Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: submit your superweapon

  1. #1 submit your superweapon 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    this is not for sharing your destroy the world plans, nor is it a comparison of already created weaponry, it is either an invention of something new(just a rough sketch i don't care for blueprints), or a nice combination/improvemtn of weapons that already exist, this is my first entry:

    this is modeled after the "airport in the sky" from ace combat 6 that i heard about, but all i really take from it is that i've got one bigass plane.

    said plane is to be aproximately the length of an aircraft carrier, slightly wider, slightly less long, and far less thick from top to bottom, i'd say it would be 300m long, 65m wide(not including wings), and 15m tall. were it a solid cube(which it is not, it is more aerodynamic, and has wings) and made of pure steel(which it is not, there is air inside for the crew and troops, and various other less dense metals used for the weapons systems and reactors) then the ship would weigh as much as 2.3017995*10^10 newtons, this would require an equal and opposite force to lift, thus the thrust to remain afloat would be aproximately 25billion newtons

    (if my math is incorrect here then please inform me of such so that i can fix it, or if you feel the desire, then fix it yourself)

    in order to supply this force containted therein would be five cold fusion reactors wich draw power by taking the strong nuclear force from the nitrogen in the air and turning the nitrogen into iron generating about 175 million joules of energy per reaction each. there would have to be aproximately four reactions per second in four of the reactors just to keep the ship afloat and moving at a snail's pace forward, this means that a mole of air could fuel the propulsion system at low speed for over a day and seeing how the amount of air that the plane would be exposed to is virtually unlimited, it would not be foreseeable for this process to ever "run out of gas". one reactor would go to powering each of the four wings described herebelow:

    the propulsion system is similar to our current nuclear reactors in that power is gained from heating a fluid which expands, then driving a turbine, however that is where it stops, because we currently use water that runs through the turbine which runs a generator, however this system takes in strait air from the front and uses the nitrogen to fuel the reaction while the remainder is forced through valves heated by the reaction, these drive the turbines which drive four(that's how many i think it will take, it may be more) turboshafts(essentially helicopter blades surrounded by a tube that improves effeciency) on each wing. the turboshafts normally should be pitched at an angle that is such at 16 reactions/second that it provides just enough upward force to keep the plane afloat and the rest is used for forward propulsion, however 16 reactions/second is just not possible, it's too few to really make happen, it would be more along the lines of 400,000 reactions/second, so with cold fusion, you can get a plane with dimesions similar to an aircraft carrier cruising pretty damn fast(above mach1 is fast for something this big, and this thing could go around 245Km/H).

    this is just for the first 4 reactors, that extra reactor is running at a similar rate and thus is producing 100,000 reactions per second, this energy is used for everything else the ship could ever neeed and use, from weapons to defense to communications to running the ship's onboard supercomputers used for precision targeting of weaponry and calculation of the tragectory of conventional weapons.

    the main defense systen that this ships is designed to carry is an series of up to 100 externally mounted railguns that use electromagnets powered by the reactors to lauch low mass solid projectiles at incoming misssiles and/or airborn threats such as fighters, bombers, and interceptors.

    the weapons system would be whatever doomsday device you damn well feel like putting on it, from you ion cannon, to a high powered laser, to a bigass version of the railgun that can create a shockwave when it hits the ground strong enough to shake a city to the ground, all that and more is possible with the one reactor i left for weaponry.


    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Super Subs 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Ok I am not sure this thread is on(U should try to make the topic clearer) just randomly putting an idea, that might possibly work...not really a super weapon but what I thought would almost work as a so called powerful force, is a submarine with the capability to launch full scale air assaults

    A Submarine that could house and crew aircraft and the people necessary to launch, now u ask well what’s the advantage between this and say an aircraft carrier that does the same but probably gets from A to B faster than a sub could

    Firstly, the subs currently in existence would not qualify to do this task adequately, so a new super sub class would have to be developed, larger faster and more capable than previous subs i.e. most likely more of the same power source that suppliers the aircraft carriers, nuclear reactors

    It would need to have the ability to launch and land aircraft from the air directly

    I envision a sub that can surface and partially unfold to create a platform that could be used to do this

    The reasoning behind this idea comes from 2 main advantages

    1. Stealth

    If the aircraft were stealth aircraft loaded on the sub they could sneak right up to the coastline of said targets country and launch and the country wouldn't know till they get the hit and once the hit is done they would still not know where the attacks come from the stealth planes and the sub just disappear into that abyss we call the deeps (much harder to spot a submarine than a battle group approaching a coastline).... I like to think of this as similar to what America did during world war 2 with bombing Tokyo Japan using a aircraft carrier right off their coast and then sending the planes over Japan to the Chinese heartland.

    2. Ice

    The area over the arctic is becoming more and more political (there appears to be large areas of oil and natural gas along with disputes over who owns what)as the ice slowly starts to disappear as the world starts to warm up yes yes for what ever reason u believe it does(global warming not an issue here) but while the ice is still around, subs are the only way to travel up there basically under the ice and could have the potential to launch massive attacks at a moments notice all the subs would have to do is rise to the surface and the attacks again would hit with minimal awareness by the enemy (whomever they may be) (if ur carrying a bunch of aircraft with u) and launching them at a moments notice from the top of the world so to speak, it would give them reach over the North America Europe and Asia in general, and this combined with a stealth ability would make it easier to retaliate or launch attacks against anyone in the northern hemisphere


    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    yes, that is what the topic is supposed to include, new ways of doing something we already do, or a new technology completely, that's more of the first in that we already have subs and already have aircraft carriers, but your design is usefull because it combines the godo qualities of both.

    however, i provided a more in depth depiction of my weapon, yours is pretty vague, it leaves a lot to interpretation. it would be greatly appreciated if you could describe the methods of transportation and launch of the aircraft from the submarine, the unfolding deck is an interesting idea.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    "it would be greatly appreciated if you could describe the methods of transportation and launch of the aircraft from the submarine, the unfolding deck is an interesting idea."

    okay will try but I have been up for more than 36 hours now(this is when everything gets fuzzy and u start talking to urself) so no guarantees that it will help in clarity and I wont be going into the maths behind it, I think the experts to make this into a reality are there and could easily pull up some of the figures like how fast it could travel at the surface and under water, how big it would need to be and what would its power requirements be)

    The methods of transportation:

    I hope u mean how exactly the sub will store the aircraft while it is under water(or Iv completely miss-understood)

    They could be stored below deck, and I also think they could be stored in an efficient manner, folded wings etc to maximize the space available.

    launch of the aircraft from the submarine:

    I think there could be 2 ways to do this, the first is if the sub is on the surface of the water the plane rises from inside the sub u get a single ramp on the top of the sub(an unfolding deck to improve the take offs) and landings

    method 2 for rapid deployment(if sub is underwater): The planes in their folded state could be housed inside what u could call protective tubes, these tubes would then launch in much the same way that subs currently launch missiles from under water then when it reaches the surface and just above the surface the plane unfolds much the same way a tomahawk missile will do with the little wings that unfold to guide it to target

    Landing as far as I can see would have to be done on the sub above water(I also thought about water surface landings but this could not apply in rough weather)

    Hope it helps and will try to add more to this post explaining a few other things on the idea

    U have to remember I wrote this idea down when I was 13 or 14 years old (23 now so it was a while ago, and I cant remember all the details that I had back then but I know it was thought out)

    I seem to recall that missiles leaving subs from underwater sit in some protective cover (that falls away once it clears the water)till they reach the surface perhaps something similar could occur here for planes

    But again this is a vague memory and I would appreciate any correction if I am wrong on this point
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    well i was really wondering about how you would move the sub, after al, most subs aren't teh size of aircraft carriers, it would take a crapload of energy to move one(then again my aircraft requires 5 nuclear reactors that use cold fusion, a technology vastly more effecient than anything we currently have). i suppose transportation of the sub would be fairly simple, i belive that the current subs use only one nuclear reactor to power four propellers in the aft section of the craft. rather than do that one could put four in back powered by two, and four propellers comming from small wing-like protrusions from the midsection of the ship.

    i too had a large number of military ideas around the age or 12-14, i wrote them down in a collection of ten notebooks all filled to the brim. i hope you recorded your idea in a notebook or computer document, if you have i'd be very interested in the schematics or just a more detailed concept, i didn't account for air resistance in my aircraft because i'd designed that when i was 13 and didn't kow much about drag then, just newtonian physics and other such things. calculating the effeciency of your propulsion underwater may be more difficult, i do hope to see something like this put ito action, but please do get some sleep, after 48 hours i get a little crazy and i imagine that if you stay up too long you may have that talking to yourself problem for a bit longer than you'd find enjoyable
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    well i was really wondering about how you would move the sub, after al, most subs aren't teh size of aircraft carriers, it would take a crapload of energy to move one(then again my aircraft requires 5 nuclear reactors that use cold fusion, a technology vastly more effecient than anything we currently have). i suppose transportation of the sub would be fairly simple, i belive that the current subs use only one nuclear reactor to power four propellers in the aft section of the craft. rather than do that one could put four in back powered by two, and four propellers comming from small wing-like protrusions from the midsection of the ship.

    i too had a large number of military ideas around the age or 12-14, i wrote them down in a collection of ten notebooks all filled to the brim. i hope you recorded your idea in a notebook or computer document, if you have i'd be very interested in the schematics or just a more detailed concept, i didn't account for air resistance in my aircraft because i'd designed that when i was 13 and didn't kow much about drag then, just newtonian physics and other such things. calculating the effeciency of your propulsion underwater may be more difficult, i do hope to see something like this put ito action, but please do get some sleep, after 48 hours i get a little crazy and i imagine that if you stay up too long you may have that talking to yourself problem for a bit longer than you'd find enjoyable
    Ok I will try to go into a bit more detail, I dont have the detailed schematics on me, its at my other house.

    Firstly I would like to compare the largest subs on earth and the smallest aircraft carriers, just to give an idea on what the current technologies provide.

    Worlds largest Submarine(Russian Design)
    The dimensions of this leviathan are truly impressive. It's 564 feet long (172 meters), has a beam of 74.8 feet (22.8 meters), and an underwater displacement of 50,000 tons. The maximum speed is over 30 knots and it can stay submerged for 120 days, with a maximum crew complement of 130.

    Its power supply:
    The Typhoon class submarine is a type of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine deployed by the Soviet Navy in the 1980s(very old technologies). With a maximum displacement of 48,000 tonnes, Typhoons are the largest class of submarine ever built.

    I think with the above information it would take a lot of further development but at a length of 172 meters (564 feet) converting it to some kind of aircraft carrier would not be too difficult, considering we are talking about the development of a whole new weapon type:

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-D...rk-56529.shtml

    I think with a bit of design their size could be easily increased further to accommodate the aircraft that are needed to be carried.

    A large American aircraft carrier (the one that is expected to replace the USS Enterprise and CVN 68-Class aircraft carriers for example) has a fleet of aircraft that covers around 70 planes.

    I also don't believe that for the stealth missions intended by this super submarine Im guessing 20 to 30 aircraft would be more than sufficient to put out the damage needed, larger operations could be carried out by conventional means.


    Its top speed of this aircraft carrier (next generation)would be 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour). The russian sub can already travel at 30+ knots running on a single nuclear plant (the aircraft carriers take 2) and I think 2 could be used in the sub as well.

    http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...0&tid=250&ct=4

    Also looking at other options around the creation of alternative landing options have been looked at such as the following concepts as explained:

    The next generation aircraft carrier will use Electromagnetic Catapults and Advanced Arresting Gear that support future air wing configurations including unmanned air vehicles.

    Combined with other technologies that have not been fully developed although tested such as:

    "Flexible decks

    An idea tested but never taken to completion was the "flexible deck". In the early jet age it was seen that by eliminating the landing gear for carrier borne aircraft the inflight performance/range would be improved. This led to the concept of a deck that would absorb the energy of landing, the risk of damaging propellers no longer being an issue though take off would require some sort of launching cradle. [3] Test were carried out with a Sea Vampire, and Supermarine designed their Type 508 for rubber deck landing, and the flexible deck idea was found to be technically feasible in tests but was nevertheless abandoned. The Supermarine Type 508 was subsequently developed into a 'normal' carrier aircraft, the Scimitar."

    It was technically feasible but since they were not looking at ways to improve the efficiency of take off and landing, they abandoned the idea since there wasn't really at a the time a need for the improvement.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck
    (I think its right at the bottom of this page flight deck flexibility)

    This is also interesting when looking at what a flight deck needs to be in size in order to land and launch aircraft safely

    Landing larger and faster aircraft on a flight deck was made possible through the use of arresting cables installed on the flight deck and a tailhook installed on the aircraft. Early carriers had a very large number of arrestor cables or "wires". Current U.S. Navy carriers have three or four steel cables stretched across the deck at 20-foot (6 m) intervals which bring a plane, traveling at 150 miles per hour (240 kilometres per hour), to a complete stop in about 320 feet (98 m).

    The 98 meters is already considerable shorter than the 172 meters that the largest sub has in length (I am only making the comparison here to clearly show that a large sub not the same sub being used here, could be developed to create an aircraft launch and landing platform for aircraft)

    Also wanted to mention the smaller aircraft carriers with the ramped decks:

    Invincible class aircraft carrier

    * Length: 689 ft (210 m)
    * Beam: 118.1 ft (36 m)
    * Draught: 28.9 ft (8.8 m)
    * Displacement: 16,970 tons standard; 20,710 tons full load
    * Crew: Ships crew: 650. Air crew: 350. Capacity for additional 500 royal marines[9]
    * Power: 4 x Rolls-Royce Olympus gas turbines (COGAG) 100,000 shp (75 MW), 8 Paxman Valenta diesel generators.
    * Speed: 28 knots (52 km/h), 18 knots (33 km/h) cruising
    * Range: 7,000 nmi (13,000 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h)

    http://tripatlas.com/Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier

    (just showing pictures also a good picture to compare size to an American carrier)

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/HMS_Ark_Royal_(R07) pics showing ramp

    I also believe that a whole set of other subs would most likely need to develop in order to create something similar to the defenses that a modern carrier has in terms of layered defense underwater, that would really be interesting and might just shift the global source of power from the mighty carrier battlegroup to something considerable different

    said enough, what do u think?
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    i was formerly unaware of the massive scope some submarines are. i previously thought they were somewhat small craft meant for stealthy attacking rather than large scale assaults. i had thought that a sub larger than 100meters was impractical for stealth. this has proven me a simpleton...

    with that said, i think if you could get a submarine going that could launch aircraft, the multiple countermeasures we use for subs today would not be enough because the russians(and chinese, and north koreans, and everyone else that can) will develop a new anti-submarine system. rather than your usual hull plating and other such defenses i'd go for an active defense system. they're already applying it to nexgen vehicles to intercept rpgs and other such medium velocity attacks. i think it would work even better underwater, all you have to protect the sub against is small arms fire and then the active defense can blow up any missles and torpedoes coming your way.

    if all that got stuck on one huge submarine you could deffinately create a new class that would rule the sea with stealth and firepower. however 30knots isn't really my kind of speed, stealth craft are better off as rapid response vehicles, i would stick a second nuclear reactor in the back and shove everything else forward except the torpedo storage and tubes, elimenate those, don't need em with the aircraft. then make it a bit taller to house the aircraft on the top level and you've got good dimensions for your craft, something like:

    175m long, and (the usual height of the craft is not listed) the height would be about 5m more than usual, not that much bigger, and instead of having the elevator of wastefullness that they use on the nimitz class carrier, you could use individual small lifts that go up onto the deck of the submersable carrier.

    given the size and abilities of this craft i wonder what the military would nickname it, "the whale" perhaps?
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    i was formerly unaware of the massive scope some submarines are. i previously thought they were somewhat small craft meant for stealthy attacking rather than large scale assaults. i had thought that a sub larger than 100meters was impractical for stealth. this has proven me a simpleton...

    with that said, i think if you could get a submarine going that could launch aircraft, the multiple countermeasures we use for subs today would not be enough because the russians(and chinese, and north koreans, and everyone else that can) will develop a new anti-submarine system. rather than your usual hull plating and other such defenses i'd go for an active defense system. they're already applying it to nexgen vehicles to intercept rpgs and other such medium velocity attacks. i think it would work even better underwater, all you have to protect the sub against is small arms fire and then the active defense can blow up any missles and torpedoes coming your way.

    if all that got stuck on one huge submarine you could deffinately create a new class that would rule the sea with stealth and firepower. however 30knots isn't really my kind of speed, stealth craft are better off as rapid response vehicles, i would stick a second nuclear reactor in the back and shove everything else forward except the torpedo storage and tubes, elimenate those, don't need em with the aircraft. then make it a bit taller to house the aircraft on the top level and you've got good dimensions for your craft, something like:

    175m long, and (the usual height of the craft is not listed) the height would be about 5m more than usual, not that much bigger, and instead of having the elevator of wastefullness that they use on the nimitz class carrier, you could use individual small lifts that go up onto the deck of the submersable carrier.

    given the size and abilities of this craft i wonder what the military would nickname it, "the whale" perhaps?
    yeah I wasnt sure how big they could get had to look it up, and ur right before the nuclear plants in them they were small boats that could occasionally dip below the surface...lol

    I just wanted to show some maths on the speed and travel issues u mentioned:

    their speed: 34.5+ miles per hour

    circumference of earth at equator: 24901.55 miles equator

    that amounts to 30.07 days to circumnavigate (Im sure this is spelt wrong I am just again 2 tired to remember the correct spelling, slightly distracted as well) the entire planet at the equator

    thats 15.037 days to get from one side of the earth to the other side, which is all u really need if ur going from any one place to any other place

    think about how long the battlegroups took to get in position to launch the attacks against Afghanistan.

    SEPTEMBER 13, 2001: White House announces bin Laden-9/11 connection [WH, 9/13/06]

    OCTOBER 7, 2001: First airstrikes are launched against Taliban targets in Afghanistan [Guardian]

    Roughly 24 days which amounts to 19872 miles worth of travel which is very nearly right around the earth at equator

    so it might sound slow.....but its different when ur talking about ships then slow is fast.

    and the speed we are stating is even before the 2nd nuclear reactor is put in place

    U also have the range on top of that if we take for example 1500 miles to get there and back, 3000 mile round trip with weapons that can just go one way 3000 miles.

    Ur looking at power stealth and speed all in one neat bundle and with the stealth aircraft they wouldnt know what hit them even after they were hit, they would just figure "we were hit". Because the planes and the sub would be gone

    and I agree with ur countermeasures idea, but it will likely still need to be escorted with supply subs and attack "submarine and ship hunting" subs both of which already exist I think.

    I know the attack subs do and I remember reading that some subs were used during WW2 for transportation of secret military items by the Germans
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    airplane on a sub was a crappy idea in the early 60s and it still is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney
    airplane on a sub was a crappy idea in the early 60s and it still is.
    U want to expand on this idea or are u just making stupid comments

    have a good day

    please refer to thread title, its about looking at ways to do things differently

    but thanks for the smart a*s criticism/ comment (cause criticism implies u proposing either why its wrong or a silly idea or an alternative that could do better) real bright

    my evidence and basis for idea is the stealth aircraft that um have NOT been around since 1960s and the fact that subs have developed into completely different vehicles since then
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    fizzlooney, i have no problem with you giving legitamate criticism to either Always.Asking or myself, however this was not legitamate criticism. if you think his idea is bad, say at least WHY and if you think there's something better than that to be made in the near or far future, propose it here, that's what this is for, there is no section on this forum - never mind this sub-forum - for just yelling out "that's Stupid". perhaps you could say why his idea wont work? the anti-sub tech is too good? can't power it without reactor problems? can't store the aircraft? WHY?



    Always.Asking:

    i was aware of the sub-hunting ships that already exist, but what i meant is that when you build this class of sub, other nations would ramp up their counter-sub programs and develop some pretty annoying underwater weapons systems to destroy or disable the sub. in order to stop this anti-sub warfare, i proposed my system, and your idea seems similar to the current one, but still very effective.

    if your system was used i'd like to know what you would assist your main carrier with, you said some supply subs, and attack subs, we already have those, but if we used one with multiple reactors, you'd have to make new subs that could keep up with it.

    the reason i said that 30knots is slow isn't due to a lack of understanding about what's considered fast, it'd due to a disagreement that naval warfare should be any slower than ground warfare. i think you should be able to go almost mach1 underwater so that response to a "unfortunate" event such as north korea declaring it has nuclear weapons is faster than it was before, i believe it took us about 3 days to get there, in three days they could mobilize an army if it was already in the wiating, if you had a sub that could go mach1 underwater(or just under it depending on if the sub-structure would allow it) then you could make that time somewhere around half a day, only long enough for them to go "what the cr*p was that?" when they see the bombs dropping and hear a sonic boom just a little too late.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    It's an opinion ,not a criticism. I don't have the time to waste on this idea,dream , scheme,plan ....... i work for a defense company and we have our own hair ball schemes tpo plan, bye.Carry on , no more comments on this from me.
    Have a nice day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    DTV
    DTV is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15
    Also for the submarine, why not make the aircraft use VRTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) to launch without needing the flexible deck.

    Also, why not fit the sub with anti-torpedo systems- flak, anti-missile technology, mine-seeking radar, ect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    I like the idea of extensive underground building on the moon - with a giant "LASER" for holding any nation on Earth hostage. O course you would need lots of smaller auxilliary "LASERS" to vaporize any counter-strikes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    IED dogs. The suffering animal will naturally approach soldiers where they're the only humans in sight.

    Repeat until soldiers are conditioned to shoot approaching dogs.

    The real harm comes when soldiers reflexively shoot harmless dogs belonging to locals, in front of the locals.



    I like the moon laser better. To counter it, I would build a slightly smaller space battlestation, with magnetic shields and a laser so powerfull...
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    DTV
    DTV is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15
    There are a couple problems with the moon laser:
    1. It is incredibly expensive to land everything on the moon. People will wonder what you are doing.
    2. For a laser beam to head from the moon to the earth, it would have to be incredibly powerful. Not to mention getting through the earth's atmosphere, which filers out much of the light heading to the earth.
    3. The best modern laser-construction technique is using a chemical laser. You would have to transport large amounts of highly reactive chemicals to the moon. [/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    35
    U build a giant laser i build a giant mirror
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK South
    Posts
    10
    This is a bit of an old thread but here we go.

    There was talk a few years ago of scram jet sub orbital passenger planes which would travel from the UK to Australia in 45 minutes by firing straight up on ram jets and falling back down the correct trajectory. Imagine these packed with a rapid reaction force of Special forces commandos, jeeps etc. which could be deployed anywhere in the world within 45 minutes. Chances are they might travel so fast that they might even evade interception and pass unhindered right into the centre of a battle space. This would allow specialist teams to do there stuff without giving the enemy a chance to even put there boots on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I think the war in Afghanistan would benefit a lot if we could move our soldiers around faster. Rural villages that are far from US bases complain that if they side with us, we won't be able to get there in time to defend them from being retaliated against for it.

    If we could ramjet soldiers into place like that, then you just give the tribal elder a radio and they'd be pretty safe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    I am 13 righht now and I do fill notebooks up. Only some of the stuff is military, but these include:
    An automatic artillary peice, practical for ships etc. I would make it like a giant chain gun, driven by a motor like the gatling.
    airborn gunship, like the ac 130. I would put missiles, the automatic field piece, a high calibe gatling like on the warthog and a nazi concept for subsonic fighter in which the nose has many air to air or ground attack missiles in it.
    a mass destruction plane, probably a 747, packed to the brim with bombs, ready to decimate it's target (Im starting to sound like one of those military show hosts) There would be no fallout.

    I like both of the earlier ideas of a sub carrier and air carrier as well as fast battle transport. I hate to say but the moon laser, although it is awesome, would be terribly impractical, unless it becomes economical to transport goods to the moon and someone finds a way around mirrors and the atmosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    81
    My superweapon would be steel, lead or tungsten rods the size of rockets that would be dropped from space stations or satellites. They would decimate cities with the speeds they reach when dropped from the exosphere. Sorry, but screw your moon laser . Requires indefinitely less expense as a moon landing millions of times over and less energy consumption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 the rod from god 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4
    the rod from god iv heard of that 100ft rocket powered concrete/metal pointed pillar with ceramic tiled tip fired from orbit mass power of destruction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 rod from god 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4
    what if you fired the rod from god through a orbiting rail gun
    that much kinetic energy you would probably crack the planet
    sweet

    but raises a good point this could also be used to divert or destroy extinction level comets/meteors or evil dictator generals
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    A battalion of women with PMS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    That would be the hardest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •