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.

 

Death From Above, the CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Check out this video everyone of one the US Military's more powerful cluster bombs, you also get to see it in action.

shock.military.com...




posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
wasn't that the weapon that was internationally outlawed, but the US renamed it and keeps using it?

I am sick of all the wars.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey Magic
I am sick of all the wars.


This is one of the most significant comments about post's like this..we should all be sick of war and anyone impressed with video's like this should recheck their principles, morality and understand the whole patriotic nonesense Governments program people into is just plain dumb.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
What ever your feelings about war, there is no doubting is a pretty effective piece of technological engineering.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Yay! New ways of killing people! Humanity is coming along just fine! I can't wait to see the aftermath of this weapon used on women and children!



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion
What ever your feelings about war, there is no doubting is a pretty effective piece of technological engineering.


Again, you missed the point. Our existence on this planet will not last; as long as things of this nature are created, especially when people like yourself laud how great they are. Shocking and awful I say, of everybody romancing WMDs. And let's just say that, weapons of mass destruction...who's the "terrorist" now?

I saw a documentary a while ago, I can;t remember the title, but it talked about MSM and how they romance military weaponry to the point where it dovetails the propaganda they are trying to disseminate. Free your minds! This romance is spawned in hell!



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
Yay! New ways of killing people! Humanity is coming along just fine! I can't wait to see the aftermath of this weapon used on women and children!


Actually if you knew anything about the weapon rather than spouting off, you would know that it doesn't target people rather vehicles and yes it is damn effective



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
People who post 'I can't believe you're discussing weapons, you monster!' in the weaponry forums are either idiots, or bored loud-mouths, and my opinion is to listen to neither.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The Russians got their first - and their version is better -

blog.wired.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Heavier, less-effective [One bomb per six tanks? Seems like a roll of the dice] and fewer bomblets is not what I'd call 'better', and seeing as we're basing 'they got their first' off their word that it was in service several years before ours, despite being announced that they had it the same year ours entered _production_ seems a tad silly.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 


Yeah, and people don't drive vehicles, robots do. Come now, what time is it? Wake up a little earlier to nab plucky...otherwise, step off.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by pluckynoonez]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
One picture says all...





posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey Magic
One picture says all...




Wrong weapon.
That is not the CBU-97.

And Plucky, either hush up [not my preferred word] and read my above post, or pay attention to the point he was trying to get across with being idiotically biased.

The point was that bomblets designed to destroy vehicles, particularly the 97's method, _as opposed to the Russian's "bomb" method_, will not kill people through accidental explosions.

Explosively-formed darts are not anti-infatry HE munitions.

Now either learn something about weaponry, on the _weaponry_ forum, or stop attacking the topic _in it's own forum_.

Good God.



[edit on 19-7-2008 by Iblis]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
amen iblis and rogue1... if anything this would likely cut down on civilian casualties. compare it to a dumb cluster bomb which bombs a large area regardless of what is their. this is like going from a dumb bomb to a jdam so honestly everyone who cries that this is horrific, move on. war is horrific theirs no question about that, but honestly i'd rather have something like this in the air that will only kill the people who are trying to kill us than innocent civilians. and let's be honest for a minute, as long as humans are humans war will exist, their has never been an extended world peace since the beginning of recorded time and i'm sure way before that -if ever. so personally i'm thankful that we have something that will at least limit who and what were killing.


raptor1

[edit on 7/20/08 by raptor1]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez

Originally posted by cruzion
What ever your feelings about war, there is no doubting is a pretty effective piece of technological engineering.


Again, you missed the point. Our existence on this planet will not last; as long as things of this nature are created, especially when people like yourself laud how great they are. Shocking and awful I say, of everybody romancing WMDs. And let's just say that, weapons of mass destruction...who's the "terrorist" now?

I saw a documentary a while ago, I can;t remember the title, but it talked about MSM and how they romance military weaponry to the point where it dovetails the propaganda they are trying to disseminate. Free your minds! This romance is spawned in hell!


Hey, there's no problem with creating these weapons. Using them is different. Your acting like they are already dropping these things on womens support groups and kindergartens!
These things are designed for the destruction of a specific enemy, not to maim the innocent. From what I have read of these things, they really are a smart weapon, and their objective is to destroy military hardware. If it's the ones I'm thinking of, they break up into 40 small bomblets, and they use a shaped charge to attack armor. It's not phospherous or napalm or nukes. These are really specific in their application.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
reply to post by rogue1
 


Yeah, and people don't drive vehicles, robots do. Come now, what time is it? Wake up a little earlier to nab plucky...otherwise, step off.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by pluckynoonez]


Funny thing is, those people in those military designed tanks and mobile weapons platforms...they would LOVE for their country to have this kind of capability. Which general, and indeed, which soldier does not want the best weapons for his forces? You seem to have no concept what so ever of what an armed forces purpose is.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Heavier, less-effective [One bomb per six tanks? Seems like a roll of the dice] and fewer bomblets is not what I'd call 'better', and seeing as we're basing 'they got their first' off their word that it was in service several years before ours, despite being announced that they had it the same year ours entered _production_ seems a tad silly.


Check the facts. How many actual kills do you get per CBU-97?

Also their is more siphisticated, with one version having a MMW sensor as well as IR. As for dates, there were a lot of indications that this preceded the US weapon, as it's based on an earlier Russian missile warhead.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by Iblis
Heavier, less-effective [One bomb per six tanks? Seems like a roll of the dice] and fewer bomblets is not what I'd call 'better', and seeing as we're basing 'they got their first' off their word that it was in service several years before ours, despite being announced that they had it the same year ours entered _production_ seems a tad silly.


Check the facts. How many actual kills do you get per CBU-97?

Also their is more siphisticated, with one version having a MMW sensor as well as IR. As for dates, there were a lot of indications that this preceded the US weapon, as it's based on an earlier Russian missile warhead.


Fourty targets. And if they fail to find one, they self-destruct fifty feet above the ground. Anything else?

Furthermore, I do not consider a 'one bomb = six targets' concept more sophisticated, and the enhanced detection system only barely justifies this venue. By-to-by, are you telling me that fourty seperate weapons each processing the battlefield below and determining where and what a target is, is less sophisticated than several large weapons searching for heat or metal?

And the point about who developed the weapon first, I'll concede if only because I don't find the answer to be of much worth. Either way, the projects likely began within a year or two of one-another at most.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Fourty targets. And if they fail to find one, they self-destruct fifty feet above the ground. Anything else?



I didn't ask how many targets it looks for, I asked how many actual kills you can score. (Btw I think you mean forty)

One of the big drawbacks of the US version is that where the views overlap, the submunitions all tend to go for the same target. When they don't, a lot of them are looking at empty space with no target vehicles.

As I said, check the facts and let me know what number you come up with



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join