What is the most exotic military technology that USA has?

a reply to: humanoidlord

More like when you have no idea what you're talking about. The word "bombardment" doesn't mean that you have to use literal bombs that have explosive warheads on them. It was considered a bombardment back in the day of the trebuchet when they were throwing stones. Or when they were issuing canon with round shot against walls.

You said it yourself, it has the effect of a bomb. No one has once said that they are literal bombs, but they're still an orbital bombardment system. And they still have more problems that they're worth.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Oh they work, but honestly, why would you try anymore. There are terrestrial based systems that work as well, are more accurate, and don't have to be hauled to orbit using systems we no longer have to get them there.

donald trumps twitter

a reply to: BASSPLYR

the scalar was an joke goddammit!, did you not see the warning?

a reply to: Zaphod58

ok
you are the expert here not me

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RadioRobert

Oh they work, but honestly, why would you try anymore. There are terrestrial based systems that work as well, are more accurate, and don't have to be hauled to orbit using systems we no longer have to get them there.

I don't think they deployed anything. So much money dried up when the wall came down (and they killed the initial testing in '88).
Still, I can see the usefulness of having something lying around (well, "floating" around) for a completely deniable tool for one of those days "when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight".

a reply to: RadioRobert
If it has to be there only overnight a cruise missile can do the job too.

Kinetic bombardement sounds cool on paper but isnt really all that great in reality.
Even if you get the tungsten dart or whatever upthere undetected (impossible, you'd need to use a n HLLV), the weapon is chained to its orbit, meaning your target area will be limited, not unlike recon sattelites. You could probably adjust but with a 100min orbital period time critical strikes are an uncertainty at best.
And for what? The impact energy you get out of it is much smaller than many people realize. The weapon system is acutally not suited for strategic strikes against hardened missile silos (something the might have actually thought about when Star Wars was on the the table). Your typical 20x3ft tungston rod translates to the equivalent of about 12 tons of TNT. Thats it. Launch a couple of Tomahawks. Its cheaper and they might actually hit what you're aiming at.

How 'bout that nifty targeting system that utilizes a delay column to correct a beam "mid-flight"? Imagine a combat laser that wouldn't be unduly hampered by atmospheric distortion. The way it was explained to me is that the system traces virtual photons that are "moving" backwards in time in order to "see" the history of the beam and correct for the distortions...before they actually happen

a reply to: mightmight

Eh, depends on where/what you want to hit. A couple tomahawks are slow, vulnerable, put a launch platform in potential danger, and have potential political fallout. They also don't make a very big boom. Good for breaking things on airfield. Useless against a hardened silo. Let's use your hypothetical 12 tons of TNT. Compare that to 0.5 tons with a Tomahawk or -86D.
Your 20' rod of tungsten weighs 18,000 lbs or so. It'd fit on a Falcon 9. Or better piggyback them with commsats on a HLLV. We've never had launches that "failed to achieve intended orbit", eh? Just another bit of space junk. The nice thing about a highly eccentric orbit is that you spend most of your time over the target. Your fastest transit time occurs during the closest approach. So most of your time is spent over the same portion of the earth. It is also your highest point over the "target" area which would help a KE- weapon.

I don't think we've spent the money. But I can certainly see the usefulness if we had the budget.

The best, most impressive tech the US is developing (in my opinion) is the survivability of it's operators. You practically have to nuke an M1 to kill the crew, launch upwards of 250 anti shipping missiles to score one hit on a carrier and, as each month passes, the chances of a round penetrating a soldier's body armour fall.

Sure, star wars type stuff gets the headlines, but it's this stuff that will make one battalion of US troops worth 2 or three of most other country's. Well, the training is a biggie too.

a reply to: Tajlakz

You be talking about phase conjugation

a reply to: BASSPLYR




little into into that. but i saw a cool demo with BSO crystals taking a blurry image projected by a laser then having it come back into focus using said crystals because the image was 'saved' ...somehow it was a cat picture of course


ETA:

originally posted by: icyboy771z
Rod of God? Invisible planes? Force field shield? Time travelling?

Anyone care to speculate or guess? Also, do the other world superpowers maybe Russia or China have similar supersecret tech?

Dccowboys stained underwear are both deadly and exotic. It's one of the really secret weapons that have never been tested as nobody is brave enough to unleash the raw energy.

I've read that the US Military is something like 50 to 100 years ahead of anything we currently have in the public sector. If that is in fact true, which I don't doubt, then I probably couldn't even think something up that they already have.

a reply to: DerekJR321

That's a common myth. They're maybe 10-15 years up on civilian tech.

a reply to: Zaphod58

like someone posted today its been 20 years with the F-22... and look how old the SR-71 is. 15 years is along time

a reply to: penroc3

It is, but we're seeing quite a few things move into the civil and white world that are coming off more recent black programs.

a reply to: Zaphod58

for the better! i cant wait until they ditch flaps and add more efficient engines. sooner or later we will get out supersonic civilan transports.

we can make it happen money be damned.

i was talking to a guy who leases and sells jets and i asked him if they were ever moving to supersonics and it he didnt seemed shocked but didnt really give me an answer either

a reply to: penroc3

It'll take about 10-15 years before we might see another SST, but I doubt it'll be on the scale of Concorde. They are, surprisingly, ordering the FAA to review supersonic flight over the US in the funding bill for 2017-2018. The QueSST program will go a long way towards seeing them becoming viable. But none of them are past the design stage yet.

SEC. 5017. SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall—

(1) review Federal law, including regulations and policies, regarding the operation of supersonic aircraft over land in the United States; and

(2) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the findings under paragraph (1), that includes—

(A) the identification and evaluation of any advancements in supersonic aircraft design, including airframe and engine design, that would mitigate the concerns that led to restrictions on the operation of supersonic aircraft, such as noise, and support amending the laws under paragraph (1); and

(B) recommendations regarding the laws under paragraph (1) that would need to be amended to allow the operation of supersonic aircraft over land in the United States.

www.congress.gov...-id80b71a8df53b4b7a8b1fd6698fe98f4a

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think in general that sounds about right. However, there are a few SAPs out there that are likely 50+ years ahead if only for the fact that they are based on non-intuitive discoveries in fundamental physics.