Beam weapons almost ready for battle.

Commodore · 2006-01-11 18:44:33

Your a little late.

I always liked those kenetic energy pentrators, the [dramatic ehco]"Rods of God"[/echo]. The Ultimate in bunker busting technology.

On a more peaceful note, should the air force decide to deploy on of these, they'd need a CaLV. You'd think if you are going to spend the R&D money, they'd spend some money on the pratical end of it as well.

Martian Republic · 2006-01-15 00:21:29

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/?GT1=7538
Directed energy could revolutionize warfare, expert says.
Sounds a lot like Reagan's Star Wars. I've never been overly impressed with energy weapons. Anything deflected by a shiny surface just doesn't seem practical to me.
In my opinion nukes will remain the number one weapon of choice until something better is available.

I personally don't see any immediate replace of nukes with these high energy weapons right now. I see them as being niche weapons for certain application, but not for a general use weapon. But, over time these weapons will probably replace nukes as the weapon of choice, but that will probably take fifty years or longer and depending on how much research we do too on these weapons system. Even if the technology were developed tomorrow with massive break through of new technologies, it would still take years to totally utilize this technologies. Beside building the weapon, we would also have to build the support infrastructure and fund other technological projects and new development to support such a weapon system. We would have to do everything from develop targeting system, to a defense for the weapon to maintenance, etc. Even a nuclear weapon we had to develop rocket and other delivery system protecting them in silo, etc. and the same will be true of these high energy weapons too.

Larry,

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-01-26 07:52:56

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/?GT1=7538
Directed energy could revolutionize warfare, expert says.
Sounds a lot like Reagan's Star Wars. I've never been overly impressed with energy weapons. Anything deflected by a shiny surface just doesn't seem practical to me.
In my opinion nukes will remain the number one weapon of choice until something better is available.
I personally don't see any immediate replace of nukes with these high energy weapons right now. I see them as being niche weapons for certain application, but not for a general use weapon. But, over time these weapons will probably replace nukes as the weapon of choice, but that will probably take fifty years or longer and depending on how much research we do too on these weapons system. Even if the technology were developed tomorrow with massive break through of new technologies, it would still take years to totally utilize this technologies. Beside building the weapon, we would also have to build the support infrastructure and fund other technological projects and new development to support such a weapon system. We would have to do everything from develop targeting system, to a defense for the weapon to maintenance, etc. Even a nuclear weapon we had to develop rocket and other delivery system protecting them in silo, etc. and the same will be true of these high energy weapons too.
Larry,

Actually nukes will likely be replaced by nukes in the next 10-15 years. Well nukes without any radiogenic fallout or fissile materials. Pure fusion weapons are the next big step in warfare, able to be used in applications ranging from high end tactical, think a MOAB that only weighs 500lbs and is the size of a dorm room refrigerator to the big strategic turn Mecca into glass variety.

The two promising technologies to initiate a fusion reaction without the need for a fission primary are isomer (hafnium specifically) explosives, and nitro-silicon based hyper explosives with pulsed destructive magnetic containment. Both of these methods hold a lot of promise, although an isomer primary would require large new infrastructure investments at the national lab for its industrial scale extraction and production.

The other advantage of pure fusion bombs is that under current arms control law they are not considered 'new nuclear weapons' since they do not contain fissile material. We can produce these things by the tens of thousands and the only thing that would happen is the blue helmets would condemn us for not being subservient disarmed members of the global village.

Eventually though space based weapons will take an increasingly important role, they would offer instantanious 'close air support' that's always on station and real time tactical recon beter then any drone could provide...that is once the Air Force has a cheap and reliable launch on demand system in the 20 tonne class. That's either a few years off or already in existance out in the badlands of Montana or the Nevada desert. Who knows?

Commodore · 2006-01-26 18:15:31

City busting weapons without the long term side effects? Thats slightly disturbing.

I wonder why they haven't (at least publicly) developed a kind of deep penetrator kenetic energy weapons based from ICBMs. A MIRV ICBM could drop a many as 20 highly accurate KEWs at a much greater speed than anything dropped from an aircraft.

The only issue is people freak out when they see ICBMs go off. But targets are easy to quickly determine, an we can keep our KEWs at seperate facilities than our nukes.

publiusr · 2006-01-27 16:32:07

I want to see more space based assets. The real problem is that Fighter Jocks want a 200 billion JSF, the NAVY types want a DDX, so when the space people want something...they get laughed at.

The 'senior services' think we are still in MiG Alley or Jutland...

We need a Space force branch of the military...with money taken from the Blue Suits. Let the Space folks wear the blue...and have the fighter mafia wear olive drab uniforms like everyone else.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-23 13:13:34

If you could get a isomer to radiate EM energy of similar type that is used to initiate spin decay and reflect it back on itself, it might work, but probobly not.

Ultrahigh energy explosives (octinitrocubane, nano-thermite, etc) might be able to produce enough power to initiate nuclear fusion in a small "primary", which could be used directly as a small weapon or used to ignite a bigger fusion secondary a little like conventional Ullam-Teller hydrogen bombs, only without a Uranium tamper. It would be big and heavy, but beyond a little radioactivity induced by leaking neutrons (which could be partially contained by the bomb casing), it would be basically fallout-free.

publiusr · 2006-03-23 14:53:58

Is the new China Lake 20 really Nitrogen 20, or is that a different explosive?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-01-11 18:44:33

Re: Beam weapons almost ready for battle.

#2 2006-01-15 00:21:29

Re: Beam weapons almost ready for battle.

#3 2006-01-26 07:52:56

Re: Beam weapons almost ready for battle.

#4 2006-01-26 18:15:31

Re: Beam weapons almost ready for battle.

#5 2006-01-27 16:32:07

Re: Beam weapons almost ready for battle.

#6 2006-03-23 13:13:34

Re: Beam weapons almost ready for battle.

#7 2006-03-23 14:53:58

Re: Beam weapons almost ready for battle.

Board footer