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.

 

Sci Fi Weapons Closer Than You Think

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Hey these weapons could be pretty cool. Just think space battles could be a reality. I would love to get to say this as part of my career: "Shields up, weapons online". But that would be weird shooting lasers at terrorists. I wonder if the Greys had anything to do with this.

[edit on 7/10/2004 by cyberdude78]




posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
ShadowXIX, I see you havn't seen the next-gen version of the invisibility cloak eh?

Invisibility Cloak

As you can see it's alot better. I wonder how much power it sucks up tho


The quality of the new version is alot better than the original. Does this version work on the same principle as the original by which I mean that It requires a outside projector to project the image onto the jacket.That would still make the suit impractical for any military use. I see no evidence that this is all self contained in the jacket itself. For the suit to project its own image on the jacket itself would require some big advancements in light reactive dyes or some other new materials that would have properties of the same nature. There is still good hope for this technology as the basic concept is sound and has been proven to work.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Well the powerful lasers are to big to be out in tanks so they are still a couple of years off and psteel researching new weapon platforms is a good thing you never want to let the enemy catch up with you but I don't get what you mean about not showing or teaching the soldiers how to use them? Forget lasers what about particle beams there are some reports that the US already has them



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well the powerful lasers are to big to be out in tanks so they are still a couple of years off and psteel researching new weapon platforms is a good thing you never want to let the enemy catch up with you but I don't get what you mean about not showing or teaching the soldiers how to use them? Forget lasers what about particle beams there are some reports that the US already has them



Staying ahead of who?

YOu never design doctrine to fit weapons, you design weapons to fit doctrine . Otherwize no matter how well they are designed they will never be used properly unless their is training methods to use them worked out with the troops/units.

Good example is USAF bombing capability. SInce the Vietnam war the USA has become obsessed with PGMs and have spent tens of billions of dollars a year to develop and by them in hugh numbers. Every one assumed that with all these PGMs then every missile fired is going to result in a tank destroyed.

This enthusim was not dampened by the fact that it would be hard for pilots to target such weapons when they were fly low to avoid radar or at medium altitude dodging SAMs, few people doubted the expected success. So confident of success where they that an entire doctrine was developed to exploite these systems called the airland battle.

THen ODS comes along and thousands of PGMs are launched on the thousands of IRaqie tanks and AFV. SO confident is the USAF that estimates run as high as 80% of the IRaqie tanks/AFVs destroyed. WHen push comes to shove the actual figure is more like 15% destroy. So what Happened? Individual PGM strikes success ran at 67-90% but few targets were actually destroyed . One estimate puts the figure at only 300 tanks compared to 2800 claimed hit and destroyed. We may never know but its clear that primative Iraqie decoys may have absorbed alot of these PGM strikes and with so many pilots in the air at one time the chances of two or more jets shooting at the same target become very real.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:40 AM
link   
"stay ahead of who?" the world
also can i see some links about your claims on the PGM? thank you have a nice day



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   
what would be the best weapon ever is a gun that shoots a laser beam now that is the future if they can make that it is truly a Sci fi weapon.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Yeah we do have a lot of people to stay ahead of. Look at how many countries hate the US. So we do need these. But why design the weapon to fit a doctrine. It limits the capabilities of the weapon. Why limit the potential of something that will probably save your life.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

what would be the best weapon ever is a gun that shoots a laser beam now that is the future if they can make that it is truly a Sci fi weapon.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's all useless without power sci-fi weapons are about as close as we are to fusion.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Yeah we do have a lot of people to stay ahead of. Look at how many countries hate the US. So we do need these. But why design the weapon to fit a doctrine. It limits the capabilities of the weapon. Why limit the potential of something that will probably save your life.


If thats the reason to build weapons then thats a horrible waste of valuable currency. Maybe you could combat this hatred by more cost effective methods


There is no point in making any weapon if it doesn't fit into an existing doctrine, other wise it will just waste away on the shelf and never be used.

No weapon can be designed to 100% of capability , the cost would be like sending a man to the moon. So you have to comprimise . What controls the degree of comprimise is the extent to which the weapon meets existing requirements. THose requirements have to be set out in the context of the way in which the weapons are already in use .....IE doctrine.

Otherwize how will the governement approach procurment?

Gov..."Build us a death ray"?
COmpany ..."eh we haven't invented it yet"
Gov ..."Well get cracking! How much will it cost?"
Company.."I don't know! How soon do you want it? How much you got? "


Ultra high tech means ultra high risk and ultra high cost.There are more important things in the world than weapons



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Ultra high tech means ultra high risk and ultra high cost.There are more important things in the world than weapons


Not in the US military and we have the money for our expensive toys sometimes they work and last for 30 years sometimes they don't never the less you will never now until you build and try them



[edit on 16-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Ultra high tech means ultra high risk and ultra high cost.There are more important things in the world than weapons


Not in the US military and we have the money for our expensive toys sometimes they work and last for 30 years sometimes they doesn't never the less you will never now until you build and try them



Oh yeah well try this on for size. FCS is being put back another 4 years and the program scaled back due to cost of this war.


No one is immune to the budget axe.


So all those technopop weapons will have to wait another 30 years or more?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Uhh...you are forgetting something all of the really hi tech "toys" and projects are "Black Projects" which dont get budget cuts cus they have no budget in the first place



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
i remember reading that they were creating lazers that would be on aircrafts and would destroy missiles



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Yes you are talking about ABL (airborne lasers] which are being installed on 747 jets and the range of the beam is 200-400 miles so the laser can target the missile while in its boost stage.






posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
what i wanna know is how you can get a 747 in the air in less than 5 mins cause youd need that time to intercept the missile
unless they ran a constant patrol.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
constant patrols to cover all of america would be stupidly costly (wait sorry, it's america military tech has to be costly)
an independent ground based defence system would be much better



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Uhh...you are forgetting something all of the really hi tech "toys" and projects are "Black Projects" which dont get budget cuts cus they have no budget in the first place



They do have a budget , its just not available to public...no weapon is immune to the terror of the budget axe.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The US would never be that poor to cut funds to the black projects like in the movie Independence Day hen the president says "How do you get funding for this stuff" the pentagon will always find a way to fund black projects. Also devil the idea with the ABL is say the US was going to go to war with china before we declare war the ABL's will already be flying patters around china ready to intercept any missiles. So its only if your going to go to war with a nuclear power not to intercept missiles that are shot out of the blue like form N. Korea we have other systems for those.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
i knew that west point but some americans claim this system could stop anything im not so sure.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
No it cant stop anything you wouldn't have enough time to get the plane ready and fly to intercept the missile its not practical and intercepting missiles or ground lasers are good for incoming missiles although if the US Air Force starts putting lasers in space then we wouldn't even need the ABL but that is in the future for now we only have the ABL.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join