Military space craft.

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
IM probably not the only one that has thought this.

Well take Ballistic missile submarine. They are designed to be out for months at a time hidden so as to be able to launch attack in case of Nuclear war. The reason they are useful is they are in theory hard to track and so it would be extremely difficult to take them out in a first strike.


Well surely the same principle could be applied to a orbital ship right?

Build in orbit a ships that contains missiles nuclear and conventional. Fit it with the latest stealth technology and tracking sytems ect You would have not only a really got ballistic missile vessel but also a good strategic bomber.
The advantages would be:

Extremely good first strike capability as would be coming down on a target directly. The launch time to landing would be reduced.

More mobility as a submarine can take weeks to reposition, were as this vessel would take days or even hours.

Can be used to track land targets and monitor ground sights, acting as a good reconnaissance vessel in support of the satellites.

Can track Aircraft movements

Can track and take out orbital satellites

Can act as a anti ICBM platform. Not only could it take out the enemy's ICBM platforms before they launch but if any do it could be fitted with anti missile devices so as to support conventional anti missile devices.

A ship like this could be fitted with anti aircraft missiles. If a Conventional aircraft squadron gets into bother against a enemy the vessel could rain down anti aircraft missile and take out the enemy aircraft in a flash especially if the enemy are not prepared for such a attack.

Less need to use propulsion device unless repositioning.

If being suspected of being tacked can move out further into space a lay low for abit.

Although fragile it would be hard to hit unless it enters low earth orbit or a enemy nation has a similar ship. And that's is if you can even detect the thing.

Can take out harmful space debris and any rouge meteorites that could be harmful to earth.

Disadvantages?


Cost! But then if we are talking the USA is that really a problem for there military? Especially if its a "I WIN" button.

Need some sort of way to get supplies and crew to said vessel as well as maintain it as such a thing could not be landed or launched from the earth directly (It would have to be built in modules in orbit).

Personally I would not be surprised if such things exist. I dont think the USA ever abandoned the SDI project as to do so would be to ignore a HUGE strategic advantage and would leave itself vulnrable if Russia or China did the same. In fact I would not be surprised if military had there eyes on this goal since the first live animal went into space!

edit on 18-7-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Here read about project Orion.

en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_propulsion)

It would be able to send a massive amount of mass up into space, rumor has it JFK was shown a model of it and was appalled because the air force guys put loads of guns on the model.

Good vid here about it.

edit on 18-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Here read about project Orion.

en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_propulsion)

It would be able to send a massive amount of mass up into space, rumor has it JFK was shown a model of it and was appalled because the air force guys put loads of guns on the model.

Good vid here about it.

edit on 18-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


Yeah I have seen this before.

It a great design for a ship and make me wonder why NASA still have a boner for useing Chem rockets once in space.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Everyone assumes its the Air Force up there. Nope, it's the Navy.

Think about it, as you put it...who has more experience in pressurized metal containers with life support systems?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Good point but its most likley a mixture of both really.

Why not use the skills of both branches?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


The Navy routinely produces some of the best pilots around. The Navy is also as well (if not more so) funded as the AF.

ETA: It would appear the AF is actually better funded, so I was wrong. LOL
edit on 18-7-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


But the airforce actually do have there own launch sites and bases dedicated to space.

They even have there own space command!
en.wikipedia.org...

Ok there offical line is they deal with satlites ect.....

Still I would not rule out Navy involvement.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


It would be a very serious breech of international non proliferation in space treaties that forbade the deployment of nuclear missiles or first strike capability in space so you will never hear of what they do actually already have but they most likely already do have such capability, weather it is manned or not is another question.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Yep, great idea.
The main drawback, and only a minor one i will admit, is a treaty to not "militerize space".
This was negotiated years ago, so it has likely been forgotten about by now.
Those parties to the negotiations had some kind of dislike for any and every country on earth having a craft like you discribed circleing over enery ones heads.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


reply to post by teamcommander
 


Yes the "treaty".

Thing is the treaty is BS cause its going to happen. Someone will break the treaty it is a given. And any country who does not realise that fact and expore this posibility is foolsih. Infact it was stupid to make the treaty in the first place as it just drives such things deeper into secrecy! May as well concentrate on being the first up there.

Anyway If I understand corrcetly the USA withdrew from it in 2002.
edit on 18-7-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-7-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Personally I believe it was broken from day one but both sides were guilty of this, evidence the massive military space expenditure that is still going on in the states and the ability to shuttle crew and other items via the military space plane as well as the disused acceleration ground launch track's at area 51 which have been replace by rail gun based launch systems, in the military race to control space America has already won but the American people have not benefited one bit and neither have there allies as yet.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok


Personally I would not be surprised if such things exist.


Interesting crazyewok...



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


The Russians have already put weapons into space:


In addition to reconnaissance equipment, Almaz was equipped with a unique 23mm Rikhter (factory index 261P or 225P) rapid-fire cannon mounted on the forward belly of the station. This revolver cannon was modified from the tail-gun of the Tu-22 bomber and was capable of a theoretical rate of fire of 1800-2000 (up to 2600) rounds per minute. Each 168 gram (ammo 23-OFZ-D-R ) or 173 gram (ammo 23-OFZ-G-R) projectile flew at a speed of 850 m/s relative to the station. The cannon had supply of 32 rounds and was tested at the end of the mission, when station work in unmanned mode. To aim the cannon, which was in a fixed mounting, the entire station would be turned to face the threat. Salyut 3/OPS-2 conducted a successful test firing remotely with the station unmanned due to concerns over excessive vibration and noise. OPS-4 was to have featured two rockets instead of the aircraft cannon, but this system has not been shown publicly and may have never been fully manufactured despite it being used experimentally.


Wikipedia



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


That was 1971 useing russian tec on a russian budget.


To think what the USA could do with moden tec on a US budget.

There something that was said in the vidio link posted at the top of the thread near the end. NASA doesnt use classified tec only tec the goverment is allowed to know.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


It is a intresting concept and one I cant beleive the US military could pass up.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Well, I would say if we are going to put weapons into space, we should do it right.
How about we mount @ a dozen 20mm gattling guns on outriggers which would allow them to rotate a full 360 degrees in pitch and 180 degrees in yaw. This would make a basic hemisphere of fire in any and all directions from each mounting position. With the mass and velocity of a 20mm shell, this should yield a near complete area coverage for several miles. Or should I referr to this as "volumetric" coverage since it is in three deminsions.

I have always thought the best weapon in space would be some type of "shotgun" because of the potential of spreading the shot from the barrel over a large area. It would not take much of a projectile to really do some damage to a spacecraft as they are currently made.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by teamcommander
 


Some sort of flak or shot gun like weapon would make a good cheap anti ship weapon or even a anti missle weapon with a good targeting devive. I would mount a few onboard just incase some other nations spots my ships and trys to shot it down or sends there own ship up.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


In closing, as a second thought, if we could capture a "few stray asteriods" and bring them into orbit, we would have a cheaper "bomb" which we could simply de-celerate to drop onto any target we wished.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
In space, every action creates and equal and opposite reaction. Ballistics in space, upon shooting a projectile, the space ship would force itself in the opposite direction. Think like a cannon on an old ship of the Earth ocean, it shoots, it rolls backwards, there is a rope tied to the ship tied to the gravity of earth to stop it -- recoil. Ballistics would force a craft out of orbit. That's why the astronauts have to velcro themselves to things when they do simple things, there is no gravity drag. Their ships have ceramic shielding on them to accept the ballistic impact of space debris, that something as small as a BB can zip through their ship walls and cause problems. It's just not worth it at the moment.

The military industrial complex is working on particle beam weapons by researching superconductors. Laser beams that can take apart atomic bonds by ripping the boson field off of them. Stuff the aliens have that can reduce a being into a pile of minerals. Ballistics is for cavemen on earth.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
several points were missed here...The xb-37 was in orbit for 200 days or so,unmanned! Why man it to begin with,no life support needed.Even with it being tracked,just say its a satellite.But in reality,its basically a cruise missle in orbit,next time around,just crash it where you want a crater!





new topics
top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Radio Presents - Bushcraft On Fire Radio ***On The AIR !!! ***
read more: Bushcraft On Fire Radio : 04/17/2014: Basic Packs, More on Police Encounters and PLANTS!!!!