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.

 

What if: Chemical powered Throwers are replaced by Electric Weaponry

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
What's Happen if all forms of the Chemical-Powered Projectile Throwers(minus Mortar and Grenade Launchers) are replaced by Railguns, Coilguns, and Directed Energy Weapons likely because of the advent of Powered Exoskeletons, Head-to-Toe Body Armour, and Room Temperature Superconductors as well due to the recurring logic: Chemical-Powered Kinetic weapons are just for dealing with Unarmored Flesh-and-Blood targets even the most high powered ones regardless it's caliber?




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


What's Happen if all forms of the Chemical-Powered Projectile Throwers(minus Mortar and Grenade Launchers) are replaced by Railguns, Coilguns, and Directed Energy Weapons





More than likely, all forms of chemical powered projectile throwers will become obselete...





posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by masonicon
 



More than likely, all forms of chemical powered projectile throwers will become obselete...



Unless when that weapons is Rockets, Missiles, and Air-dropped bombs

[edit on 31/7/2010 by masonicon]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Scalar electromagnetics have long since made these primitive technologies obsolete. Just like 100 year old dinosaur powered cars compared to similar anti gravity tech. But wait cars now have airbags and urr.. multi zone environment management. Real progress in the art of moving people eh?
Guns now have nightvision sights and cameras. Just like cars, improved materials and manufacturing, however exactly the same, the end product is not vastly better than early 1900s technology.

I wonder when people will start to wake up to this technological paradox we live in!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   


Then I
would have to
ionize the hull of
my sexy new GINA.


David Grouchy



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


Good example of one of the energy weapons they have in the field now.



Airborne laser system, not cheap thou.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 



aaaaaand....


cancelled last time i heard? or at least on hold



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Would not the biggest problem be the batteries! It is all very nice imagining a future of lasers, but with todays technology (and the technology of years to come) I think mainstream weaponary will remain pretty well as it currently is.

Regards



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Would not the biggest problem be the batteries! It is all very nice imagining a future of lasers, but with todays technology (and the technology of years to come) I think mainstream weaponary will remain pretty well as it currently is.

Regards


Power supply is one of the bigger problems with directed-energy or electromagnetic weapons. Another is weight. Face it, you can only kill a target so dead. If a 9-12 lb chemical slug thrower can do the job, why should a soldier carry a weapon that weighs most of that (and the mechanical stresses of firing a rail gun *will* require a heavy structure), plus a battery pack or personal generator that isn't going to be light, plus ammo?

Weight and power aside, there's the issue of maintainability. If those fancy super-weapons are too vulnerable to dust / mud / water, or too maintenance intensive, they won't be good weapons no matter how good they look on paper...look at the early experience with the M-16 for an good example.

Finally, if there were several engineering breakthroughs within the next week, and every chemical gun in every military were replaced with rail rifles / coil guns, the overall effect on combat would probably not be as significant as people think. Effective infantry ranges (sniper shots aside) aren't much different than they were in the World Wars, despite huge advances in materials and weapons. It's a limitation on the human ability to aim and fire accurately under combat conditions, not the weapon itself. Whatever the exact type of weapon, projectile-dominated infantry combat will be similar in general to what we see now, though some details might change.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by paraphi
Would not the biggest problem be the batteries! It is all very nice imagining a future of lasers, but with todays technology (and the technology of years to come) I think mainstream weaponary will remain pretty well as it currently is.

Regards


Power supply is one of the bigger problems with directed-energy or electromagnetic weapons. Another is weight. Face it, you can only kill a target so dead. If a 9-12 lb chemical slug thrower can do the job, why should a soldier carry a weapon that weighs most of that (and the mechanical stresses of firing a rail gun *will* require a heavy structure), plus a battery pack or personal generator that isn't going to be light, plus ammo?

Weight and power aside, there's the issue of maintainability. If those fancy super-weapons are too vulnerable to dust / mud / water, or too maintenance intensive, they won't be good weapons no matter how good they look on paper...look at the early experience with the M-16 for an good example.

Finally, if there were several engineering breakthroughs within the next week, and every chemical gun in every military were replaced with rail rifles / coil guns, the overall effect on combat would probably not be as significant as people think. Effective infantry ranges (sniper shots aside) aren't much different than they were in the World Wars, despite huge advances in materials and weapons. It's a limitation on the human ability to aim and fire accurately under combat conditions, not the weapon itself. Whatever the exact type of weapon, projectile-dominated infantry combat will be similar in general to what we see now, though some details might change.

Is this different story if the rise and advent of Powered Exoskeleton, full body armor, and/or Mechanized walkers as well alternative energy(not restricted to Current-generation technology) happens?

[edit on 3/8/2010 by masonicon]

[edit on 3/8/2010 by masonicon]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon

*** Snipping out my prior post for brevity's sake. ***

Is this different story if the rise and advent of Powered Exoskeleton, full body armor, and/or Mechanized walkers as well alternative energy(not restricted to Current-generation technology) happens?

[edit on 3/8/2010 by masonicon]


Powered exoskeletons might make some difference, but I'd wager that their impact would be greater in logistics and support, rather than in direct combat. One man in an exoskeleton might be able to do the loading / unloading work of 4-5 normal men, which would free up the extra manpower for front-line service. I could also see an exoskeleton trooper or two replacing the loading crew of an artillery piece, which would, again, free up more men for front line service.

Putting the exoskeleton in a combat role, though, runs into problems related to simple physics. Assuming that the power issue could be solved, there will still be a problem with ground pressure and with traction. Assuming the exoskeleton's feet are similar in size to those of its operator (much smaller would be silly, if it was possible at all, much larger, and he'd be tripping over his own feet), you can't make him too much heavier than the current range of human normal before he starts sinking into soft ground or mud due to the increasing ground pressure. As his weight goes up, he'll also begin to have problems negotiating rough terrain, or steep slopes. In other words, as his weight edges closer and closer to the weight of a vehicle, the more of an infantryman's traditional advantages he surrenders to the vehicles. Your exoskeleton-equipped soldier might be wearing heavy armor, and carrying battleship-grade guns, but if he's sinking up to his knees in the turf with every step, and unable to move effectively around the battlefield, he's not going to be a very effective soldier.

Full body armor would be a great idea, to be honest. That assumes that you could make a suit of the stuff that was effective, lightweight enough to wear, flexible enough to work / fight in, easy enough to repair or replace, and cool enough to not cause the wearer to die from heat stroke. Remember, even before we issue him full body armor, a normal infantryman is carrying a good portion of his own body weight on his back. He doesn't need any more weight if he can possibly avoid carrying it.

Mechanized walkers make great anime. I'll let you in on a secret...I'm a huge fan of the 'giant robot' anime and manga, and I've played BattleTech ever since FASA first shipped it out to my local hobby shop. Good Lord, has it really been 26 years? I feel *old*.

Fan credentials fully in place, it pains me to say that mecha aren't going to dominate the real world unless we can radically break most of the laws of physics. For a start, scroll back up and read my comments about ground pressure and traction with regard to exoskeletons, then crank them up to eleven...or eleven hundred. Bipedal mecha are going to have severe problems with any kind of terrain worse than, say, interstate-grade pavement, and any slope steeper than a wheelchair ramp. They'll also have problems with stability (even before we add in the effects of weapon recoil), visibility (just where *does* a 30' tall war machine hide?) and vulnerability (BattleTech rules aside, a tank will be a more efficient use of armor than a mecha, simply because there are fewer surfaces to protect). Any job a mech can do, a tank will do a lot better.

All three of these ideas also run into the cost issue. Let's say that your exoskeleton / armor / mecha makes your troops ten times as effective as standard-issue troops. If the extra gear costs twenty times the cost of a normal infantryman, it's not a good idea. You can see this happen to the Wehrmacht during World War II. As the apocryphal story goes, one Tiger tank commander supposedly said "My Tiger is easily twelve times as good as the American Sherman....but there's always a thirteenth Sherman". Can a nation *afford* to produce, maintain, and train operators for all of this gear in sufficient numbers to meet the military's needs? If not, no matter how good the systems look on paper, they aren't going to change the battlefield.

Note that this time through, I haven't mentioned power. With current (or even projected) power sources, neither exoskeletons nor mecha will be feasible...and even if you can solve the power problem, see above.

I'm not saying that we've reached some sort of pinnacle of war-fighting ability, and that combat will never change. I just don't see the things mentioned here being game changers without some breakthroughs that are so far over the horizon that we might as well speculate about unicorn cavalry, elven archery, and dwarven knights mounted on armored bears (all of which sound fairly cool to me!)

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Being a military veteran myself, and always interested in the newest weapons and armor that the Army was fielding, I don't believe that "energy" weapons will be viable in the field. There are too many variables to consider with these weapons, such as they can't get wet and still operate, the amounts of energy needed to fire them, and most importantly, the cost. They would cost way to much to equip every soldier on the battlefield with one.

The only way I would see directed energy weapons viable would be vehicle based, the way that they are currently testing these weapons that are being developed. They would also be highly specialized for specific purposes such as anti-armor, anti-ship, or anti-aircraft. Anti-personnel weapons will continue to be projectile weapons, as would you rather spend say $1 to kill an enemy, or $.10 which is the approximate cost of a standard 5.56mm round for the M16?

For more items in development for the US Army, check out PEO Soldier linked here:

PEO Soldier



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Also, you've got to think of the enviroment these mechs are going to be in. Urban warfare would be a nightmare; you could have Tangos darting in and out of doorways firing off $20 RPGs (or the futures equivalent of an RPG) while a huge lumbering 30' tall, $30,000,000 mech just bumbles around getting blown to shreds. It would be much of the same in forested or rocky terrain.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NezPerzeWolf
Also, you've got to think of the enviroment these mechs are going to be in. Urban warfare would be a nightmare; you could have Tangos darting in and out of doorways firing off $20 RPGs (or the futures equivalent of an RPG) while a huge lumbering 30' tall, $30,000,000 mech just bumbles around getting blown to shreds. It would be much of the same in forested or rocky terrain.

what the connections between Electric weapons with mechs?

[edit on 6/8/2010 by masonicon]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


Probably from the mention of powered exoskeletons in the original post. The 'mech is really just the exoskeleton writ large.

What sort of 'electric weapon' did you have in mind, if I might ask? At various places in this thread, we've had rail guns, coil guns, and directed-energy weapons all crop up, and any of them could, by some definition, be 'electric weapons'.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Mechs over 10' tall will probably never emerge in warfare, there are just too many ways to take one down. Weapons, no matter how powerful, need to be tailored to the type of combat you are fighting. You can't fight a war against infantry with a 30' tall mech, even if its' got 30mm autocannons or GPS-guided mortar rounds, or railguns, or DEWs (if your population is concerned in the least with colateral damage, which ours is.).
I guess we where assuming was that when you said "mech", you meant a Gundam-style walking monstrosity. Could you specify what you mean?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NezPerzeWolf
Mechs over 10' tall will probably never emerge in warfare, there are just too many ways to take one down. Weapons, no matter how powerful, need to be tailored to the type of combat you are fighting. You can't fight a war against infantry with a 30' tall mech, even if its' got 30mm autocannons or GPS-guided mortar rounds, or railguns, or DEWs (if your population is concerned in the least with colateral damage, which ours is.).
I guess we where assuming was that when you said "mech", you meant a Gundam-style walking monstrosity. Could you specify what you mean?

Mechs here in this thread are refers to the Mechanized walkers that restricted to 10 feet or less in terms of heights



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
In a recent episode of "Sci Fi Science", Dr. Michio Kaku explored the idea of a "nano battery" using carbon nanotubes in place of the traditional metal plates found in modern batteries. The idea of a basic battery is that you store a charge between two plates. The more surface area you have between the plates, the more energy you can store. With carbon nanotubes, you could store huge amounts of energy in a very small space. The kicker? It's easy to create nanotubes right now and it's inexpensive. The nanotubes have metal-like properties and can hold a charge just like traditional metal plates in a battery. So, you could have an electric powered personal weapon that would be within the normal weight specs of a main infantry weapon in the near future.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by soontide
In a recent episode of "Sci Fi Science", Dr. Michio Kaku explored the idea of a "nano battery" using carbon nanotubes in place of the traditional metal plates found in modern batteries. The idea of a basic battery is that you store a charge between two plates. The more surface area you have between the plates, the more energy you can store. With carbon nanotubes, you could store huge amounts of energy in a very small space. The kicker? It's easy to create nanotubes right now and it's inexpensive. The nanotubes have metal-like properties and can hold a charge just like traditional metal plates in a battery. So, you could have an electric powered personal weapon that would be within the normal weight specs of a main infantry weapon in the near future.

Have you ever heard that the Anunnaki aliens are needs gold so much not for protecting the atmosphere of their planets(as the gold are just makes their planets death traps for space radiations), but for making Monoatomic Gold where one of it's use are Room temperature Superconductor(even better when it mixed with nanotubes) as they are completely eschews all forms of conventional weaponry(including cold weapons) in favor of Directed Energy Weapons, thus Monoatomic Gold are also makes other technological devices like that practical.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Great idea, Mason!! Let's ask aliens!!!
Seriously, though. If a smaller exoskeleton FCS-2020 style walker was used, then yes, it would be very effective, especially in logistics (heavy lifting), ordinance on carriers and for howitzers, and an uparmored version for EOD. Using carbon 'tubes and an actual mounting of the energy weapon onto the frame of the exoskeleton, they, in short, are exteremely feasible. I asked my friend (an expert on science and physics and such) about railguns and he replied:
You asked about the possibility of man-portable railguns and I can tell you in short they're very feasible. There are mainly two things to consider with railguns: one is kickback, and the other is, as you said, power. Kickback of course increases as the force exerted on the projectile goes up, so railguns would have to be longer guns than regular ones. Luckily, the force is applied evenly along its entire length and so the kickback for a bullet with the same momentum will be less for a railgun than a standard firearm. Power is also only a small problem, with the only issue being that a lot of energy needs to be released in a small amount of time. The best thing for this would be ultracapacitors that are continually charged by any kind of portable power source, in fact, ultracapacitors themselves have such high energy storage density that they could BE the power source.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join