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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 






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?)


27 of them are similiar to yamantau in terms of size and theres a city even larger than yamantau by the name of Uragan Defence which according to former Soviet Colonel Ivan Krutov was a baryogenesis ,diamondoid nanotech, and nuclear fusion reactor techresearch , along with microwave/plasma weapon research (functional since 70's)




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
Call us when you actually post something that has some credibility.


Who would you believe; where should i look to validate my sources ( which i don't think you have even seen ) so as to make them believable to you?


Geez, you think the T-80 was superior to all US tanks? Show me one time where one defeated an M1A1?


If you can show me a place where they actually met in combat. As far as i'm concerned the T-80 general specifications are easily comparable with that of the M1a1 but as to what can or does happen in combat we just don't know and wont be able to unless two nations with similar resources investments fight as they both would have liked.


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.


They mowed trough them because those Soviet era tanks were never designed for desert combat and were instead to be used in dense build up areas and countryside where the average tank dual ranges would have taken place over 500 meters with the large majority taking place below at 500 or below. At such ranges most modern tank ammunition and guns are perfectly deadly and whoever has the highest rate of fire or number of firing platforms are likely to carry the day. As the USSR fielded fifty thousand tanks, and twice as many armored fighting vehicles/artillery pieces most defense specialist and analyst used to believe that the USSR would have reached the French coast the real question being if they could do it six weeks or if it would have taken them substansially longer. I can't say i agree with that view but since your appealing to convention maybe YOU should.


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.


All this when the Soviet union were using 'stealth' ( wood and canvas so radar doesn't see much if anything) aircraft, and frequently with female pilots, to stage low altitude air raids on German positions after sundown.
It did not normaly do much damage but if you can't sleep your not much use either.

Maybe the Soviet Union just figured out these types of aircraft were going to cost an army and two legs and decided to spend it's money in proven technologies? Either way that's how it seemed to have turned out but maybe they just got lucky.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
27 of them are similiar to yamantau in terms of size and theres a city even larger than yamantau by the name of Uragan Defence which according to former Soviet Colonel Ivan Krutov was a baryogenesis ,diamondoid nanotech, and nuclear fusion reactor techresearch , along with microwave/plasma weapon research (functional since 70's)


It's not that i don't believe the claims about many underground cities , i do after all have sources of my own, but i would like to see yours if your willing and able.
I know about the plasma and laser weapons of the 70's but it would be even better to know where most of the knowledge were put to use in large scale testing!

Sources are always good so don't keep them all to yourself.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Interesting use for servos.
But it won't be out for quite some time yet. Imagine running out of power, or a sensor glitch occurring when you've got over 400lbs held high.

Your own limbs might become an interesting mix of bone shard, and what appears to be red coloured taffy, complete with raspberry jam.

Theres a reason we put black and yellow caution markers around industrial robotics, they're just not safe enough for people to work around, to let them near it while in operation.

Sensors fail.
Control circuits fail.
Power supplies fail.

When you can run this with no doubt in your mind those overpowered servos aren't going to start snapping your arm instead of working smoothly with it... then you can release it. Until then, keep working out the bugs.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by manson_322
27 of them are similiar to yamantau in terms of size and theres a city even larger than yamantau by the name of Uragan Defence which according to former Soviet Colonel Ivan Krutov was a baryogenesis ,diamondoid nanotech, and nuclear fusion reactor techresearch , along with microwave/plasma weapon research (functional since 70's)


It's not that i don't believe the claims about many underground cities , i do after all have sources of my own, but i would like to see yours if your willing and able.
I know about the plasma and laser weapons of the 70's but it would be even better to know where most of the knowledge were put to use in large scale testing!

Sources are always good so don't keep them all to yourself.


Stellar


heres some info on soviet laser weapons and the first lasers in battle were used in 1969 ..according to a East German scientists who resides in USA now :


Directed-Energy Weapons
A former East German physicist who studied Soviet infrared technology and plasmoids during the 60s and 70s, and who was directly involved in a demonstration of a Soviet laser beam weapon in 1991 for the U.S. Air Force in Weimar (DDR), told AFP that there is evidence that a directed-energy weapon using "deep infrared" radiation was used to bring down the WTC. Although infrared weapon technology is not widely discussed in the West, the Soviet infrared beam weapon is nothing new and was already used during a Soviet dispute with China in 1969 to destroy "a wall" at the Ussuri River, which separates Manchuria from Russia's Far East, according to the physicist.
Infrared radiation is heat-producing and invisible wavelengths lying between visible light and microwave on the electromagnetic spectrum. "Near" infrared is closest to visible light and "far" or "deep" infrared is closer to microwave. Far infrared waves are thermal and cause increased molecular vibrational activity. In other words, infrared radiation is heat.

Israel's Laser Weapon
There are indications, according to the physicist, that such a weapon was used when the KAL plane was shot down over Kamchatka (Soviet Union) in September 1983. In the early 90s, this technology returned to scientific discussions in the West and the technology itself appears to have been transferred from the Soviet Union.

Since 1995, the United States and Israel have actively developed an advanced infrared beam weapon under a joint "anti-missile" program known as the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL). The THEL is a mobile, high-energy laser weapon.
www.serendipity.li...




In 1991, before the Soviet military withdrew from East Germany, the GRU demonstrated for the U.S. Air Force Electronic Security Command (AFESC) the capabilities of its infrared beam weapon by reducing a ceramic plate into dust from a distance of one mile. This display of Soviet weapon technology was meant to impress upon the U.S. Air Force "how a stealth bomber could be turned into dust in the same way," the physicist said.
www.serendipity.li...


and yes , the claims of use of DEW for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983 in kamchatka peninsula are verifed by the book psychotronic Golgotha , which has some brief discussion on various soviet directed energy weapon applications , but is mainly concerned with its mind control applications

you could order the book ,psychotronic Golgotha , though it is available in Russian language ,(in this link a part of it is translated

mindjustice.org...

also there have been reports of Soviets using laser tanks in sino-soviet war to attack and destroy chinese divisions....

a poster on warfare.ru by the name of freeman posted a czech source:
www.military.cz...


My dad used to tell me about Russians back in the 1970s(Possibly late 60s?) using MBT Tanks mounted with Lasers to fight off Chinese ground forces invading the border.

I asked him again and he found out an article on the web claiming a Soviet Tank/APC? towing a massive 'cable' across the battlefield and mentioned somthing to do with vapourising a mass number of troops and vehicles,
forum.warfare.ru...


also there are phothos of tests by Soviet MLTK laser trucks on planes(tests in 1982)(photos are almaz-antei's website):






what ultimately it was to be :



the soviets cancelled it in 1987-90 (possibly because of INF)

on soviet developments in nanotech:



In 1952 Radushkevich and Lukyanovich published clear images of 50 nanometer diameter tubes made of carbon in the Soviet Journal of Physical Chemistry.[2] This discovery was largely unnoticed, as the article was published in the Russian language, and Western scientists' access to Soviet press was limited during the Cold War.
en.wikipedia.org...

first to create carbon nanotubes


Diamond is in the news, and this is good news for nanotechnology. Diamond is a prime candidate material for building nanomachines for several reasons: the tetrahedral geometry of its bonds lets it be shaped in three dimensions without becoming floppy; it is made of carbon, the chemistry of which is well understood; and carbon atoms make a variety of useful bonds with other types of atoms. Diamond research may therefore advance nanotechnology even when it is pursued for its short-term commercial potential. Progress in understanding and making diamonds has been driven mainly by work done in the Soviet Union
www.islandone.org...








posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


continued....



In the 1950s, while American industry started manufacturing diamonds at 2,000 degrees C and 55,000 atmospheres pressure, Soviet scientists developed a vapor deposition method for growing diamond fibers at 1,000 degrees C and low pressures.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet group improved on this process, aiming to produce diamond films.
The technological implications of diamond films have recently been realized in Japan and the U.S., and so a race has begun to develop this technology. Dramatic discoveries are being made:
At the University of Texas 10-nanosecond laser pulses are being used to vaporize graphite, which then deposits as a film 20 nm thick over areas as large as 10 square centimeters. The film is diamond-like, but may turn out to be something new. [3]
Soviet researchers report the discovery of a new form of carbon much harder than diamond, called C8. They use an ion beam of low energy to produce thin films of the substance. Carbon atoms in C8 appear to have tetrahedral bonds, but the lattice is somehow different than in diamond--it may simply be somewhat random, resembling a glass rather than a crystal.

Much of the new interest in diamond is motivated by near-term commercial applications like diamond-coated razor blades, scratch-resistant windows and radiation-resistant semiconductors for nuclear missiles. The C8 results, however, are of special relevance to nanotechnology, showing us that diamond is just the default form of more general tetrahedral bonding patterns for carbon. Choosing from among the many possible departures from crystalline regularity may turn out to be an important of nanomachine design.
www.islandone.org...


soviets were the first ones to produce a substance harder than diamond in 1988(officially , but According to Colonel Krutov it had been produced in the 1983 by the soviet military ) and second israelis in late 90's(by the name of diamond nanorods)

on uragan defence:

WRM: Are Russia’s military buildups that relate to nuclear war, such as the construction at Yamantau Mountain, connected to your plans?

IK: There is no relation. These projects are not connected and will be implemented in different situations. If we succeed in re-constructing Communism in Russia before American re-armament, we will use Yamantau Mountain. If not, Yamantau Mountain will still be in control of Russian Federation forces, and we will have to speed the process by launching the Sovietia project. You don’t understand a simple thing: Not all military preparation processes (Yamantau Mountain, Uragan Defense, etc) are under our control...It [Yamantau Mountain] is operational, but digging is continued and it will never stop. But it is only one of many underground cities we have.
www.worldthreats.com...




[edit on 20-4-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 20-4-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



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'm not really sure what your asking here. I meant that people in the suits would be able to Casevac personnel, maybe even Medevac if there are Medic versions of the suits.


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.


You misunderstood what I said, I think. I could not drive over 25mph on rough roads and terrain. The vehicle could go faster if I felt like replacing parts of the suspension everyday. They can drive quite well on good roads like the autobahn in Germany.


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).


Again I think you misunderstood me, I was making a comparison between Armor not the vehicle capabilities. Just the armor.



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'?


I take it you have know idea what I'm talking about. FBCB2 is a system that allows Commanders in Real-Time to track, coordinate, and manage all units. With Land Warrior this can be managed down to the individual rifleman. GPS and Satellite communications are just components of what makes it function. With new tools like these commanders can maneuver forces very similar to how a RTS computer game functions.


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.


There have been numerous incidents in both Gulf Wars where 25mm Bushmasters and 40mm Mk-19 automatic greande launchers took out T-55s and even T-72s. I'm not talking about hits on the front slope, but hits to the sides of the turrets.


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'.


We have never been forced to a peace table by any opponent. Internal Political opposition forced us out Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.


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.


You have confused intelligence with reconnaissance. What scouts and drones do has not much do with contacts or espionage. I never said we have superior intel. We dont.

In regards to Modern Equipment. T-64s, aka 44 year old tanks are not modern. I'm talking about 1990s and onward, at the very minimum something that could challenge an M1A1. We dont use M-60s or regular M-1s with the 105mm main guns anymore.

B-52s are dinosaurs.
The Tu-160 is a good bomber, but only 35 were built and only 16-23 are actually in service. The US on the other hand has 65-67 B-1s in service. We also have 20 B-2s in service.

The Tu-22M is not a modern bomber. It was developed in the 60s and introduced in the early Seventies.

So overall the Russians and Chinese have more tanks and bombers, but the US has the most modern tanks and bombers of any country.


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


Well we won't quite have 500km, but 370.4km is pretty dang good. The first fielded weapons are expected to have a range around that.


And your that certain that the US controls space?


Well I would say we are in the best position to control orbital space, but if your implying ET controls space.
I have no idea, and for the rest of the planet's sake if they do, hope they don't have some kind of treaty with the US.
I mean that would throw this whole debate out the window, if the US had ETs as patrons.


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.


I'm sorry but I had to laugh at this one. China is no better than the USSR or Europe when it comes to Africa. Investing weapons used in genocides in Sudan and martial law in Zimbabwe, real friendly.



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.


We provide Africa with more aid than anyone else on earth. I think India will rise to be a great humanitarian nation, but China has shown no such intention.


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.


If we didn't help, Hundreds of millions of people would starve and die from disease. The Aid we have provided is far more than the rest of the Earth and far outweighs what damage we have done in Iraq or Vietnam.









[edit on 22/4/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



Sources! I apologize.


THEL:
www.defense-update.com...
Skyguard System:
www.defense-update.com...
Mobile THEL:
www.defense-update.com...

Have Blue Prototypes and the F-117 Nighthawk:

Here's a book from Amazon:
www.amazon.com...

The Wikipedia article.
en.wikipedia.org...


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


Cheyenne Mountain cannot take a direct hit from any nuclear weapon and survive. It was originally designed to take up to a 5 megaton blast from a 3 miles away and then upgraded to take a 30 megaton blast at 1 mile.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I'm not really sure what your asking here. I meant that people in the suits would be able to Casevac personnel, maybe even Medevac if there are Medic versions of the suits.


Maybe you could dump your weapons or have some way of freeing weight but i find it hard to believe that you will be able to get another soldier out of his suit to carry him anywhere. To suggest that one guy with powered armor is going to have enough free load capacity to carry another powered suited person is probably reaching as once again commanders will overload their troops with equipment and ammunition.


You misunderstood what I said, I think. I could not drive over 25mph on rough roads and terrain. The vehicle could go faster if I felt like replacing parts of the suspension everyday. They can drive quite well on good roads like the autobahn in Germany.


And I'm sure your eventually going to attempt reducing this entire discussion to be one big 'misunderstanding'.
Almost everything with four wheels in existence can go 25 mph over rough terrain ( provided it's not muddy/wet) and you wont have to replace the suspension every day. If that's the performance of a original stock standard Humvee it plain as hell sucks and should never have been built but for now i will presume that you were using one of those up armored things which suspension design were never intended to support a ton of badly distributed weight.


Again I think you misunderstood me, I was making a comparison between Armor not the vehicle capabilities. Just the armor.


As i pointed out there were NO logical reason for comparison no matter what you were talking about. If you don't know the design specifications of Soviet/Russian equipment don't refer to them.


I take it you have know idea what I'm talking about. FBCB2 is a system that allows Commanders in Real-Time to track, coordinate, and manage all units.


Trough the use the GPS system ( nothing to report really if you can't reliable determine positions ) which can be jammed or , in case of a larger war, or destroyed.


With Land Warrior this can be managed down to the individual rifleman. GPS and Satellite communications are just components of what makes it function. With new tools like these commanders can maneuver forces very similar to how a RTS computer game functions.


Yes and i am still not sure what your trying to prove by talking about this system. Will the system even function against first world enemies?


There have been numerous incidents in both Gulf Wars where 25mm Bushmasters and 40mm Mk-19 automatic greande launchers took out T-55s and even T-72s. I'm not talking about hits on the front slope, but hits to the sides of the turrets.


Great! so if you can outflank those fifty thousand T-55's to enable rear and side armor shots with MODERN grenade launchers and 25 cannons you will have 'numerous' instances where you effectively engage them. Were those T-55's firing back and if so how did their guns fail to destroy the APC's IFV's that carries those weapons? Would any reasonable person attempt to engage a formation of T-55's with the Bradley's 25mm gun hoping that they don't shoot back?


We have never been forced to a peace table by any opponent. Internal Political opposition forced us out Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.


Like i said.... When the prevailing sentiment in a nation seems to be the denial of recent history they are headed for desaster.


You have confused intelligence with reconnaissance. What scouts and drones do has not much do with contacts or espionage. I never said we have superior intel. We dont


I just keep making these 'mistakes'! I in fact mentioned the Iraqi scuds and the Serbian army and if those are intelligence matters to ( both were known to exist in the theater due to intelligence , and the obvious nature of scuds falling on people and serbs shooting Albanians etc) you you are the one who does not understand the difference. .


In regards to Modern Equipment. T-64s, aka 44 year old tanks are not modern.


They were decades ahead of their time so it really can't be helped if it took the USA and NATO till the 80's to catch up.


I'm talking about 1990s and onward, at the very minimum something that could challenge an M1A1. We dont use M-60s or regular M-1s with the 105mm main guns anymore.


The T-64 with modern armor packages and upgrades ( as they have been deeply modernized) can challenge the M1A1 and was by no means obviosly inferior to the m1 despite the fact that it was so much older. As for the 105 main gun issue the USSR had a 125mm gun on the T64 since the start! And no, US 105 mm shells did not have better armor penetration capabilities.


B-52s are dinosaurs.
The Tu-160 is a good bomber, but only 35 were built and only 16-23 are actually in service. The US on the other hand has 65-67 B-1s in service. We also have 20 B-2s in service.


There roughly as many blackjacks in service as their are spirit bombers and since the Blackjacks will fly about twice or three times the sortie rates ( with long distance cruise missiles as main weaponry) it's a far more efficient force than the B-2's could ever hope to be.


The Tu-22M is not a modern bomber. It was developed in the 60s and introduced in the early Seventies.


The B1 and T-22 are directly comparable in almost all things with maiden flight dates only five years apart. The main difference is in the fact that it took the USAF a decade to fix teething problems while the Soviet Union were building them by the dozens and upgrading and rebuilding as they went along. Both are modern bombers and both have very similar capabilities and specifications. If you want to argue that it's inferior ot less modern it should be noted that the USSR built about 400 of them with 160 ( and 100 in reserve) remaining in active service.


So overall the Russians and Chinese have more tanks and bombers, but the US has the most modern tanks and bombers of any country.


They have more tanks and bombers and used to have more aircraft and since neither were by any means obviously inferior the only thing that would have saved NATO in a conventional war would have been superior tactics/doctrine as well as having more skilled operators. NATO would not have won due to nonsensical appeals to 'more modern' weaponry as it simply never had such in vital areas.


Well we won't quite have 500km, but 370.4km is pretty dang good. The first fielded weapons are expected to have a range around that.


Even the 1970's era cruise missiles had ranges in excess of 500 km... I'm sorry but unless one dominates spaces anything afloat will , or in my opinion already has, become a big target.


Well I would say we are in the best position to control orbital space, but if your implying ET controls space.
I have no idea, and for the rest of the planet's sake if they do, hope they don't have some kind of treaty with the US.
I mean that would throw this whole debate out the window, if the US had ETs as patrons.


I don't have any reason to drag ET's into many if any discussions and in this case i just feel the actual evidence does not indicate that the US controls space. From my general posts you may surmise who i think does but that's another topic entirely.



I'm sorry but I had to laugh at this one. China is no better than the USSR or Europe when it comes to Africa. Investing weapons used in genocides in Sudan and martial law in Zimbabwe, real friendly.


And those are small transgression as compared to the wars and genocides inspired by US/western Interest in Africa. I am talking about the current Chinese investment in North and central Africa and as far as reports go they seem to be building more roads and infrastructure in general than the previous 'patrons' of those states.


We provide Africa with more aid than anyone else on earth. I think India will rise to be a great humanitarian nation, but China has shown no such intention.


70% of US aid is directly related to weapons procurements with vast majority of the rest tied to contracts with US companies. It's not the type of aid Africa needs and it's part and parcel of why Africa looks the way it currently does. I don't know of either China or India will be any better than the US, if their hands were freed, but currently they seem to be more generous and one may at least hope that lasts.


If we didn't help, Hundreds of millions of people would starve and die from disease.


They are starving and dying BECAUSE the wrong types of help are being introduced. IMF and world bank 'solutions' to problems in Africa have normally been destructive on a truly grand scale.


The Aid we have provided is far more than the rest of the Earth and far outweighs what damage we have done in Iraq or Vietnam.


And the sad thing is that the majority of Americans actually believes such things. Maybe it's time you asked the Vietnamese or Iraqi's if they benefited or for that matter ask the poor and middle classes of South America! Did you know that one may generally discover how undeveloped a nation is by noting how many times the US have invaded or intervened in it's Democratic processes?


Originally posted by MikeboydUS
THEL:
www.defense-update.com...
Skyguard System:
www.defense-update.com...
Mobile THEL:
www.defense-update.com...


And? Did i ask to see evidence that these technologies exists? I asked why you thought they were worth talking about when both the US and USSR were using lasers to damage each other's space assets in the mid 70's!

Continued



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Have Blue Prototypes and the F-117 Nighthawk:

Here's a book from Amazon:
www.amazon.com...

The Wikipedia article.
en.wikipedia.org...


Thanks but what am i supposed to do with those?



Cheyenne Mountain cannot take a direct hit from any nuclear weapon and survive. It was originally designed to take up to a 5 megaton blast from a 3 miles away and then upgraded to take a 30 megaton blast at 1 mile.
en.wikipedia.org...


Sadly it looks like i am wrong! So much for American ingenuity and efficiency thought....


The vast Soviet network of shelters and command facilities, under construction for four decades, was recently described in detail by Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci.The shelters are designed to house the entire Politburo, the Central Committee, and the key leadership of the Ministryof Defense and the KGB. Some are located hundreds of yards beneath the surface, and are connected by secret subway lines,tunnels, and sophisticated communications systems. "These facilities contradict in steel and concrete Soviet protestations that they share President Reagan's view that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought,"Carlucci said (Ariwna Republic, April 3, 1988). These facilities reveal that they are preparing themselves for just the opposite." The shelters are also protected against chemical warfare agents, and stocked with sufficient supplies to allow the leadership to survive and wage war for months.In contrast, the limited US shelter system begun in the 1950s has mostly been abandoned."To have something comparable, we'd have to have facilities where we could put every governor, mayor, every Cabinet official, and our whole command structure underground with subways running here and there," Carlucci said. "There's just no comparison between the two."

www.oism.org...



Civil Defense
A dozen years ago, we studied in detail Soviet civil defenses in a number of cities. If we believe those cities are typical and extrapolate the amount of building they have done in the meantime, then according to these unproved assumptions, the Soviets now have good shelters for most of their city population.

Whether this extrapolation is right or not, I do not know. The CIA has either neglected its duty to find out, or has found out -- but not told us. Plans to protect millions of people cannot be considered secret information. We should know, and we have a right to know. We have done practically nothing about civil defense.

www.commonwealthclub.org...



In the more traditional areas of strategic defense, Soviet military doctrine calls for passive and active defenses to act in conjunction to ensure wartime survival. Physical hardening of military assets to make them more resistant to attack is an important passive defense technique. The USSR has hardened its ICBM silos, launch facilities, and key command and control centers to an unprecedented degree. Much of the current US retaliatory force would be ineffective against these hardened targets.

Soviet leaders and managers at all levels of the government and Communist Party are provided hardened alternate command posts located well away from urban centers - in addition to many deep bunkers and blast shelters in Soviet cities. This comprehensive and redundant system, patterned after a similar system designed for the Soviet Armed Forces, provides more than 1,500 hardened alternate facilities for more than 175,000 key Party and government personnel throughout the USSR. In contrast, the US passive defense effort is far smaller and more limited; it is in no way comparable to the comprehensive Soviet program.

Elaborate plans also have been made for the full mobilization of the national economy in support of the war effort. Reserves of vital materials are maintained, many in hardened underground structures. Redundant industrial facilities are in active production. Industrial and other economic facilities have been equipped with blast shelters for the work force, and detailed procedures have been developed for the relocation of selected production capabilities. By planning for the survival of the essential work force, the Soviets hope to reconstitute vital production programs using those industrial components that could be redirected or salvaged after an attack.

www.fas.org...


Stellar



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



One of the options with the suit, is that it by itself could carry its injured operator to a Medevac, which just means eventually we won't need an operator. Otherwise I think that personnel would be taken from the suits.

Your right about the IFVs, if it were only IFVs engaging the tanks. The thing is, they are one part of a whole. So it won't be lone IFVs with 25mm Bushmasters or even just guys in Armored Suits engaing the enemy. It would be a wide array, a joint combined arms task force.

What are the ranges on a "modernized" T-64? Those 125mm rounds, even Tungsten penetrator rounds cannot pierce the armor on the front of the M1A1, including the heavy skirting towards the front of the vehicle. Some hits made by Iraqi tanks in both gulf wars were under 500m and still failed to do more than stick into the armor like a dart. Heck the 120mm depleted uranium sabot rounds fired from the Abrams have trouble penetrating its own armor. On the other hand Iraqi T-55s all the way to T-72s could be hit one behind the other with the Sabots. Meaning if you lined them up properly you could take out Two tanks with one shot. Iraqi tanks were even hit while in Battle Positions, Sabots were fired through the dirt berms they used to hide behind. I personally have far more faith in shoulder fired anti tanks weapons that the Russians and Chinese have than their tanks.

I have always heard that the Blackjack and the Lancer are the ones who are more like cousins. Theyre almost like brother and sister, the Blackjack being the older, little bigger, and maybe even better of the two.

The Backfire is a much smaller aircraft, like an F-111 on steroids. They can carry about a one third of what the B-1 can.

Maybe I'm misuderstanding, but I'm guessing you think maybe China or Russia controls space. I more inclined personally to think that ETs would be more plausible.

We give all kinds of aid to Africa. I'm not counting aid like the billions that go to Egypt for their military. I'm talking about just the Humanitarian Aid, we provide more of that than anyone else, publicly and privately.

I agree IMF and the World Bank are part of the problem. The entire international financial system is part of the problem.

The Have Blue stuff is about the F-117 protoypes in the 1970s.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 





What are the ranges on a "modernized" T-64? Those 125mm rounds, even Tungsten penetrator rounds cannot pierce the armor on the front of the M1A1, including the heavy skirting towards the front of the vehicle. Some hits made by Iraqi tanks in both gulf wars were under 500m and still failed to do more than stick into the armor like a dart. Heck the 120mm depleted uranium sabot rounds fired from the Abrams have trouble penetrating its own armor.


firstly , there were no tungsten penetrators used by iraqis and SABOTS that iraqis used were of the 70's

you should have read manson_322 links fully, heres something from his link :



"Monkey model" sold to WarPac/Third World clients with stereoscopic coincidence rangefinder and lower grade steel armour. Used by Iraq in 1991 Gulf War firing poor quality steel 125mm rounds.

10. "Monkey model" sold to WarPac/Third World clients with laser rangefinder and lower grade steel armour. Used by Iraq in 1991 Gulf War firing poor quality steel 125mm rounds.

11. "Monkey model" sold to WarPac/Third World clients with laser rangefinder and glacis applique plate (after tests showed M-111 could penetrate old glacis) plus "sandbar" armour in turret front

With ERA fitted becomes 250-290mm vs KE & 580-720mm vs CE
members.tripod.com...


and heres penetration of certain russian rounds:


kraine 125mm Vitiaz round 760mm at 2km (2002)

Russian 125mm BM-42M "Lekalo"? tungsten 600-650mm at 2km (200?)

Russian 125mm BM-46 "Svinets" DU 650mm at 2km (1991) (22:1 L/D)

Russian 125mm BM-42 "Mango" tungsten alloy 500mm at 2km (1986) (16:1 L/D)

Russian 125mm BM-32 "Vant" DU 560mm at 2km (1985) (13:1 L/D)

Russian 125mm BM-29 DU 470mm at 2km (1982) (12:1 L/D)

Russian 125mm BM-26 "Hope" (1983) tungsten alloy 450mm at 2km (extended BM-22 13:1 L/D)
members.tripod.com...




M1IP / M1A1 (2) Mantle & Turret: 450
Glacis: 350-490
Lower front hull:430-470
members.tripod.com...


this is the protection of M1A1 in terms of KE, seems the soviets had the BM-32/bm-42/bm-46 round which was more than sufficient to penetrate it , with bm-32 since the 80's...

though the protection of M1A2 and the SEP variant is much superior

some research by me on monkey models :


Armored vehicles

Monkey-model tanks were equipped with lower grade fire control systems, lower grade armor, lacking NBC protection, and provided with substandard ammunition.

For example, the inferior 3VBM8/3BM17/18 APFSDS 125 mm smoothbore rounds were exported for use in the T-72 family of tanks. It was specifically designed for export and had a penetration of sloped armor at 2000 m that was half as much as that of the original Soviet model.
en.wikipedia.org...




A good example of this is the dismal performance of Iraqi T-72 models during the Gulf War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Iraqi T-72 probably failed to destroy a single M1 tank. On the other hand experts believe that the T-72's 125 mm 2A46 main gun is capable of destroying any modern main battle tank in the world today. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the Iraqi operated a mix of monkey models and their own locally produced version, the Lion of Babylon tank, and used substandard ammunition (it has been claimed that in some cases even training ammunition was used) for their guns.

According to Sewell (1998), Russian T-72s are built of materials superior to those of the eight export models, and T-72A tanks in Chechnya were more survivable than the T-72M and T-72M1 tanks which were easily destroyed by modern US and UK tanks in Iraq.
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 24-4-2008 by BrezhnevX]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by BrezhnevX
 


Can you tell me why you think the Iraqis did not have Tungsten penetrators, especially since there are military articles that talk about them and their inability to stop Abrams tanks during the 1st Gulf War.

Yes the protection on the M1A2 is much better than the M1A1, the M1A1 is in the process of being phased out.

I dont doubt the Iraqi tanks were monkey models. Kind of like the M1s we export to Egypt.

What I still say is that I would be far more afraid of a shoulder fired anti tank weapon made by the Russians and Chinese than their tanks.

[edit on 24/4/08 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 

answer


For example, the inferior 3VBM8/3BM17/18 APFSDS 125 mm smoothbore rounds were exported for use in the T-72 family of tanks. It was specifically designed for export and had a penetration of sloped armor at 2000 m that was half as much as that of the original Soviet model.


these rounds were never sufficient to penetrate modern western tanks



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Well it could be great... unless some evil dictator want a world government and want to impose dictatorial rule with this kind of equipment... oh wait... it's happening.

The closing window to stop a 1000 years 4e reich, aka New World Order, is closing fast due to the technology.

If we do not bring down the NWO by the time there are lasers stopping missiles hitting tanks and those terminators, brainchips mandatory to children able to kill them on orders... it will be a endless dictatorship on earth. Probably it will end up runned by the machines like in the Matrix.

I would say that if we do not bring it down in the next 30 years, armed resistance will be useless. At the pace of technology, especially military technology used as it is now in the UK and in the US, it will be a mix of Brave New World, 1984, Minority Report, Logan's Run-The Island and something else worse.

And let's not forget Monsanto who's killing every natural crops to turn it into GMOs... real good for life on earth!

And this is only if the elite decide to do it the technological dictatorship way... if they go we kill 90% of the world now with bioweapons while waiting with troops in underground bases... to come back and take over the earth...

Sorry to say that, but if we don't overthrow them in our lifetime, it's over for the human race.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Vitchilo]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
One of the options with the suit, is that it by itself could carry its injured operator to a Medevac, which just means eventually we won't need an operator. Otherwise I think that personnel would be taken from the suits


That's a possibility but i would thank that damage to the person inside would normally mean that the suit itself might not be very functional any more. I suppose this would be largely dependent on explosive or armor piercing effects


Your right about the IFVs, if it were only IFVs engaging the tanks. The thing is, they are one part of a whole. So it won't be lone IFVs with 25mm Bushmasters or even just guys in Armored Suits engaing the enemy. It would be a wide array, a joint combined arms task force.


It's called combined arms warfare and i am well aware of the implications of large formations of AFV's running into each other in European conditions. I do read history and the second war speaks volumes as to how little help quantity can be or how strategically useless isolated pockets of quality can be.


What are the ranges on a "modernized" T-64? Those 125mm rounds, even Tungsten penetrator rounds cannot pierce the armor on the front of the M1A1, including the heavy skirting towards the front of the vehicle.


No they can't and that's why most modern tank guns can at best achieve mobility and operational kills against each other at such extended ranges. The T-64 and most tanks in the world may engage field fortifications and lightly armored vehicles( or much older and un-modernized tanks) at such ranges, or engage if they they can achieve a flanking shot, but for the most part they will have to close with each other firing as line of sight allows. The T-64 main gun could certainly achieve 2 km kills against the likely opposition in it's day but even back then it was decided that the best way to engage at such ranges were AT missiles which is why most Russian main guns can also be used to fire those to a maximum range of 5 km. As you may or may not be aware the average engagement range in European Russia is ( where NATO and Warsaw pact forces were going to 'meet') is 500 meters with a definite bias towards even shorter ranges. Modern sigths and sensors will obviously affect this but as i understand the average tank armor will still have to do most of it's work against tank shells fired from 800 odd meters away.


Some hits made by Iraqi tanks in both gulf wars were under 500m and still failed to do more than stick into the armor like a dart.


And as far as i am aware that is a 'fact' which can be explained by the Iraqi's not properly


Heck the 120mm depleted uranium sabot rounds fired from the Abrams have trouble penetrating its own armor.


At extended ranges and as far as i know only in the M1A2/SEP. The M1 and A1 were capable of penetrating their own armor at extended ranges.




On the other hand Iraqi T-55s all the way to T-72s could be hit one behind the other with the Sabots. Meaning if you lined them up properly you could take out Two tanks with one shot. Iraqi tanks were even hit while in Battle Positions, Sabots were fired through the dirt berms they used to hide behind. I personally have far more faith in shoulder fired anti tanks weapons that the Russians and Chinese have than their tanks.


And this happened largely largely because the T-55/72's were not suitable upgraded and were relatively badly constructed export models at that. If the cold war became far less cold in the mid or late 80's the following would have been a more typical outcome of standard American tank 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."

Newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2 and now M829A3, have been improved to defeat the armor design of Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well; see T-84 and T-90) . The M829A2 was the immediate response, developed in part to take on the new armor bricks. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well and designed to fight future armor protection methods. As a response to M829A3 russian army produced new type of ERA, Relikt, most modern russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5.

en.wikipedia.org...


So the 'race' goes on and as you may or may not be aware Iraq never had a way to keep up in both quality and quantity. Since SH was expecting another war with Iran or other ME enemies he went for quantity of armor as without quantity Iran's far larger population would have yield sufficient manpower to simply overun Iraqi forces as they frequently did in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's.


I have always heard that the Blackjack and the Lancer are the ones who are more like cousins. Theyre almost like brother and sister, the Blackjack being the older, little bigger, and maybe even better of the two.


In terms of shear size the Blackjack is a very different aircraft to the B-1 ( it has twice the wing area for instance ) but strikingly the B1 carriage capacity has more in common with the Blackjack than with backfire. I knew the Lancer and backfire had the same physical dimensions but somehow missed out on the fact that the B1 is not only far heavier ( on the order of 30% empty weight) but can can carry the mass equivalent of a fully loaded Tu-22! Talk about a engineering marvel.... If the electronic warfare suite, and other lesser problems, didn't keep the B-1 from going into full production much earlier far more of them could have been built without breaking the bank! As it stands they ARE great aircraft even if i would never have changed the design for low altitude penetration thus giving up the high mach speeds!


The Backfire is a much smaller aircraft, like an F-111 on steroids. They can carry about a one third of what the B-1 can.


As i said the physical dimensions are exactly the same with B-1 just being of apparent far sturdier design! As both were originally designed for high mach speeds so it's almost hard to explain why the Tu-22 has such a relative small gross weight and thus carriage capacity.


Maybe I'm misuderstanding, but I'm guessing you think maybe China or Russia controls space. I more inclined personally to think that ETs would be more plausible.


You would, yes.
Anything rather than Russians in control of space!


We give all kinds of aid to Africa. I'm not counting aid like the billions that go to Egypt for their military. I'm talking about just the Humanitarian Aid, we provide more of that than anyone else, publicly and privately.


The American public is definitely helping but it's never going to make up for the billions of their tax dollars that are being employed by the US government to fund all kinds of horrors and socially destructive economic policies trough the IMF and World bank.


I agree IMF and the World Bank are part of the problem. The entire international financial system is part of the problem


They are about as much part of a the problem as a wolf's appetite for meat is part of the wolf's problem; in neither case is there a separation of form and function as the form leads directly to the function. The IMF and world bank were designed by the US and partners to control the developing world and to ensure that profits could be squeezed from them as long as they had any workers left.


The Have Blue stuff is about the F-117 protoypes in the 1970s.


Yes, i know and knew.


Stellar


[edit on 29-4-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
One can only hope that microrobots and nanites are also being develop this way unseen robots can finish off any resistance permanently and quickly.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by solidshot
 

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


A small EM pulse generator on the other hand would disable all of these in a radius of a few miles. In a fraction of a second you'd have a bunch of solders falling to the ground from the exoskeleton's weight alone.

Too risky for battlegrounds use I'd say.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I can't wait until we have suits similar to the ones worn in the game Crysis...not with all of this biological stuff, but with flexible rubbers that can be flexed like muscle to block bullets o help give humans assistance in strength...it's coming some day...this is just the first step.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I would say this is much closer to Robotech than it would be an Ironman suit. I have a true passion for Robotech and suits that a man or woman could wear to make them much stronger!
Here is an old drawing I did, from the Ref guide from Robotech!
This suit is battle worthy, and also changes into a motor bike for fast travle speed!
This is my own artwork, taken right out of the Reff Guide..
Any oldschool geeks like me will say hey I remember those !!!!




Cool thread, and very thought provoking!!! I so enjoy dreaming up new suits of future like armor!!! The future lays within our minds.
And all those suits and Huge robots we remember from cartoons and models will some day be the real deal!!!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join