[Jetmech Jr.]

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.

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[CP5670]

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.

[Flipside]

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

[Jetmech Jr.]

@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.

[Jetmech Jr.]

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.

[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.

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[Jetmech Jr.]

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

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

[Flipside]

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.

[Ghost]

Now we need the BFG. This is ****ing awesome, in my opinion; thank you so much to the OP.

[achtung]

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.


About the laser:

AWESOME

I want one

[EtherShock]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

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.

[aldo_14]

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.


About the laser:

AWESOME

I want one

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.

[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

[Mefustae]

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 ), 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

...seriously, that would be soooooo cool. Completely impractical, but cool nonetheless...

[Bobboau]

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.

[Descenterace]

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

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. Niiiiiiiiiiiiice...

[aldo_14]

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.