Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Carl on August 24, 2005, 11:16:39 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/tc_nm/laser_dc_1
(http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/realhappy/jump.gif)
-
yay :)
-
Hmmmm, American aircraft suddenly all but impervious to incoming missiles...I'm not sure why, but I just don't really feel comfortable with US Aircraft - the most powerful in the world - suddenly becoming nigh-on invincible to standard weaponry...
-
I'm scared of anyone getting a technological edge that removes the balance of fear (of defeat). Of course, the Us has been picking 'easy' wars of late, so I'm not sure it'd make that much difference it'd make.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Hmmmm, American aircraft suddenly all but impervious to incoming missiles...I'm not sure why, but I just don't really feel comfortable with US Aircraft - the most powerful in the world - suddenly becoming nigh-on invincible to standard weaponry...
The new designs are pretty close. They have stealth technology so you can't use radar (and IR if it happens to be one of the stealth bombers, not sure about the fighters), and they are painted black so they are almost impossible to spot visually at night. Those add up to something pretty close to invincibility unless someone figures out how to crack stealth tech.
-
Wow, sleek, sounds cool and deadly, I don't care if I get killed by one of those, well, actually, I would, seeing as I die and all. But at least I would die like those many pilots in Freespace. Which is not good at all. Disregard what I say
-
You know how they shot down that stealth bomber in yugoslavia? That bomber was flying the same route 3 times in a row. On the third time, three people with cellphones, and one with a RPG is needed. One person hears the plane pass, class the third. Second person hears the plane pass, calls the third. Third does some rough calculation, then times, and tells the RPG guy to fire straight upwards. Bam.
I doubt this thing is cheap enough to find widespread use. Also, unless they pack at least two, there will be a blind angle.
-
I read the serbs got that stealth by using heavy AAAf to create a corridor of least resistance, and suckered it into a hittable position. I believe it was an SA-6 or SA-7 SAM that hit it.
-
Those add up to something pretty close to invincibility unless someone figures out how to crack stealth tech.
I think the Russians were developing this radar that pulses in all directions so rapidly that it is able to detect stealth signatures, and identify them. Thats what i heard, i havent looked it up.
-
I'm not exactly intamately informed upon the Russian's current status Militarily and Economically; but I know for damn sure that they wouldn't be developing something like that right now...let alone make it known on the internet :p...
-
Invincible?
Don't make me laugh. Just add some mirrors to the missile's armor and the laser has no chance anymore. ;7
Laser = light
Light = can be reflected be a mirror
Simple logics. :lol:
Maybe the missle could even reflect the laser back to the fighter.. :eek:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
(Joking)
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
I think the Russians were developing this radar that pulses in all directions so rapidly that it is able to detect stealth signatures, and identify them. Thats what i heard, i havent looked it up.
I don't have the link, but Glasgow uni cracked stealth radar quite some time ago.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I don't have the link, but Glasgow uni cracked stealth radar quite some time ago.
linkage.
-
Umm...yay. Our tax dollars at work. Some of this new tech is damn scary. I'd rather have a free education. :no:
-
America doesn't have free education? o.O
EDIT: Hmm...you probably meant college and university. :P
Boo for not being able to delete your own posts. >O
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
Invincible?
Don't make me laugh. Just add some mirrors to the missile's armor and the laser has no chance anymore. ;7
Laser = light
Light = can be reflected be a mirror
Simple logics. :lol:
Maybe the missle could even reflect the laser back to the fighter.. :eek:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
(Joking)
/*gives laser the ability to fire at any range within a very wide spectrum, includeing those redaly absobed by mirrors.*/
-
This reminds me of that Airforce General from Zero Hour :D
-
Originally posted by kasperl
You know how they shot down that stealth bomber in yugoslavia? That bomber was flying the same route 3 times in a row. On the third time, three people with cellphones, and one with a RPG is needed. One person hears the plane pass, class the third. Second person hears the plane pass, calls the third. Third does some rough calculation, then times, and tells the RPG guy to fire straight upwards. Bam.
i'm sure it's SLIGHTLY more complicated than that. a second timing off, plus one variable not laid down correctly, and it wouldn't work
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
Invincible?
Don't make me laugh. Just add some mirrors to the missile's armor and the laser has no chance anymore. ;7
Laser = light
Light = can be reflected be a mirror
Simple logics. :lol:
Maybe the missle could even reflect the laser back to the fighter.. :eek:
the laser would melt the mirror.
-
Originally posted by RangerKarl
This reminds me of that Airforce General from Zero Hour :D
:nod:
king raptors for the win
-
Originally posted by Carl
the laser would melt the mirror.
[color=66ff00]Yeah, any slight imperfections in the miror would be susceptable to the laser energy. Irrespective, dump enough energy onto it and it'll burn up.
[/color]
-
I bet Russia is going to develop new anti laser weapon system, the super-perfecty mirror.
This ultra modern system is used to portect missles. It's supported by the most modern refrigerator technologies, to prevent melting. :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I don't take this too seriously. :)
As long as Germany and the USA are friends, I don't think it's a bad thing. ;)
-
Well, considering how even a single speck of dust would ruin a laser mirror, I don't see how it'd be remotely possible to have missiles with superb mirrors on them.
That said, the missile would only need to survive long enough to get close...
-
You think we'd share this tech with all our NATO buddies?
-
That said, the missile would only need to survive long enough to get close...
A stealth missile, maybe...
-
[color=66ff00]I'm morbidly fascinated by the idea of guided bullets. Nano machined smart bullets that can change their profile on the fly and thus change direction.
It's been a speculated use of nano factories and vaguely terrifies me.
[/color]
-
Why vaguely? It terrifies the **** out of me. As do space lasers, space missles, airborne beam weaponry and pretty much everything coming out of the dark corners of the Pentagon's R&D department. At some basic level, being able to kill people is good. It levels the playing field. The prospect of a small group being able to protect themselves better than anyone else, while inflicting harm better than anyone else, is not a very pleasant one.
-
Very interesting. This sort of stuff is one career option I'm looking at, so it's good to see that there is still progress being made.
The ML-16 sucks ass though. :p
-
That depends upon the small group, and whether you are a part of the small group, and whether you approve of what the small group does, doesn't it though?
There have been rumors for years (to the point where it's largely accepted as true) that the B-2 mounts small dorsal and ventral lasers of this type, capable of burning out a missile's IR seekerhead. In effect, they may be announcing it now, but it's widely believed it's been in operational deployment for much longer.
You know how they shot down that stealth bomber in yugoslavia? That bomber was flying the same route 3 times in a row. On the third time, three people with cellphones, and one with a RPG is needed. One person hears the plane pass, class the third. Second person hears the plane pass, calls the third. Third does some rough calculation, then times, and tells the RPG guy to fire straight upwards. Bam.
T'aint that simple, son. Stealth aircraft are optimized to fly at high altitudes.
What happened in Yugoslavia? Pretty much what Aldo said, except they launched about twenty of the new and fairly nice SA-18 shoulder-fired SAMs, and even so they didn't get more then one or two hits. What ultimately killed that F-117, though, was a stupid mission planner and an equally stupid pilot. One, for using the same route repeatedly, and two, for flying so low when he's safest at high altitude in a Stealth.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I read the serbs got that stealth by using heavy AAAf to create a corridor of least resistance, and suckered it into a hittable position. I believe it was an SA-6 or SA-7 SAM that hit it.
AAA guns brought it down as it flew constantly the same route. And it was flying rather low for some reason.
I saw the footage from the serbian television that day - there were many bullet holes on it's wings..
-
I'm not exactly intamately informed upon the Russian's current status Militarily and Economically;
Actually selling military hardware is a big business in Russia. They are always developing new weapons and other stuff like that, mostly for export.
A good example of Russian weapon development is the Sukhoi 47.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Su-47.jpg)
-
Why vaguely? It terrifies the **** out of me. As do space lasers, space missles, airborne beam weaponry and pretty much everything coming out of the dark corners of the Pentagon's R&D department. At some basic level, being able to kill people is good. It levels the playing field. The prospect of a small group being able to protect themselves better than anyone else, while inflicting harm better than anyone else, is not a very pleasant one.
Among the powers of the world the US military is not very big. Its edge is its technological superiority. Its the goal of every military since the dawn of mankind to inflict as many casulaties on the enemy while sustaining as little as possible. If other countries cant compete with our technological advances, then they dont deserve to be in control. Plus i would fear tyrannical governments like N Korea and China more than the US military.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
[...] If other countries cant compete with our technological advances, then they dont deserve to be in control. [...]
That is a dangerous attitude. Sounds like the germans in the second world war.
I hope you don't think that military power allows somebody to be in control.
-
The first step to tyranny is lowering our guard.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
/*gives laser the ability to fire at any range within a very wide spectrum, includeing those redaly absobed by mirrors.*/
Not possible, a laser is built to ocscillate at one specific frequency. If you want to emmit another frequency, you need another laser.
Your typical mirror reflects 95% of the incoming light. So if you want to melt a mirror in reasonable time, you need a pretty strong laser, which is likely strong enough to ionize air, thus absorbing the laser beam.
-
If you sued very well made prisms, could you give a single laser on an aircraft the ability to fire in near all directions?
-
If other countries cant compete with our technological advances, then they dont deserve to be in control.
The Nazi's in WW2 did indeed think very much the same thing. By the time the war ended, they had jet fighters in use and balistic missiles in use, both were way ahead of their time. But in development (and would have been deployed in less than a year after the war ended) were fly by wire flight control systems, guided AA missiles, and also a long range strategic bomber that looked almost exactly like the B2 Spirit. They also had other jet bombers in development too. They were even doing research into anti-gravity technology. Most of that stuff wasn't seen for at least a decade after the war ended.
Yet the Nazis lost the war. The point is, having lots of super advanced military crap doesn't garentee victory.
There was a wargame a few years ago that tested the US militaries high tech approach to warfare. They brought in a retired general to lead the simulated enemy. Using unconventional guerilla warfare, and overwhelming cruise missile attacks, the "enemy" "sank" a total of 19 US Navy vessels. The military just hit the reset button on the simulation and refused to deal with the limitations of the high tech approach. You can bet countries like China are all over that one.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
You think we'd share this tech with all our NATO buddies?
Oddly enough, I was reading in a free paper today that it's being developed specifically for the joint US/NATO development of, I think, the F35 stealth air-superiority fighter, which would become the stock and trade of both European and American air control forces. They might play the people against each other, but they certainly won't let a war get in the way of making huge profits ;)
Edit : Interesting considerations...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-07/ns-flm072402.php
-
Originally posted by Kosh
[...]
Yet the Nazis lost the war. The point is, having lots of super advanced military crap doesn't garentee victory.
[..]
Yeah, but I think the most important point is, being powerful, doesn't mean you're allowed to do anything you want.
Military is used for defense by the good guys and for offense by the bad guys. Except for some really rare special cases.
I don't see a reason for increasing the military power. All powerful nations are allies. Nobody has a chance against the full power of the UN anyway, so why should a nation waste money for this?
-
2 words: "American Paranoia". I think that is the big reason behind the massive military spending in the US.
-
Everytime the U.S. makes something cool, or something innovative, or high-tech, it's "OH NOOOEESSSS!" :rolleyes:
I'll wager that if you switched the "U.S." with, say, Britain in this instance, the response wouldn't be HALF as bad.
I, personally, am glad the USAF continues to demonstrate why it's one of the most powerful (and technologically advanced) AF's in the world.
-
Everytime the U.S. makes something cool, or something innovative, or high-tech, it's "OH NOOOEESSSS!"
One of the reasons is because the really cool stuff is locked up for military use. The other reason is because the US is seen as a predatory nation that preys on weaker nations who aren't its lapdogs. That view isn't exactly unjustified.
-
Everytime the U.S. makes something cool, or something innovative, or high-tech, it's "OH NOOOEESSSS!"
I'll wager that if you switched the "U.S." with, say, Britain in this instance, the response wouldn't be HALF as bad.
lol, yes, that's very true.
-
Well, to be honest, they demonstrate that more by blowing stuff up all the time, kinda hard to forget it really ;)
As for if the UK developed a laser-based missile destroying system, all I'll say to that is that we've grown out of the Empire building stage, there is no society in the UK frequented by Tony Blairs brother that has a mission statement of world domination, alas the same cannot be said for George Bush, who's brother is a member of exactly such an organisation. It's facts like that which make people nervous.
Image you are standing in a room with about 40 people, theres no exits, no windows, and suddenly one of them pulls out a huge knife and says 'look what I got everyone', and the next thing you know, people are climbing up the walls trying to get away from that person. What does that tell you, about the rooms general opinion of that one person. Majorities are funny things ;)
By the way, chroming the front of the missile would definately help, we aren't talking about reflection, we are talking about deflection, where the mirror simple changes the angle of incident, it's doesn't try to take the brunt of the beam ;)
Edit : I would like to add, I have nothing particular against the development of this, but I do understand the concerns, however, I'm thinking the civilian-side bleedoff from this technology will benefit mankind long after the weapons have been rendered obselete ;)
-
@Kosh
...And Britain has a history of much the same.
As do an number of other countries.
Then there's the fact that the US is developing this sort of tech for us and our allies, not just *gasp*...us.
I'm willing to face up to my countries faults and misdeeds as readily as necessary, but I HATE when it's bashed undeservedly, IMO.
-
Image you are standing in a room with about 40 people, theres no exits, no windows, and suddenly one of them pulls out a huge knife and says 'look what I got everyone', and the next thing you know, people are climbing up the walls trying to get away from that person. What does that tell you, about the rooms general opinion of that one person. Majorities are funny things
With the intent of the person completely unknown? I'd think said people were overreacting to some extent.
-
Yes, we did, but as I said, we grew out of it. And we aren't knocking the achievment, it's the application that is worrying. All new technology will make people nervous, the Nuke was a massive wake-up call to what technology can do, and I also pointed out in an earlier post that this is a joint project between NATO and the US, so it's not just the US that is getting it.
America very much projects the image of 'might is right', not uncommon in most countries by a long shot, apes have been trying to find bigger sticks to hit each other with for millenia, but personally, as long as we continue to simply search for a bigger stick to compel other people to do our bidding, we are simply driving ourselves towards complete collapse.
Edit : As for the intent of the person being unknown, these people have been together in the room for a long long time, they pretty much know each other know, even if they don't always like to admit it.
-
And Britain has a history of much the same.
Very true, but look at Britain now. They are not a hegemonic empire anymore, Germany certainly made sure of that.
I'm willing to face up to my countries faults and misdeeds as readily as necessary, but I HATE when it's bashed undeservedly, IMO.
Like I said earlier, the US is seen as a predatory nation. Invading Iraq in 2003 only cemented that viewpoint. When you combine actions like that with the rhetoric that has been coming out of Washington the past few years (plus the ambition amoung the current administration for a "pax americana"), the US does deserve to be bashed.
And for your information, I happen to be from the US, I have lived in the US all my life, and I still am in the US.
With the intent of the person completely unknown? I'd think said people were overreacting to some extent.
If someone makes a move like that they usually are either mugging you, or about to stab you with it.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, we did, but as I said, we grew out of it. And we aren't knocking the achievment, it's the application that is worrying. All new technology will make people nervous, the Nuke was a massive wake-up call to what technology can do, and I also pointed out in an earlier post that this is a joint project between NATO and the US, so it's not just the US that is getting it.
Yes, I know. When I said I was pissed at the bashing, I was referring more to Kosh/Ethershocks posts.
America very much projects the image of 'might is right', not uncommon in most countries by a long shot, apes have been trying to find bigger sticks to hit each other with for millenia, but personally, as long as we continue to simply search for a bigger stick to compel other people to do our bidding, we are simply driving ourselves towards complete collapse.
I'd like to point out there's a key difference here: What the U.S. is developing (as you said, for both us AND allied countries) is more equateable to a Shield (for defense), not a stick (for offense).
Edit : As for the intent of the person being unknown, these people have been together in the room for a long long time, they pretty much know each other know, even if they don't always like to admit it. [/B]
Ok, whats the knife-fellows rep, then :p
Like I said earlier, the US is seen as a predatory nation. Invading Iraq in 2003 only cemented that viewpoint. When you combine actions like that with the rhetoric that has been coming out of Washington the past few years (plus the ambition amoung the current administration for a "pax americana"), the US does deserve to be bashed.
And for your information, I happen to be from the US, I have lived in the US all my life, and I still am in the US.
For some things, yes. Not for every little thing, every single time, particularly things made for defense of ourselves and our allies.
If someone makes a move like that they usually are either mugging you, or about to stab you with it.
Or maybe he's thought of a way to use it to escape. "DIG through" or some such :p
-
Depends on the usage of it to some extent, if it is kept as an anti-missile weapon then yes, it is an excellent defence, however, it appears that the Pentagon are already doing research on the softspots of various vehicles, it wasn't made clear whether these where purely armed vehicles, but I suspect sniping supply trucks/repair yards etc would be high priority if these were used as offensive weapons, not rapid enough for direct combat usage, but anyone who's played Hostile Waters will know the advantage of sniping with a laser ;)
If I were a general in the field of combat, I would certainly use it that way, and I'd also use the blinding factor without consideration for the Geneva Convention. Why? Because (a) I have pressure from home to lose as few men as possible (b) I have pressure from the government to spend as little money as possible and (c) I want to live.
Most people would think this way I believe, that's why the technology is un-nerving in a way, because we are slowly approaching a point where humanity itself could be held for ransom, and there are far far too many people in the world perfectly willing, and eager, to do so.
-
Now we need the BFG. This is ****ing awesome, in my opinion; thank you so much to the OP.
-
How much you wanna bet when China and India are world superpowers people will hate them as much as they hate teh U.S. now? It's just a cycle:
Top Dog country appears.
All other countries hate Top Dog country (out of jealousy).
Eventually Top Dog country falls out of power somehow (economic disaster, war, etc.).
Another emerges-then the processs starts all over.
It's been going on since man first had an organized society. The only things that change are teh speed at which it happens, the scale, and the names.
This is just my opinion but im really sleepy right now wso I may have messed it up somehow. :D
About the laser:
AWESOME :yes:
I want one :p
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Yes, I know. When I said I was pissed at the bashing, I was referring more to Kosh/Ethershocks posts.
I don't see how expressing dislike over spending more money on military than other more important things is bashing. Plus I asked if we were going to share this tech with our NATO allies and found out we are doing so, so I'm not as against this as I was initially, but I feel the capabilities for such technology should make anyone a little nervous. And I'm also bitter about my education.
I know civilians will eventually benefit from this, but that's years from now.
-
Yes, I know. When I said I was pissed at the bashing, I was referring more to Kosh/Ethershocks posts.
So in otherwords I shouldn't be making any criticisms of what I consider to be a total waste of money. After all, cricizing anything the US government does is unpatriotic and an evil deed. :p
It's a cool toy, but it is horrifically expensive and in general just not that useful. Attacks against the US are almost certainly going to come from 9/11 style terrorists. I somehow don't think they will be flying fully loaded jet fighters.
For some things, yes. Not for every little thing, every single time, particularly things made for defense of ourselves and our allies.
This would defend us against a smuggled nuke how?
I really think you are taking this way too personally. I am not seeing how saying an opposing viewpoint is bashing the US. I just don't believe the rhetoric around it. It is unfortunate that you are appearently a victim of it.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
How much you wanna bet when China and India are world superpowers people will hate them as much as they hate teh U.S. now? It's just a cycle:
Top Dog country appears.
All other countries hate Top Dog country (out of jealousy).
Eventually Top Dog country falls out of power somehow (economic disaster, war, etc.).
Another emerges-then the processs starts all over.
It's been going on since man first had an organized society. The only things that change are teh speed at which it happens, the scale, and the names.
This is just my opinion but im really sleepy right now wso I may have messed it up somehow. :D
About the laser:
AWESOME :yes:
I want one :p
Hate is a strong word to use. I'm sure anyone can see why people of one country might not especially like a larger, more powerful nation which can have a de-facto control over their economic, political or even military (being for national defense as well as offence) development.
To whoever brought up the UK; 60-80 years (+) ago, you'd probably have got the same reaction to the British Empire. And rightly so. Truth be told, we're probably not educated enough here about the rights and (mostly) wrongs of 19th century British Imperialism and consequences thereafter. Whether it's a result of institutional shame, blindness or simply different priorities, I don't know.
-
this might make them want to keep the a-10 around. replace the gau-8 with a laser. but we all know what weapon is cooler :D
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
I'd like to point out there's a key difference here: What the U.S. is developing (as you said, for both us AND allied countries) is more equateable to a Shield (for defense), not a stick (for offense).
Any US claim for an Anti-Ballistic Missile shield or that sort of technology is complete bullocks; in attempting to create one, we've (and by that I mean the US, Australia, and all the other countries that have bought into the farce of an ABMShield) not only created a system that works about as well as a TV from the Dark Ages, but pissed off so many countries it'd make Dubya blush...
...take this for example; the choice for the US to pull out of several 'unnecessary treaties' so as to build an orbital weapons system, all in the name of defence of course. Now, who's to say that said "Defensive" technology won't either be used offensively (the thing I love about the prospect of Orbital Weapons is plausable deniability:nervous: ), or be used in such a fashion as to allow a nation to strike at another with total impunity...
...the point i'm trying to make, is that even an outwardly defensive technological advance can be used with horrifying efficiency as an offensive weapon, and history teaches us well that the US just loves to play with new toys like this...
Originally posted by Nuke
this might make them want to keep the a-10 around. replace the gau-8 with a laser. but we all know what weapon is cooler :D
...seriously, that would be soooooo cool. Completely impractical, but cool nonetheless...:D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm sure anyone can see why people of one country might not especially like a larger, more powerful nation which can have a de-facto control over their economic, political or even military (being for national defense as well as offence) development.
and people call us hegemonus basturds when we try to keep that from happenig to our selves.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The new designs are pretty close. They have stealth technology so you can't use radar (and IR if it happens to be one of the stealth bombers, not sure about the fighters), and they are painted black so they are almost impossible to spot visually at night. Those add up to something pretty close to invincibility unless someone figures out how to crack stealth tech.
Radar will detect stealth aircraft. All stealth technology does is reduce the radar signature, not eliminate it. Although the B-2 is close...
The thing is, stealth bombers are stealthy because most radar systems combine transmitter and receiver in one unit, or at least very close together. To be stealthy, the aircraft design only needs to ensure that radar energy is never (or rarely) reflected back in the direction it came from.
In photos, the B-2 always seems like a black cut-out stuck onto the picture. It doesn't have many surfaces that reflect light. That's a side effect of the stealth design.
If multiple receivers are synchronised with the radar transmitter, there's a very good chance that one of the receivers will be in the path of a reflected lobe of energy. Alternatively, you could synchronise a single receiver with multiple transmitters blanketing the area.
Using the mobile phone network of a country as a transmitter, detecting a stealth aircraft could prove to be a very easy task.
IIRC, the B-2 takes it a step further. The aircraft's skin can ionise the air around it to actually absorb substantial amounts of radar energy, reducing the plane's signature another 60-80%. America's not the only country with that technology though; the Russians have been working on a similar system for the past ten years (officially, that is).
The only problem is, the ionised air prevents radio transmission too. To use their own radar, the crew must temporarily disable their cloaking device.
That's another vulnerability stealth bombers have: their attack and navigation radars. The B-2 is so heavily computerised that it can usually navigate with reasonable accuracy without radar, but all aircraft have to light up their radars at some point over hostile territory.
Originally posted by Nuke
this might make them want to keep the a-10 around. replace the gau-8 with a laser. but we all know what weapon is cooler :D
For many decades to come, mass weapons will be more powerful for their size and weight than lasers. A laser may be capable of shooting down an aircraft, but a tank is tougher by at least an order of magnitude (unless the aircraft being compared is an Mi-24 attack helicopter).
So the A-10's huge 30mm chaingun probably won't be worth replacing with a laser until that aircraft is too obsolete to be considered for such an upgrade.
And yeah, that chaingun is cooler anyway.
Re: the Su-47. :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: Niiiiiiiiiiiiice...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and people call us hegemonus basturds when we try to keep that from happenig to our selves.
No, they call you hegemoneous bastards when you try to bully other countries into submitting to your national interests.
-
Which seems to be happening frequently these days....
-
you mean like force/coerce other nations not to get nukes?
I think that would fall into the keeping other nations from getting an egde on you
-
The US literally has thousands of nuclear warheads. Do you seriously believe the US would "lose its edge" if Iran somehow got its hands on one?
That's just hype and rhetoric.
-
Who has the right to decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and why?
I think nobody should have nukes and not even an Amry.
In our modern wold embargos should be enough hit another country.
Embargos only make sense if a lot of nations agree on them.
The more nations agree, the better the solution will be. It's like international democracy.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
To whoever brought up the UK; 60-80 years (+) ago, you'd probably have got the same reaction to the British Empire. And rightly so. Truth be told, we're probably not educated enough here about the rights and (mostly) wrongs of 19th century British Imperialism and consequences thereafter. Whether it's a result of institutional shame, blindness or simply different priorities, I don't know.
Dude! We civilised the barbarians! And when we were done, we gave them their countires back! How cool is that ? And someone had to keep those pesky spaniards & frenchmen in check. :p
I actually did quite alot about the slave trade at school.
-
I think nobody should have nukes and not even an Amry.
:nod:
I personally am a one worlder. I believe in one world government. Although if you play a game called "Deus Ex" it probably will make you think twice about it.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you mean like force/coerce other nations not to get nukes?
I think that would fall into the keeping other nations from getting an egde on you
No, like bribing small African dictatorships and Eastern European nations with cushy aid deals to side with you on the UN security council. Or imposing (illegal) tariffs on cashmere imports from Scotland because the EU won't give US bananas favoured status. Or insisting that US troops be immunised from war crimes prosecutions when serving as UN peacekeepers, and deciding the ICOJ doesn't apply to the US. Or indeed the Byrd Amendment, which has been declared illegal by the WTO.
That sort of thing tends to seem a bit like bully tactics.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Re: the Su-47. :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: Niiiiiiiiiiiiice...
I've always prefered the look of Russian hardware to American stuff.
-
@Ethershock: I was referring to this:
You think we'd share this tech with all our NATO buddies?
So in otherwords I shouldn't be making any criticisms of what I consider to be a total waste of money. After all, cricizing anything the US government does is unpatriotic and an evil deed.
Not even close to what I was saying. I just don't like people assuming that EVERY single thing the U.S. does is in some way an "evil deed," or is going to play a part in some "evil deed" we do.
And like Flipside mentioned:
I'm thinking the civilian-side bleedoff from this technology will benefit mankind long after the weapons have been rendered obselete
I really think you are taking this way too personally. I am not seeing how saying an opposing viewpoint is bashing the US. I just don't believe the rhetoric around it. It is unfortunate that you are appearently a victim of it.
Automatically assuming the worst is what pisses me off. It also happens to always be done in regards to the U.S. Thats what pisses me off more.
[rant]Don't you DARE try to paint me as some blind/dumb/deaf Uber-Patriotic "U.S. can do no wrong" media slave, or I'll shove it so far up your ass you'll be singing "Star Spangled Banner" til next Thursday.:hopping: [/rant]
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The US literally has thousands of nuclear warheads. Do you seriously believe the US would "lose its edge" if Iran somehow got its hands on one?
That's just hype and rhetoric.
No, but it might certainly cost the US thousands or millions of innocent lives. Or any other nation that Iran thinks sucks. Or for that matter, that North Korea thinks sucks. You'll notice we have them, but we don't use them? I highly doubt they'd hesitate to use them on us.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
A good example of Russian weapon development is the Sukhoi 47.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Su-47.jpg)
that's one of the most manueverable fighters ever produced. but i'm still not sure how the forward-swept canards even work. :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Nuke
this might make them want to keep the a-10 around. replace the gau-8 with a laser. but we all know what weapon is cooler :D
Of corse we do!
Giant Gattling guns all they way!!!:D
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Actually selling military hardware is a big business in Russia. They are always developing new weapons and other stuff like that, mostly for export.
A good example of Russian weapon development is the Sukhoi 47.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Su-47.jpg)
Theres an X-Plane that looks just like that. I wonder which came first?
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Cobra
that's one of the most manueverable fighters ever produced. but i'm still not sure how the forward-swept canards even work. :wtf:
Not only that, it can literally fly straight up and slide sideways. It's a rather amazing bird.
It must be horrifically unstable though. Forward swept wings give extreme manueverability at the cost of stability. I'd imagine it'd be fun to fun if you're good though.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
Theres an X-Plane that looks just like that. I wonder which came first?
:nervous:
Actually, the Nazis had a design on the drawing boards at the end of world war 2 for a forward swept winged jet fighter and jet bomber. So I would say that it predates both by about 55 years or so. :p
EDIT: Looks like they had a forward swept jet bomber in the prototype stage. Meet the Junkers Ju287.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Ju287.jpg)
Forward swept wings give extreme manueverability at the cost of stability. I'd imagine it'd be fun to fun if you're good though.
Don't they also have computers to help control it? Fly by wire controls have been around for decades......
-
Forward-swept wings mean that... uh... something about putting the control surfaces in the place where they can do the most. Gives much higher manoeuverability at all speeds.
-
higher manueverability = total pwnage. :D
-
Higher manueverability does have an edge, but there are ways to counter that, though the only tactics I can think of involve sheer numbers and a missle lock at long range.
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
@Ethershock: I was referring to this:
You think we'd share this tech with all our NATO buddies?
What? I thought it was a perfectly legit question. :confused:
-
Long range? So the missile expends most of its energy getting to the target?
Best time to launch it is up close, in a tail-chase. That way, the target gets very little time to react. If it's a heatseeker, it'll get a good long look at the target's exhaust (so no Missile Lock indication) and a very short flight time (only a second or two from Missile Launch warning).
-
Good luck getting on that thing's six. You'd have to be a really good pilot, or have some wingmates helping you, unless the enemy pilot sucks.
-
Exactly. But missiles are still the easiest kill.
I'd want odds of two-to-one in my favour going up against the Su-47, but then, everyone likes to have a numerical advantage in a firefight.
-
Well, consider the state of the Russian military at present.
They aren't training much, and the -45 is largely an experimental aircraft. I don't think it's even in squadron service yet.
Besides, BVR multiple AMRAAM launches kill everybody.
-
It said that Sukhoi is just now marketing it to the Russian government and to foreign buyers (that includes India and China amoung others).
I'm sure that there are plenty of countries who would love to get their hands on it.
-
I doubt its cheap though.
-
Nothing in the military is cheap, but that's because there's no competition.
Originally posted by Descenterace
Exactly. But missiles are still the easiest kill.
I'd want odds of two-to-one in my favour going up against the Su-47, but then, everyone likes to have a numerical advantage in a firefight.
Well, I don't know how missiles work in real life, but I was thinking of taking them down like dragons: launching missles at top speeds from a click out, or whatever the max range is and finish with guns if you have to.
-
The usual way a fighter dodges a radar-guided missile is a combination of chaff, active ECM, and hard jinks. If the pilot can break the missile's lock for a split second, that can be long enough for it to overshoot and most missiles aren't smart enough to come back for another pass.
If the pilot has plenty warning, ie. the missile has been launched from many klicks out, he can go nose-to-nose with it to accelerate the closure rate and decrease both his apparent radar signature and the time the missile will have to reacquire lock if it's fooled by the chaff.
Heat seekers usually lock onto a fighter's exhaust emissions and must therefore be launched from behind a target to stand a reasonable chance of killing it.
Since the missile tail-chases, nose-to-nose tactics aren't possible unless the aircraft can turn in its own length (not a good idea since a tight turn would sap a lot of speed, making the target a sitting duck). Heat seekers are usually short-ranged, too, so their flight time is in the order of one to five seconds. Dropping flares just before a hard jink is effective against heat seekers.
The Sidewinder missile (and one of Russia's more advanced missiles, codenamed 'Archer' IIRC) has a sensitive enough seeker head to lock onto the hot leading edges of a plane's wings, allowing it to track a target from almost any direction. These are hard to dodge without MAWS (Missile Active Warning System) but it's still possible.
Launching missiles from a long way away means using active radar (or having an AWACS providing targeting data) which gives away your location to the enemy. And it lets them use passive radar tracking to launch their own missiles at you. Add jammers to the mix and the number of possibilities skyrockets.
But yeah, air combat usually involves launching radar-guided missiles from about twenty miles, launching heat seekers at five, then finishing with guns if necessary (or just bugging the hell out and hope they don't follow).
Note also that the carrier aircraft's speed isn't going to affect the missile's flight time much. Externally-mounted missiles typically impose a speed restriction on the aircraft, and the speed restriction for launching them is even tighter. Once stabilised, a missile is dependant on its own booster to get up to speed (usually around Mach 1 or 2) which is independant of launch speed due to air resistance imposing an upper limit to the missile's velocity.
The MiG-25 'Foxbat' superfighter is actually capable of outrunning AMRAAM missiles. Its top speed is around Mach 3. The Foxbat is a big titanium jet built to chase B-1s down low.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Forward-swept wings mean that... uh... something about putting the control surfaces in the place where they can do the most. Gives much higher manoeuverability at all speeds.
no..
Forward swept wings give higher manuverabiltiy at lower speed. At higher speeds it has a negative effect..
or was it vice versa?
Oh..and about missiles - most missiles in the world fall below the Mach 2 category.. Really fast fighters can outrun most missiles.
Then again, there aren't many fighters than can go over Mach 2.5
-
From what I (well, a google search for "forward sweep wings" :D ) can tell, forward swept wings are both faster and more maneuverable (at that higher speed) - the main problem is structural instability and the material requirements for the wing.
-
Yes, that's right. The airflow departs from the forward-swept wings differently from standard designs. A smaller deflection has a greater effect on the airflow. I think they generate more lift, too.
Basically, forward-swept wings can be shorter than standard wings for the same effect. The problem is that greater forces are exerted on the materials in the wing, so ordinary materials are no use.
With deformable-skin technology, forward-swept wings are far more efficient. Microhydraulics can handle the massive forces required to reshape the wing in the airflow, and such precision control of the airfoil's shape allows for full realisation of the benefits of the forward-swept wing.
-
Originally posted by Ghost
No, but it might certainly cost the US thousands or millions of innocent lives. Or any other nation that Iran thinks sucks. Or for that matter, that North Korea thinks sucks. You'll notice we have them, but we don't use them? I highly doubt they'd hesitate to use them on us.
They probably feel the same way about you. Certainly that's the justification they can use - at the end of the day, North Korea and Iran are far, far more likely to be attacked by the US than vice versa.
Nations don't just nuke each other because they think the other nation 'sucks'. There's inevitable consequences to nuclear - or biological / chemical (which most nations next to Iran in particular will have... except Iraq) - weapons use, usually involving massive international sanctions and probably proportionate retaliation from the US (for example; depending on the armament of struck country).
This is not an argument for allowing Iran and NK to have nuclear weapons, incidentally - it's an arguement for not allowing anyone to have them. So long as the US (and UK, France, etc - the Western nations particularly) have a nuclear arsenal, but seek to dictate what nations are 'worthy' of having them, it'll only fuel the paranoia and resentment of nations like Iran & NK. It's simple hypocracy for a nation to say nukes are too dangerous for one nation, whilst building more and more itself.
-
Yes, there is fallout and whatnot with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure whether the US should have them or not, myself - I'm just saying that I don't like for one second that hostile countries are developing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. They have no regard for the costs that come with using them, whereas we do, although we keep ours. Like I said, I don't know whether I think the US should have them or not. I certainly agree with the decision to drop them on Japan, but that's ancient history.
Also, are you saying that you think Iraq doesn't have biological/chemical weapons? I mean, they sure as hell aren't going to, but we have discovered active weapons of that particular type there. The media just doesn't say it much, because it might make it seem like Bush was justified(heaven forbid!). Look it up; read accounts of the soldiers and Marines who have found them.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Nothing in the military is cheap, but that's because there's no competition.
Well, I don't know how missiles work in real life, but I was thinking of taking them down like dragons: launching missles at top speeds from a click out, or whatever the max range is and finish with guns if you have to.
Too much Freespace. A click is spitting distance.
The AIM-54 Phoenix has range of 100 miles =D
You won't be able to counterattack regardless of whether you see your opponent on the radar or not. By the time you're in range for anything, you'd have been plastered already. I wonder if it's even possible except for the elite of the elite to dodge two slightly staggered shots.
-
Don't most cannons have an effective range of half a klick? I know the Zeus-23-4's lethal range is about 2 miles, which is just over 3 kilometers, but that's a surface-to-air weapon.
The AIM-54 is one of my all-time favourite missiles. Hellishly expensive, but that's not the reason they're not the primary air-to-air missile...
The reason is that each Phoenix weighs so godsdamned much most fighters can only carry two, or four if they don't want/need any other weapons.
I wonder how many Phoenixes could fit on a B-52's weapon pylons?
-
Originally posted by Ghost
Yes, there is fallout and whatnot with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure whether the US should have them or not, myself - I'm just saying that I don't like for one second that hostile countries are developing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. They have no regard for the costs that come with using them, whereas we do, although we keep ours. Like I said, I don't know whether I think the US should have them or not. I certainly agree with the decision to drop them on Japan, but that's ancient history.
That's the sort of hypocracy i mean; that other nations are savages without the judgement to use nuclear weapons 'responsibly'. That attitude towards them just encourages their insularity - remember, the US is a hostile nation to them, and one which poses a far greater threat than they do to the US.
Yeah, NK in particular is a bit of a nutcase state and I don't trust them one bit. But, the inevitable consequence of all this sabre rattling will be to encourage nations to arm themselves with WMD - these nations know the consequence of launching a WMD attack on a Us ally will be similar, massive retaliation - it's not an offensive option for them, and everyone knows it. So why would the US be so concerned, unless it was worried about them having a credible defensive option? That's their viewpoint, and why stuff like the war on Iraq will drive these nations towards more rearmament and WMD programmes, not less.
No nation can be trusted with nuclear weapons. As long as they even exist, they're a threat. The thought that the US - or the UK, or France, or Pakistan, or India, etc - can be 'trusted' with these weapons in perpetuity is blind arrogance.
Originally posted by Ghost
Also, are you saying that you think Iraq doesn't have biological/chemical weapons? I mean, they sure as hell aren't going to, but we have discovered active weapons of that particular type there. The media just doesn't say it much, because it might make it seem like Bush was justified(heaven forbid!). Look it up; read accounts of the soldiers and Marines who have found them.
You'd be more advised to read the statements of the men hired, by the US Army, to actually find biological weapons. Because they've said there are none; the original head of the Iraq Survey Group quit in 2004 saying there were no weapons to find, and the final report from the ISG concluded Iraq had no deployable weapons in 2003, and no production since 1991 - no proof of biological weapons existing since 1991.
These are the people, hired by the US, to find weapons. That's not 'liberal media bias', or any similar pish used to avoid the simple facts. That's official confirmation there have not been any weapons found, nor are believed to be any.
-
At your first half: I see your point in that nobody should be trusted with nuclear or other giant death dealing weapons of that sort. But you do know that the reason that we have all the nukes in those silos is because of the Cold War arms race? And did you know that both the US and Russia(I read this before 9/11, I believe; the decision could quite possibly have been reversed) have begun nuclear weapon cutbacks? As in, deactivating and dismantling existing warheads.
But yes, of course, you're right; they are a threat, no matter who uses them.
At your second half: I'm quite willing to look around for official documented statements about chemical and biological weapons, and not just hearsay. But looking at this thread, when I find them, it's probably going to be a few pages down the road. Do you mind if I PM you instead?
-
Post them. We'll wait.
It's been a while since I read that article about the soldiers find a ten year old weapon that was apparently forgotten about by the Iraqis and seeing as how that's pretty much all you'll find I'd enjoy reading it again when you post it.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
Not weapons, per se, but rather the actual lethal chemicals themselves. Click, please.
This was a week or two ago.
EDIT:: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/04/iraq/main653731.shtml
Old, weakened, but still dangerous. The chemical in this case was "sarin." This article is dated Oct. 2004.
-
Originally posted by Ghost
At your first half: I see your point in that nobody should be trusted with nuclear or other giant death dealing weapons of that sort. But you do know that the reason that we have all the nukes in those silos is because of the Cold War arms race? And did you know that both the US and Russia(I read this before 9/11, I believe; the decision could quite possibly have been reversed) have begun nuclear weapon cutbacks? As in, deactivating and dismantling existing warheads.
Then why did the administration ask for an increase in the budget for 'nuclear weapons activites' of $332m (to $6.85bn), and implement a provision that would shorten the 'ready' time required for sites before a resumption of nuclear testing (from 32 to 24 months IIRC). Or spend $6m or so investigating low yield tactical nuclear weapons of around 5kt? Or begin a construction programme to build a new warhead plant to replace older warheads in cold war era weapons (rather than, say, decomission them)?
Most importantly, why did the US withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty?
Originally posted by Ghost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
Not weapons, per se, but rather the actual lethal chemicals themselves. Click, please.
This was a week or two ago.
[q]"He said the lab was relatively new, dating from some time after the invasion of Iraq in 2003."[/q]
So the manufacturing equipment is post invasion. What's the odds the chemicals are also post invasion?
It's worth noting Polish troops have already captured insurgents trying to buy nerve gas; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3861197.stm Although there weren't actually CWs (there was only a minute trace of Sarin in a couple of the warheads).
So still no evidence of WMD in Iraq before the invasion. I believe some precursor chemicals were declared by Iraq to the UN prior to the inspections, anyways. Whether they were secured post-invasion, I don't know. Probably not.
Originally posted by Ghost
EDIT:: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/04/iraq/main653731.shtml
Old, weakened, but still dangerous. The chemical in this case was "sarin." This article is dated Oct. 2004.
Incidentally, it's possible to buy the components of Sarin over the net; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2949356.stm
More importantly, that article doesn't mention a single proven sarin gas warhead. It suggests there might have been some there. It was also a bunker inspected by the UN group in 2003; the only group saying there may have been sarin there was the ISG, who have already stated in a later report there was no WMD in Iraq.
Technically, any empty bunker *could* contain sarin gas rockets. My house *could* contain a VX rocket in the garage. That doesn't mean it does, and it's sure as hell not proof for a cassus belli.
-
Incidentally, it's possible to buy the components of Sarin over the net
Yup. Bad security if you ask me.
As for the rest, I think I'm going to concede the point to you, because I honestly can't find any weapons/manufacturing facility articles that involve materials before May '03.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Then why did the administration ask for an increase in the budget for 'nuclear weapons activites' of $332m (to $6.85bn), and implement a provision that would shorten the 'ready' time required for sites before a resumption of nuclear testing (from 32 to 24 months IIRC). Or spend $6m or so investigating low yield tactical nuclear weapons of around 5kt? Or begin a construction programme to build a new warhead plant to replace older warheads in cold war era weapons (rather than, say, decomission them)?
Most importantly, why did the US withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty?
To be fair, Nuclear warheads do decay over time to the point that they lose the ability to reach critical mass. They are made out of unstable elements, after all. So if the US is to maintain a viable nuclear arsenal, that involves some continual production just to replace aging warheads (not that I necessarily advocate that stance, as I think the world would be a much better place without the concept of M.A.D.). Also to be fair, properly retiring nukes isn't free, and while I don't honestly believe the budget increase request was to cover decommissioning, it is not totally out of the question either AFAIK.
-
Doesn't explain them pooring money into bunker-busting nukes and pulling out of the treaty though does it?
-
No, nor do I defend either of those actions.
-
I'm afraid when it comes to nukes I find my one area of non-liberal policy belief. The nuclear deterrent is just that, a deterrent which has kept the major 1st world nations from engaging in open warfare for over 60 years.
Yes, proxy wars have been fought but a good percentage of the reason why none of us have ever had to worry about a draft is due to the fact we [the 1st world nations] will never fight a conventional war against each other while the possibility of mutually assured destruction exists.