What drives some to make the assumption that the U.S. is NOT as Militarily Advanced as it truly is?

page: 15
22
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Yes it was very difficult to accurately fire the POD and this idea of Missiles Only thus not designing the F-4 with a Gun was a directive carried out by Non-Pilots. These PAPER PUSHERS had incorrectly assumed that the GUN would no longer be necessary.

The F-14 and F-15 were designed with Great Input by the Pilots who new the necessity of a Fighter Aircraft having a gun. Split Infinity



Of interest is that the F-106 fleet, perhaps the ultimate expression of a integrated continental defense interceptor, was modified to carry a gun as well in 1972.


In support of the cannon armament program Convair issued a proposal to re-equip the F-106 with an internal cannon, an optical gun-sight, and a clear-view cockpit canopy in a program known as Project Six Shooter in 1972. The internal 20-mm M61A1 rotary cannon with 650 rounds was fitted inside the rear half of the weapons bay, replacing the Genie nuclear-tipped rocket. However, the four AIM-4F/G Super Falcon missiles could still be carried. semirecessed fairing replacing the AIM-26 in the weapons bay.


M61A1 and the F-106





posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


The F-106 THUD...was designed as a High Speed Interceptor for countering Soviet Bombers. The THUD's were used in a role in Nam that was not consistent with their design. Both the F-106 as well as F-4's were Heavy Flying BRICKS and were not good at Close Air Support for U.S. Troops on the ground.

This failure was one of the reasons for the development of the A-10...a subsonic Close Air Support aircraft that was also designed for destroying Heavy Armor...has proven itself as an extremely lethal as well as survivable air frame. It's use of Depleted Uranium Rounds that are shot from a 30 mm Gatling Gun that is so large that the plane was basically built around the gun itself.

Some Air Force Brass have tried to retire the A-10 in favor of New F-16's but luckily these attempts have failed. Since the A-10 is subsonic it can allow a pilot to get a very good view of U.S. Troops location when flying Ground Support Missions. Plus since the A-10's cockpit is all Titanium and designed to take multiple hits from ground fire since the A-10's Low and Slow flying places it as a target for enemy ground fire.

This is one Hell of a Plane! Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
The US Military Industrial Complex has technology 50 to 100 years into the future. the stuff they have is just mind blowing and borderlines on magic.
Jet Engines where developed during WWII do you really believe that technology is still state of the art.
Computers - well I dont want to tell you what i know - but lets just say, the all seeing eye is an understatement.
Space Travel - H3 mining on the moon
Weapons - oh my - how about wiping out a city the size of New York in 20 mins. and it looks like a natural event.
hand held wave weapon that gives you a heart attack. another that causes thought process disruption
etc. etc -- oh, think about how many cameras you see everywhere and ask yourself if there is enough man power to even watch all those camera's - ??? if humans are not watching then who is > ? and whats the point > ?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


The F-106 THUD...


The best description I ever heard of how to employ a Thud was in the book Pak 6 (true story of missions flown over Route Pack VI in Vietnam, which included Hanoi.

"You drive the Thud down the road, until you reach an object such as a bridge, whereupon you raise the landing gear, and the Thud will continue to squat, forever valiantly blocking the road."


Believe it or not, they had several MiG kills, including at least one MiG-21 in Vietnam, most of which were gun kills. The Thud made a horrifying fighter. Amazing bomb truck though. It would carry other planes it seemed as a bomb truck.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

What could China do if the U.S. were to stop making payments on loans? NOTHING! Again this is also a Political Issue and has nothing to do with Military Realities. Split Infinity



Oh I don't know maybe a nuke fired from a sub to explode over our atmosphere causing an EMP and sending us back to the 19th century for the most part? I am sure the military has hardened bases for this sort of thing but it would certainly level the playing field quite a bit giving countries like China and Russia a fighting chance against us.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Except that then they have just about every country in the world turning against them. Any country that uses nukes, without sufficient provocation is going to face a backlash the likes of which we've never seen before.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Except that then they have just about every country in the world turning against them. Any country that uses nukes, without sufficient provocation is going to face a backlash the likes of which we've never seen before.


Except a nuke fired from a sub leaves everyone wondering who fired it since it is not originating from any specific country...

edit on 22-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

For those of you here on this board...I tell you this. Whatever you can think of as a possible U.S. Military High Tech Weapon...Multiply your thoughts times a THOUSAND! We have capabilities and Weaponry that scare even those who have designed it and if any Nation were to actually attempt a Sneak Attack... Split Infinity
-

So split, what do we have that is 1000 times more advance than what we see in current inventories today?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Once they launch, you'll know where they are, and you'll be able to figure out what class it is, and that narrows it down quickly.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Much of the Hi-Tec Military stuff the US uses is in fact designed and manufactured by the British Company BAE Systems which has manufacturing facilities in the US. BAE Systems in now the worlds largest military arms manufacturer.:-


en.wikipedia.org...

www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Except that then they have just about every country in the world turning against them. Any country that uses nukes, without sufficient provocation is going to face a backlash the likes of which we've never seen before.


Except a nuke fired from a sub leaves everyone wondering who fired it since it is not originating from any specific country...


Sorry Hawkiye but that isn't true at all.

Nuclear isotopes have fingerprints and submarines have specific acoustic signatures.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


The F-106 THUD...was designed as a High Speed Interceptor for countering Soviet Bombers. The THUD's were used in a role in Nam that was not consistent with their design. Both the F-106 as well as F-4's were Heavy Flying BRICKS and were not good at Close Air Support for U.S. Troops on the ground.

This failure was one of the reasons for the development of the A-10...a subsonic Close Air Support aircraft that was also designed for destroying Heavy Armor...has proven itself as an extremely lethal as well as survivable air frame. It's use of Depleted Uranium Rounds that are shot from a 30 mm Gatling Gun that is so large that the plane was basically built around the gun itself.

Some Air Force Brass have tried to retire the A-10 in favor of New F-16's but luckily these attempts have failed. Since the A-10 is subsonic it can allow a pilot to get a very good view of U.S. Troops location when flying Ground Support Missions. Plus since the A-10's cockpit is all Titanium and designed to take multiple hits from ground fire since the A-10's Low and Slow flying places it as a target for enemy ground fire.

This is one Hell of a Plane! Split Infinity



Apologies for the confusion SplitInfinity, we have a couple of aircraft mixed up in the discussion.

I was referencing the F-106 Delta Dart interceptor which was never deployed to Vietnam.


Limited numbers of It's less capable predecessor, the F-102 Dagger were deployed to Thailand early in the war to counter possible VPAF IL-28 Beagle incursions and went on to escort some of the ARC LIGHT strikes and flew some ground attack.


I had just thought it was interesting the engineering solution to integrating the Gatling gun into the "Six" was rather novel in regards to overcoming the shortcomings of the center-line hard-point mount on the Phantoms.

It could be argued that the age of the nuclear bomber being the primary threat was coming to an end and Convair were trying to buy more mileage for a design that was limited in utility but it still speaks volumes that the gun fairing was installed at the expense of the nuclear armed Genie capacity.

The F-105 Thud/Thunderchief, workhorse of Route Pack 6 and namesake of Thud Ridge was designed as an all weather supersonic tactical nuclear strike bomber.

IMHO it did surprisingly well in a role it was shoehorned into as an afterthought. A lot of aircraft were lost but considering the number of sorties the aircraft flew and the tenacity of the defensive network they had to penetrate, the F-105's made a good showing.

The Thud's were incredible fast down in thick air, there are stories of the MIGCAP F-4's having to ask the strike force F-105's to throttle back so the F-4's could keep up without afterburner. Keep in mind, these are air combat configured Phantoms with only tanks and missiles for external stores while the F-105's were hauling a load of high drag WWII surplus 500lb bombs.

When converted to the Wild Weasel G platform they were extremely effective in their Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses missions

The F-105 also had an internal gun from the beginning but in retrospect that probably gave some of the early pilots a sense of false confidence.

As long as the Thud driver saw the other aircraft coming and didn't try to turn, the acceleration and low level speed made them nearly invincible.

As Zaphod said, there are a couple of documented Thud gun kills but that was clearly the exception.

Thud Ridge: F-105 Thunderchief Missions Over Vietnam by by Col Jack Broughton is another excellent F-105 memoir.




edit on 22-11-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

The THUD was not used properly in Nam but it was all we had for such missions unless we used B-52's.
Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

The U.S. Navy tracks Chinese Subs to a very precise degree. We also have Listening Devices spread over the bottom of the Pacific, Atlantic, Arctic and Indian Oceans. We would know if a Chinese Sub would be about to launch. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

Although the majority of these Ultra-Advanced Weapon Systems cannot be talked about on this board...I can talk about their Power Source as it is whispered that the U.S. Military has developed Low Temp. High Output Micro-Fusion Reactors.

Such a reactor is said to have about 7 Times the output of the new A1B Fission Reactor of which 2 will be installed on the New Ford Class Carriers. Such Power in so small a Reactor is consistent with Small and Mobile Direct Energy Weapons mounted on anything that can drive, fly or float.

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 

OOPS! My Mistake. F-105! LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Yeah, I missed that too.


But the Thud was used wrong in Vietnam, but it adapted beautifully to the mission, and they couldn't have asked for a better aircraft than they had.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Although the majority of these Ultra-Advanced Weapon Systems cannot be talked about on this board...I can talk about their Power Source as it is whispered that the U.S. Military has developed Low Temp. High Output Micro-Fusion Reactors.

Such a reactor is said to have about 7 Times the output of the new A1B Fission Reactor of which 2 will be installed on the New Ford Class Carriers. Such Power in so small a Reactor is consistent with Small and Mobile Direct Energy Weapons mounted on anything that can drive, fly or float.

Split Infinity



So here I sit in Afghanistan embedded with some of our most non-traditional asymmetric troops, flying some of our most advanced systems of surveillance, and doing this type of work for the last 30 years and I have failed to see anything outside of cutting edge norm.

I'm still looking for the Men in Black locker, but I have failed to find it. I don't suggest that there are not some great techs out there, but the vast majority that is sitting on a shelf somewhere already created would be decades to actually get it in the field in any form other than extremely limited numbers.

Like the old saying goes...When the first aircraft comes off the assembly line the technology is already 30 years old....


Stuff like what we see in the Spiderman, Batman and Ironman movies of companies that have all this advance tech in production is truely movie magic and your 1000 times better would be much more correct to say as what we see in the movies is 1000 times better than what is actually in the real world.

Cheers



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

Any Highly Advanced Programs would not be used in the field. Nor would any average soldier or even a General who is in the field know anything about such Programs. Even a Standing President of the U.S. would not have the clearance to know about such Programs as they are NEED TO KNOW.

Some of these Black Programs are weapon systems that are considered LAST USE or classified as COVERT USE ONLY. You would not be privy to such information. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Any Highly Advanced Programs would not be used in the field. Nor would any average soldier or even a General who is in the field know anything about such Programs. Even a Standing President of the U.S. would not have the clearance to know about such Programs as they are NEED TO KNOW.

Some of these Black Programs are weapon systems that are considered LAST USE or classified as COVERT USE ONLY. You would not be privy to such information. Split Infinity



I find your statement above just a convenient way to explain away the lack of anything to back up your hypothesis. Who is it with a need to know? Is it just the private sector workers at some secret company lab, is the Government involved at all with elected officials and/or military? Even something as crazy secret as our nuke program back in the day it didn’t stay secret for very long.

I guess the problem I have with all this is even as a last ditch effort (and why must it be that?) are we talking about something like a shoe box that can take out ½ a country? Some dooms day device? I don’t buy it…

If we are talking advance tech like super efficient weapons, power sources, armor, extreme ISR etc etc one cannot avoid the fact that companies are in it to make huge amounts of cash and keeping things on the low because it is just too damn good is a totally illogical idea. Now add to think that our military would suggest that some kind of extreme tech as “just too good” to have on the battle field is pretty damn ridiculous too. With just how things operate “just too good” is never the issue and if they could put systems in place that were 100 of times better than anything out there those things would be in place ASAP.

As example, the development and production of the patriot missile that was not designed to shoot down rockets, but in a very short period of time was fielded successfully was something that pushed the limits as to what we could do, and to suggest that we might have extreme tech that, let’s say, is 100s of times better, but is too good to use and so we continually hide behind some false front of low tech in comparison is a thought that really starts to unravels fast when one truely thinks about it.

Am I the only one that finds this type of scenario extremely ridiculous?


We have a lot of crazy stuff in the works, but it all fits nicely within the frame work of reality that may be viewed as pushing science fiction some, and not something 100s or 1000 times better. To be honest most top secret crap ends up being common household knowledge within a decade or two, and when these super secret things do not ever materialize then the truth is that they never really existed.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join