems will make ballistic and cruise missiles useless. Tactical directed energy weapons will make smaller missiles useless. Railguns will be mounted on naval vessels, replacing cruise missiles and main guns. They will have ranges comparable to cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. They will also be almost impossible to bring down with any Missile defense system. Active Camo, Spaceplane transports and bombers, and the concept of Orbital Assaults will be introduced to warfare.


yawn, go repair your economy first ... then talk , your economy is tanking

[edit on 19-4-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 19-4-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 



As fast as India is growing you dont think that Shale will be consumed, or even worse China may want to "borrow" it.

Windmills dont put fuel in aircraft, ships or trucks.

Hypersonic?
Try the speed of light, because thats exactly how fast the beam will travel that intercepts that missile.

Tanking, hmm. Well the economy is recessing thats for sure, but even recessing we are by far the largest national economy on the earth.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by manson_322
 



As fast as India is growing you dont think that Shale will be consumed, or even worse China may want to "borrow" it.

Windmills dont put fuel in aircraft, ships or trucks.

Hypersonic?
Try the speed of light, because thats exactly how fast the beam will travel that intercepts that missile.

Tanking, hmm. Well the economy is recessing thats for sure, but even recessing we are by far the largest national economy on the earth.







Hypersonic?
Try the speed of light, because thats exactly how fast the beam will travel that intercepts that missile.

and the energy of the beam(and the reactor input) and the thickness of the titanium composite and its capabilities has to be considered

soviets had developed a plasma CIWS(electron beams were used in this case to ionise air combined with magnetic fields to fire plasma ) for the Kirov battlecruiser in the 80's, but did not deploy it because it was a massive energy guzzler , instead continued to relie on conventional CIWS
as the energy and maintainence requirments were massive that plasma CIWS....





Windmills dont put fuel in aircraft, ships or trucks.


Solar panels can be put on trucks , as for ships , ultimately nuclear reactors are going to be replaced by nanocell chemical reactors




Tanking, hmm. Well the economy is recessing thats for sure, but even recessing we are by far the largest national economy on the earth.


yes, with the massive balloning expendtiure on military your nation is going the way of Rome...



[edit on 19-4-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by manson_322
 



As fast as India is growing you dont think that Shale will be consumed, or even worse China may want to "borrow" it.

Windmills dont put fuel in aircraft, ships or trucks.

Hypersonic?
Try the speed of light, because thats exactly how fast the beam will travel that intercepts that missile.

Tanking, hmm. Well the economy is recessing thats for sure, but even recessing we are by far the largest national economy on the earth.







Hypersonic?
Try the speed of light, because thats exactly how fast the beam will travel that intercepts that missile.

and the energy of the beam(and the reactor input) and the thickness of the titanium composite and its capabilities has to be considered

soviets had developed a plasma CIWS(electron plasma Base) for the Kirov battlecruiser in the 80's, but did not deploy it because it was a massive energy guzzler , instead continued to relie on conventional CIWS




Windmills dont put fuel in aircraft, ships or trucks.


Solar panels can be put on trucks , as for ships , ultimately nuclear reactors are going to be replaced by nanocell chemical reactors




Tanking, hmm. Well the economy is recessing thats for sure, but even recessing we are by far the largest national economy on the earth.


yes, with the massive balloning expendtiure on military your nation is going the way of Rome...




As fast as India is growing you dont think that Shale will be consumed, or even worse China may want to "borrow" it.

if china tries to invade , chinese will lose 200 million to a indian nuclear strike(though india would lose much more in chinese retailatory strike )

and China can bribe politicans with kick backs and chinese comapines and indian companies could form joint ventures to harness the shale oil in the north east ,
a win win situation for india and china





Consider this we developed the Stealth fighter in the Mid Seventies and the stealth bomber in the mid 1980s, where is their's at? Its been Over 30 years where's their Stealth Fighter? Its been over 20, where's their stealth bomber? Where is their equivalent to an M-1 Abrams main battle tank?(which was also developed in the 1970s)


the statement is full of fallacies there was no stealth fighter in 70's and there was nighthawk stealth bomber in 80's ....




Where is their equivalent to an M-1 Abrams main battle tank?(which was also developed in the 1970s)

Soviet T-80U was by far much more superior than M1,M1A1,M1A1HA , the american tank that was finally superior to it was M1A2....

and wheres America's equivalent of the soviet russian underground cities like Uragan defence, Sherpaovo, yamantau etc.(there are 200 underground cities superhardened against nuclear attack) , soviet Civil defence and the illegal nationwide ABM defences that SU operates in the guise of thousands of nuclear tactical SAM's .....

Call me when USA indeed has some underground superhardened cities


[edit on 19-4-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I dont think they'll be carrying anyone except casulaties away from the battlefield.


How will you carry the added weight? Will a provisions be made for that or will we expect these machine skeletons to display feats of strength such as humans have been known to do ? Do machines get all emotional and do what physics wont allow or is rather something humans seem to manage?


I don't think they'll be running at 60 mph either. I couldn't even drive my Humvee in Afghanistan at that speed, try around 25 mph.


If you stupidly slap half a ton of armor ( or more with latest packages in the a vain attempt to turn something that wasn't even rated against 7.62 into a tank) on the damn thing your not going to reach the design top speed of around 90-100 km/ph.


In Iraq people only drive like that on the highways thinking they might be able to outrun an IED or sniper fire. So there is no need to go 60 mph.


No need? So i presume the guys who designed it according to military requirements were just stupid for thinking that the US military actually wanted to have their general purpose vehicles moving at 100 km/ph on good roads? What do they know any ways!


Your right about the Humvee, it was only intended to be a support vehicle. They are already being replaced on the battlefield, by various new Mine Resistant vehicles. The weapon systems they can carry are equal to Russian vehicles like the BRDM and BTR series. So they arn't that poorly armed.


But those systems, especially the later version ones, are all rated against small arms fire which was never a design specification of the HMMWV. Comparatively you are not only outgunned by the larger number of troops the BTR can carry ( but since you imagine only American troops to be any good of that imagine more of those) but also by the fact that they are small arms proof, can carry as large a range of weapons. I am not so sure of which are more mobile off-road but since we are talking about vastly different weight classes i'm surprised you even bothered with a comparison. If you MUST compare it's at least more justified to do so with the BRDM but even then those weight at least twice as much and in fact amphibious armored scout cars that can cross rivers with relative ease go as fast, defeat small arms fire and were made by the tens of thousands! So please don't compare a armed/armored scout vehicle or a general purpose APC with a glorified cheep ( of which 600,000 were built for the US armed forces).



Show me one other country other than Japan that is working on Powered Exoskeleton technology. This kind of technology will take the Russians and Chinese 20 years to catch up to.


Lets say that it is in fact just the Japanese and Americans involved in this research! Does that in your opinion mean that others can't do it, just don't care to try or think it's a hopeless waste of money in terms of monetary expenditure?


Consider this we developed the Stealth fighter in the Mid Seventies and the stealth bomber in the mid 1980s, where is their's at? Its been Over 30 years where's their Stealth Fighter?


Do we know that they ever wanted them? Why would ANYONE try to build stealth aircraft if they suspected it might cost as much as the USA has so far spent on them? Was all that money and research worth it? Would those B-1/2's and F-117's have 'won' the cold war? The answer is so obvious that few nations have risked bankrupting themselves for so little gain.


Its been over 20, where's their stealth bomber? Where is their equivalent to an M-1 Abrams main battle tank?(which was also developed in the 1970s)


Oh they had a weight class equivalent to the M-1 Abrams long before there was Abrams and for the longest time ( since before the second world) the Soviet Union have been operating superior tanks that generally had more armor and larger calibre guns. If the Soviet Union and others chose , or still do not, make heavy tanks it's because it's not what they want!


Where is their Battlefield Command and Control Sysytems (FBCB2) with touch screens, integrated GPS, and satellite communications that can be found in a regular US army Humvee?


Do you want me to provide you with what troops generally seem to think of those systems? Do you think integrated GPS and sat communication are 'new'?


We developed it in the 1990s. Where is their SuperCarriers? We built our first one, the Enterprise, in the 1960s, the freaking 1960s, and no one else has one yet.


The Japanese built fleet carriers but after those days most nations decided that the US could afford more of them and since most nations are not generally interested in attacking nations on the other side of the planet it's hardly a requirement for a blue water navy!


I expect our allies to have them within Ten years of us fielding them, everyone else it could be from 20 years to never.


The French and many others could build them but there is only so much you can do to bring down the cost and frankly few nations would accept the changes in social spending required to fund such weapon systems. You can explain the need for fighter aircraft and tanks but aircraft carriers? That's a harder sell and Europeans tend to be a bit more rational when it comes to what they will accept as reasonable defense expenditures.


Those .50 cals and 25mm weapons can take out light armor. The 25mm could technically take out old Russian tanks like the T-55/T-62. Those tank series make up the vast majority of tanks seen across the Third World and most Chinese tanks are based on the T-62.


If you think 25mm cannons can ( even with not so depleted Uranium) 'take out' T-55's or T62/64's you are deeply ignorant and should invest some time in studying the protection and firepower those tanks sported. Yes and they were at the time quite superior ( at least in basic specs) to those tanks they were likely to have encountered in NATO armies.


Infantry are more vulnerable in the Present to Sniper Fire, Small Arms, IEDs, Grenades, and Tank fire.


Only if you attack tiny nations ( 12 times smaller population ) that spent so much on basic equipment to stay competitive with it's neighbours that it simply could not keep up in other areas. If your fighting a modern army your casualties are going to come from the same old queen of battlefield as it always has.


The Powered armor reduces that vulnerabilty. It is what is known as a Combat Multiplier, these machines are not intended to operate alone or replace tanks. They will operate in Joint Combined Arms task forces, that will include Close Air Support from gunships and drone combat aircraft, main battle tanks, various combat support drones that range from scouts, medevac, supply, etc. They are only one part of system that covers a full spectrum.


Obviously..Fact is the US armed forces can't even afford decent body armor for it's troops ( or APC's for that matter) so i just laugh at those who hold up these miraculous weapon systems as solutions to the main problem of truly tremendous waste and mismanagement in the US armed services. Until such a time as the defense becomes a REAL priority again US soldiers are always going to be comparatively badly protected just as they used to be for the majority of the cold war.


Again you have to take all information into account, like comparing the costs of the suits to costs of vehicles. Instead of one easy to hit M2 Bradley, one is faced with numerous small targets.


And instead of one heavily armored soldier other nations could probably swarms of lightly armored soldiers sporting firepower enough to rip you apart. In the end things tend to be balanced and such equipped soldiers will be a very sight given the price. Obviously a Bradly is in a whole other price range but at least it can carry 6 fully armed men in relatively safety to the proximity of the battle and then provide them with effective and heavy fire support as they manoeuvre to achieve fire superiority.


Believe me, smaller fast moving targets even in an Abrams is harder to hit than a vehicle. These targest are usually engaged with the coaxial machine gun, spraying them and hoping rounds hit. Coaxial machine guns will be useless against powered armor.


Not if they are of the right calibre and you should remember that shell splinters from 120 mm HE main gun rounds are nothing to laugh over and will by blast effect ( concussive) alone break up attacks by even soldiers in that armor class.


Unless we go to war with a Japan (If they build an offensive military) or Europe I don't see anyone being able to put up a real fight outside their home countries. Were not going to invade Russia or China, but facing them on the battlefield outside of their country, they will be at a major disadvantage. We on the other hand, we can fight anywhere at anytime.


No you can't fight anywhere any time against anyone as has been proven countless times in the last few decades. How can one nation lose ( or be forced to the 'peace' table) so many wars and still retain the belief in their invincibility? It just beggars the imagination but i suppose it's going to take the German experience of two world wars to get to grips with the idea that one tends to lose when you take on 'the world'.

Continued



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

What makes me sure the window will close? I take into account a number of factors. Our Logistics, Communications, and Reconnaisance abilities are no where near being equalled by anyone.


And that's the type of pure unadulterated propaganda that some people will still apparently belief. Still can't find Osama, didn't find a single scuds launcher, couldn't find Serbian units deployed in Kosovo , and allowed the Iraqi army to basically 'go home' with whatever weapons they could get there. I don't know who still believes in this superior communications or recon abilities but i suppose they just don't really care to see what's been happening the last few decades! Logistically speaking the US armed force's inefficiency is probably unrivaled in the west but given the enemies it has been choosing for the last few decades these organizational disasters are not often exposed. In fact maybe that's why it couldn't defeat a a million odd peasants with guns in Vietnam?


We have more modern combat tanks than Russia or China.


Right and since when has China been a industrialized nation. In fact is it even one today? What do you mean by modern combat tanks and if it's what i think you mean haven't you looked at the numbers AT ALL?

en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

So yes, they have as many 'modern' tanks as the USA have in ative service, with a additional 4000 quite modern T-64's in reserve, and a additional 10 odd tanks that has been updated over the years and still retains the capacity to be rebuilt or upgraded to quite modern standards.


We have the largest modern air force with the largest amount of modern combat aircraft, including numerous strategic bombers.


As for the 'numerous' bombers the Russian federation operates more modern strategic bombers ( Blackjacks/backfires as compared to Lancer's/Spirit) than the USAF does unless you want to call the B-52's modern in which case i will do the same for the Tu-95's. As for regular air force units the US has a clear advantage in numbers and very probably in training so despite the fact that i don't think the aircraft are superior in many cardinal respects i would pick the USAF as winners if contest were held somewhere in a desert. As the Russian air force were primarily designed to support ground operations and prevent massed local incursions of NATO planes, in support of their own air defense assets, that's never going to be case thus allowing for this overal smaller ( but certainly not in terms of resource expenditures) air force to contend with USAF in their own skies.


We have numerous Carrier Battlegroups with SuperCarriers at their core. Thats all right now, current strength.


Sure and despite the fact that i believe that Russian Cruise missile carrying submarines will be able to wreak havoc amongst such groups there is no denying that the US navy is indeed powerful in the open oceans.


In Ten years more SuperCarriers will be added to the Navy, meaning more Battlegroups.


Over time the US will have to decrease the number of carriers available as such becomes comparatively more expensive but for the forseeable short term future any additional carriers will simply replace older one's to maintain the twelve (or 11?) carrier navy.


We will have large inventories of tactical and strategic drones.


And so could everyone else...


We will have real time command and control of all assets on the battlefield, down to an individual rifleman.


And the Russians and others do not have access to space assets? Do you realise that the Russian GPS equivalent satellite network is at least as accurate as the American system? Do you realise that it will become more accurate than the US GPS system as they add more satellites?


These forces will be able to deploy and engage anyone, anywhere at anytime. At this point only the UK, France, Germany and maybe a few other NATO countries will have comparable technology and abilities, though on a much smaller scale.


Since you offer no proof i will just disagree having pointed out how the Russians still have their own GPS system.


In less than Twenty Years, these powered armor exoskeletons will see widespread use on the battlefield.


In less than twenty years soldiers will probably be using personal assault lasers either making armor useless or forcing everyone in that direction.


Missile Defense systems will make ballistic and cruise missiles useless.


For some countries that wont be a new thing and you might want to check out how many thousands of dual use SAM/ABM missiles the Russians have been deploying for the last few decades.


Tactical directed energy weapons will make smaller missiles useless.


And according to at least some CIA sources the Russians were vaporizing luckless Afghans back in 1985.


Railguns will be mounted on naval vessels, replacing cruise missiles and main guns. They will have ranges comparable to cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.


500 km rail guns, on ships? That i would like to see....


They will also be almost impossible to bring down with any Missile defense system.


Why? It's a shell being fired and we all know shells can and will be intercepted with direct energy weapons!


Active Camo, Spaceplane transports and bombers, and the concept of Orbital Assaults will be introduced to warfare.

He who controls Space, will control the Earth.


And your that certain that the US controls space?


How do we fuel all of this? While China is potentially bogged down fighting insurgencies in Africa and Central Asia for the oil fields,


China, unlike the US, seems to be investing the resources that gains favour with the local population and will allow for longer term friendly trade exchanges.


Russia is continuing to decrease in production and possibly bogged down in fighting in Central Asia and the Caucuses ( They peaked in 2007),


So you even believe in peak oil! Is there no end to the self serving arguments that allows for nationalistic chest thumping? The bottom has started to drop out of the bottom of oil demand and it's no surprise given where oil prices seems to be headed. To suggest that countries should produce more and more in such an environment , and then to use the fact that they are not to 'prove' peak oil, is in my opinion and estimation ludicrous.


the United States will be making full use of our abundand farmland for Biofuels and refining the massive amounts of Tar Sand and Oil Shale.


And Russia will keep dominating the European and South east Asian energy markets as the US ensures that the middle east descends into further chaos. Bio fuels is a tremendous waste of national resources and while tar and oil sands are positively profitable at even half current oil prices it does take a rather larger , and longer term, investment of capitol. Not to say that it's not viable just that it's not easy to ramp up production.


We potentially have enough of these resources to meet any demand within our country for quite awhile.


In fact the US have enough conventional oil reserves to fulfil it's energy requirements for centuries to come. Just because you don't know that you have to go about constructing these elaborate plots for world domination. It's just sad how completely misinformed people can become.


India and China dont have these resources and they will seek them out in Africa and Central Asia.


That they will do but China will primarily invest in Russian energy and or buy Siberia; it's part and parcel of their strategic alliance.


These places will be torn apart and devastated. I can only imagine the number of Refugees that will be trying to come to Europe.


And western imperialism has not resulted in a flood of refugees in the last few decades? Things will probably stay the same as the Chinese and Indians wont soon have the political/military or economic power to do what the west has so far done to Africa. In fact current treaties seem positively enlightened as compared to what the west demanded at gun point.

Continued

[edit on 19-4-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

It is a very dark future, but the United States and Europe together are shining beacons of hope. We will help where we can and when we can.


Any more of that type of help and Africa might not survive at all. Thanks but we would rather you all go to hell and stay out of our affairs; feel free to take your puppets and their executioners with you. The future is no darker than it's ever been and i hope that the rise of China and India ( and South east Asia in general ) will counteract the worse excesses of the US and it's mercenary allies.


The only thing that I can think of that could threaten our position is if us and the EU became enemies.


The US government still have plenty of allies in the policy making chambers all over Europe but the population have long since turned on the US foreign policy. The Euro is simply speeding up the decline of the USD which will in time force the US , if not largely devastated in a war with Russia, back towards being a regional conventional power with very significant strategic assets.


We need to be building a strong bond with Europe, building somethhing like a Trans Atlantic Organization or Community that is more than NATO. Something like the EEC that lead to the EU. Maybe oneday we will have something like that, what I call the TAU or Trans Atlantic Union.


It's called globalization and it's been happening for a few thousand years.


If we are to survive and bring hope to the world in dark times, the US and Europe will have to work together.


If you are to survive you would best be advised to shut up and stop meddling without having been asked by anyone. In fact stop 'helping' anyone as they normally end up in a far worse position than they would have been without such 'help'. As for the dark times those will always be possible and will never be prevented by single countries attempts to dominate the world.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 





That they will do but China will primarily invest in Russian energy and or buy Siberia; it's part and parcel of their strategic alliance.


funny statement , they wouldn't need to buy Siberia they would just need to invest and purchase in siberian oil fields and bribe russian politicans , who for bribes would be more than willing to cooperate



Things will probably stay the same as the Chinese and Indians wont soon have the political/military or economic power to do what the west has so far done to Africa. In fact current treaties seem positively enlightened as compared to what the west demanded at gun point.


india/china are not stupid like West ,india/china by investing developing infrastructure like Roads,Hospitals,oil field development etc. (which india is doing in afghanistan and some parts of central Asia for goodwill and China in Africa , they try to win good will of local populace ) unlike USA/West which acts like a bunch of blood crazed maniacs hellbent on world domination...





Oh they had a weight class equivalent to the M-1 Abrams long before there was Abrams and for the longest time ( since before the second world) the Soviet Union have been operating superior tanks that generally had more armor and larger calibre guns. If the Soviet Union and others chose , or still do not, make heavy tanks it's because it's not what they want!


khrushchev was against making tanks weighing more than 52 tons as it affects mobility , he wants tanks that extremely mobile and would be mobile enough to survive onslaught of NATO/US nukes.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 19-4-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot

US army robot suits tested


news.bbc.co.uk

The US army is developing robotic suits for its soldiers with the aim of giving them 'superhuman' powers. Rajesh Mirchandani watches them in action.
(visit the link for the full news article)




SUCCESS!!

With this suit an average american becomes as strong as an average European.


I hope you noticed that the guy who tried the suit weighed 60 kilos, and the suit weighed about 30-40 kilos. And the weight they tried pulling down was a little lighter than the weight of the suit and man combined.

In addition to this, the man should have locked his feet around the bench he was sitting on, and then he WOULD have been able to pull that weight down. You can not pull down a weight that is heavier than yourself, no matter how strong you are. And wow, it is able to lift ammo boxes with one hand... wow... how useful... actually with one hook. The kind of control you want your armory workers to have while handling live ammunition and shells...


How big do you think a man is?

I am 190 cm. tall and with ordinary clothes on, boots pants jacket and pistol+reloads, I am 160 kilos. That is 350 lbs. I am all muscle, and this is due to not ingesting fluoride, and having a healthy diet from childhood and just a little workout from age 18. People don't believe me when I say it, because I would have to be made of steel, they think. But no, it is all me.
I dare anyone with a robotic or other exoskeleton suit to get down and grapple with me, or try to outrun me, or try to beat me in any sport, activity or hand to hand combat. Just #ing FEED your soldiers/kids and you will be allright.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Originally posted by MikeboydUS
You end up with real life Mobile Infantry Starship Troopers or what I prefer to call them Panzermensch.

The US troops of the future will dominate the battlefields without equal.

So if anyone wants to take a shot at the champ, they better get it in while they still have a chance. The window is closing and in less than ten years it will be closed. After that point I have a feeling any war against the US will look like a scene from Terminator films future portion, the US and its allies being like the Terminators and the resistance being the Resistance.



Kewl tech, but if you recall, the Federation Starship Troopers represented a fascist political system, and the Terminators were the bad guys...

It would be a much more enlightened use of this tech to re-enable the broken bodies of our brave service members who have given their arms and legs in the wars we've already fought.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
funny statement , they wouldn't need to buy Siberia they would just need to invest and purchase in siberian oil fields and bribe russian politicans , who for bribes would be more than willing to cooperate


Well i did try to be funny but i have it on good authority that Siberia have gained quite the Chinese population in recent decades.
Obviously China can afford to buy large tracts of Siberia outright but i do think that statements about corrupt Russian politicians have taken to mean that there is no common goal to their actions...


india/china are not stupid like West ,india/china by investing developing infrastructure like Roads,Hospitals,oil field development etc. (which india is doing in afghanistan and some parts of central Asia for goodwill and China in Africa , they try to win good will of local populace ) unlike USA/West which acts like a bunch of blood crazed maniacs hellbent on world domination...


Well neither China or India can currently project power like the US could and can still manage so until such a time as they can get away with but still choose to interact in a civilized manned we really just don't know if things will be all that different. For the record i do not believe history shows that there were anything 'crazed' or 'stupid' about the US national security states actions or those of the imperialist before them. It was quite well planed with the purpose of controlling resources and thus the local populations.


khrushchev was against making tanks weighing more than 52 tons as it affects mobility , he wants tanks that extremely mobile and would be mobile enough to survive onslaught of NATO/US nukes.


I believe i know which book you got that from and i am confident that i have seen the rebuttals that indicates that such statement was in fact never forthcoming and should be considered the opinion of that author. The fact of the matter seems to be that tanks approaching 45-50 tons becomes increasingly hard to use off-road in European conditions; in fact unless you plan to stick to assaults along paved roads you shouldn't bother with 60 ton tanks at all!

As for the nuke statement i am not sure how mobility will play any part in the ability of armed spearheads to survive them...

Stellar



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Directed energy weapons developed in the 80s were terribly inefficient. The THEL program in the early 2000s changed all of that. It is now feasable and efficient to place Directed energy weapon systems like the THEL on aircraft, ships, and vehicles. These things are the next generation's Anti Aircraft and Anti Missile Artillery.

I can see some Solar Panels on some civillian vehicles but I can't see it for military vehicles like Main Battle Tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, etc. I can see them being uitilized on various drones though.

I dont disagree about the Rome statement, there are lots of parallels especially to the last "days" of the Roman Republic. What I fear may happen is the end of the Republic and rise of Dictators and Imperators.

I also wouldn't be surprised if India and China do fight over resources, I would hope they work together though than against each other.

The Stealth Fighter, aka the F-117 Nighthawk was developed in the 1970s.
The first Prototype known as Have Blue was built prior to 1977. Its first flight was in December 1977 at Groom Lake.

Your telling me the T-80, which is an improved version of the T-64 ( a Forty Four year old tank design) is better than an Abrams? There are many many experts who would disagree. There are only a few tanks that can stand toe to toe with an M-1. The British Challenger 2, German Leopard 2(Believed to be the best Main Battle Tank in the world), Israeli Merkava 4, French LeClerc, and Japanese Type 90.

Show me a superhardened city that can survive a direct thermonuclear strike. Even Cheyenne Mountain would not survive a direct hit by a thermonuclear warhead. Were talking about millions of degrees of heat. Like the surface of the sun being brought to earth for an instant. There is no material, no structure on earth that can survive that kind of extreme.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Lets see some credible links to these 'claims' of yours. Unless you are here trolling again.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Call us when you actually post something that has some credibility. Geez, you think the T-80 was superior to all US tanks? Show me one time where one defeated an M1A1? In Desert Storm US tanks mowed through those inferior Soviet era tanks as if they didn't exist. US Tanks are decades ahead of anyone else.

As for the Stealth, you missed the point on the post. The Stealth program began in the 70's. Look up what that means cause I don't want to have to hold your hand and explain it to you.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


reply to post by MikeboydUS
 





Show me a superhardened city that can survive a direct thermonuclear strike. Even Cheyenne Mountain would not survive a direct hit by a thermonuclear warhead. Were talking about millions of degrees of heat. Like the surface of the sun being brought to earth for an instant. There is no material, no structure on earth that can survive that kind of extreme.


laughable ,


"Yamantau Mountain is the largest nuclear-secure project in the world... They have very large train tracks running in and out of it, with enormous rooms carved inside the mountain. It has been built to resist a half dozen direct nuclear hits, one after the other in a direct hole. It's very disquieting that the Russians are doing this when they don't have $200 million to build the service module on the international space station and can't pay housing for their own military people," ---Rep. Bartlett.
www.viewzone.com...





The following is an excerpt from an interview between Chris Ruddy and Col. Stanislav Lunev, a Russian military intelligence officer who defected in 1992. Col. Stanislav Lunev is the highest-ranking military intelligence officer ever to have defected from Russia.

You ask about Yamantau Mountain. Well, this is a huge underground city, which could be used in time when many Russian cities are destroyed, but the military and political elite will survive and live until our planet will try to restore itself.

www.viewzone.com...


and to further say there are 200 underground cities (27 of them the size of yamantau )

if at one spot 6 thermonukes of 475kt-1.5mt each(estimate given by Nyquist, former DIA analyst) are needed ....then imagine



Your telling me the T-80, which is an improved version of the T-64 ( a Forty Four year old tank design) is better than an Abrams? There are many many experts who would disagree. There are only a few tanks that can stand toe to toe with an M-1. The British Challenger 2, German Leopard 2(Believed to be the best Main Battle Tank in the world), Israeli Merkava 4, French LeClerc, and Japanese Type 90.


the orginal M1 was nothing but a glorified tank like your inefficient Hummer , most experts on tanknet.org would have to disagree with you ,

your orginal M1 had a protection of 400mm vs KE

and i am talking about is the T-80U(created in 1985) which was T-80B upgraded with K-5 heavy ERA(dynamic protection against KE)

K-5 gives 250-280mm protection against KE threats ....



BTVT estimates T-80 max as glacis 350mm vs KE/500mm vs CE; turret 500mm vs KE/600mm vs CE. BTVT estimates T-80B max as glacis 450mm vs KE/560mm vs CE; turret 500mm vs KE/600mm vs CE
Without K-5 protection of front turret is 275-750mm vs KE and 960mm vs CE. BTVT estimates T80U w/K-5 max glacis 800mm vs KE/1100mm vs CE; turret 860mm vs KE/1200mm vs CE.
members.tripod.com...


but other conservative russian estimates such as NII Stali put T-80U's armor at 680-720mm with K-5

and heres what K-5 does to rounds:

The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans confirmed that in tests, the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, 'shattered' their 120mm DM-53 penetrators, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time." This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it.

en.wikipedia.org...


this was on the T-72 , imagine....... and yes T-80 used autoloader and ATGMs long before M1A2 SEP has MRM-CE , seems to me that T-80 is indeed superior
by the way , StellarX has a lot of sources on underground cities of russia , he can provide you info on that

reply to post by US Monitor
 


lol, the iraqis used T-72 monkey models , those wher even less capable than T-72 "ural" whose production was halted in 1978


Directed energy weapons developed in the 80s were terribly inefficient. The THEL program in the early 2000s changed all of that. It is now feasable and efficient to place Directed energy weapon systems like the THEL on aircraft, ships, and vehicles. These things are the next generation's Anti Aircraft and Anti Missile Artillery.


would you like some sources on soviet developemtns in plasma and laser weapons in 80's

[edit on 20-4-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 20-4-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
EDIT : Thanks for the trust Manson but when it comes to underground Russian cities i wonder how much of it is all true ( maybe not 200 cities and certainly not many the size of yamantau?) and how much is shear rumour and propaganda. As it is i can give the sources which i have ( which are by no means from odd sites with terribly bright colors) but knowing how much the CIA, DIA, state department, rest of the alphabet soup and certainly the Russians have lied about various issues it's hard to speak about things which will have a hard time to uncover.

Sure there are the earth penetrating kind but why have they not been used to expose such vast Russian preparations for nuclear war? That in fact ties into my arguments that the American dominance of space is largely illusory and that the Russians have been playing possum for a long, long time while spending truly vast amounts of resources on continuing to strengthen their strategic defenses and weapons.


Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Directed energy weapons developed in the 80s were terribly inefficient.


As compared to what? The directed energy weapons developed in the late 60's and 70's? Please employ some sources!


The THEL program in the early 2000s changed all of that.


Oh come on! Just because it's American and you happen to have heard about it 'it' changed 'everything'? Nonsense....


It is now feasable and efficient to place Directed energy weapon systems like the THEL on aircraft, ships, and vehicles.


That , as far as i can tell , has been possible, if not entirely practical since the late 70's.


These things are the next generation's Anti Aircraft and Anti Missile Artillery.


You don't say!


I can see some Solar Panels on some civillian vehicles but I can't see it for military vehicles like Main Battle Tanks, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, etc. I can see them being uitilized on various drones though.


Why can't you imagine solar panels on tanks? If i can imagine solar technology that can employ every bit of EM spectrum then you should sure as hell be able to imagine tanks with such panels! If you can reload a tank with fuel and ammunition why not have the ability to preproduce panels of such material with which to replace any combat damage?


I dont disagree about the Rome statement, there are lots of parallels especially to the last "days" of the Roman Republic. What I fear may happen is the end of the Republic and rise of Dictators and Imperators.


Like the dictators and emperors rose only at the end of the Roman era! /me shakes head.


I also wouldn't be surprised if India and China do fight over resources, I would hope they work together though than against each other.


Which must be why the CIA has been so active in India since the Brits left to ensure that Indian does not go it's own democratic way and instead maintain a general antagonistic approach to China.


The Stealth Fighter, aka the F-117 Nighthawk was developed in the 1970s.
The first Prototype known as Have Blue was built prior to 1977. Its first flight was in December 1977 at Groom Lake.


It sounds like you a have source you wish to share with us.


Your telling me the T-80, which is an improved version of the T-64 ( a Forty Four year old tank design) is better than an Abrams?


Every tank can be said to be a improvement of world war one tanks and that's about as much as the T-64 and T80 have in common. How much do you want to change any ways? If it worked so well ( the T-64 was that much superior) why radically change the design ?


There are many many experts who would disagree. There are only a few tanks that can stand toe to toe with an M-1.


There are more than a dozen tanks that can easily stand toe to toe ( sounds like a combat range of 500 meters to me) with the original M1 and at the range mention the T-55 would not been outmatched and especially not if it could at all achieve a side turret or hull shot. As for those 'experts' they are generally comparable to the same experts who have forced the US to do without a ABM system for the last four decades.


The British Challenger 2, German Leopard 2(Believed to be the best Main Battle Tank in the world), Israeli Merkava 4, French LeClerc, and Japanese Type 90.


And they are all at least equal to or completely superior to the original M1 ( which was not after all that difficult a feat according to the same experts) which is why so much effort has gone into upgrading the basic version to at least the A1 variety.


Show me a superhardened city that can survive a direct thermonuclear strike.


If it's underground ( as those Russian cities supposedly are) then it's not all that complex. City just indicates vast assemblage of tunnels and rooms that can house tens of thousands or more.


Even Cheyenne Mountain would not survive a direct hit by a thermonuclear warhead.


Offcourse it would! Why do you think they built it! What do you think the blast is supposed to do to the mountain? Jeez!


Were talking about millions of degrees of heat. Like the surface of the sun being brought to earth for an instant.


It only vaporizes a certain area and the massive majority of the rest of the force and energy is going to escape to where there is least resistance. Deeply buried targets are by design relatively immune from these effects and the problem so far has been how to do you gain the resources or labour to construct enough of such shelters to house whichever part of your population you would like to save. In fact that's the east part consider that you have to feed them for at least 6 months to a year until agricultural activities can be resumed. In that time you still have to prosecute a war and maintain your manufacturing capacity either underground or on the surface.


There is no material, no structure on earth that can survive that kind of extreme.


No there isn't but you can obviously harden the surface of certain sites to such a extent that nuclear warheads can not penetrate far enough to create sufficient shock effects to affect the deeply buried target. Even the new nuclear earth perpetrators have been shown to have very real shortcomings when it comes to penetrating unfortified soil so you really have to ask how much concrete and steel you can get a warhead trough before it's turned from super deadly to dud. There is fine line between getting it deep enough to generate sufficient contained energy to damage deeply buried structures and spending so much effort in getting it deep enough that your warhead gets too small and or is destroyed in the process.

Stellar

[edit on 20-4-2008 by StellarX]




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join