Notices
Results 1 to 44 of 44
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Ascended

Thread: How far do you think future warfare technology will go?

  1. #1 How far do you think future warfare technology will go? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    How far do you think future warfare technology will go?

    Post what you think on the question!





    Me, I think anything is possible. Giant flying ships patrolling mega city's, shield technology, plasma weapons, energy sheilds!


    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Directed Energy Weapons already exist, and now they're developing what is probably the coolest thing ever, imo.

    LIPC-Tesla Guns. Which are basically taser-rifles. They shoot a laser, which ionizes the air in the laser's path - creating plasma, which acts a medium for an electric current to flow through. Such a weapon would also disable vehicles.

    We already have laser guns too. Having said this, future tech is going to be crazy.. Provided we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that point.. Then we'll have the lamest high-tech weaponry ever.. Pointy Sticks.


    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member Chuck Norris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1
    I think the future in army technology will pass by the weather. This subject is crucial in any war and can easily produce the caos in our enemy,
    I'm Nobody and Nobody is Perfect.. So I'm Perfect!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    I'd love to see "energy domes" ... one of the coolest defensive technology concepts, in my opinion. Imagine a mega-city protected by an enormous, transparent, color-tinted dome of energy that keeps out pollution, harmful radiation, and blocks out projectiles and any weaponry.

    As for offense, we can already annihilate entire cities and their populations... so imagine what we can do once we reach a higher level on the Kardashev scale.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    I'd love to see "energy domes" ... one of the coolest defensive technology concepts, in my opinion. Imagine a mega-city protected by an enormous, transparent, color-tinted dome of energy that keeps out pollution, harmful radiation, and blocks out projectiles and any weaponry.

    As for offense, we can already annihilate entire cities and their populations... so imagine what we can do once we reach a higher level on the Kardashev scale.
    Iran Claims to Have Used Force Field, Flying Saucer to Down US Drone

    Iran-so-I-got-there-first... Allegedly.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: How far do you think future warfare technology will go? 
    Unregistered
    Guest
    After the nuclear exchange this coming summer (that's just a guess, not a prophecy) we go back to sticks and stones .. well, okay, tie a sharp stone to the end of a stick .. oh drat .. we're back to missiles if we throw that thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    After the nuclear exchange next summer we go back to sticks and stone .. we escalate by tying a sharp stone onto the end of the stick .. we escalate to missiles by throwing the thing ..

    okay .. "next summer" is just an educated guess, not a prophecy.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    After the nuclear exchange next summer we go back to sticks and stone .. we escalate by tying a sharp stone onto the end of the stick .. we escalate to missiles by throwing the thing ..

    okay .. "next summer" is just an educated guess, not a prophecy.
    With sticks and stones I can make steel and with steel I can make all kinds of stuff. it wouldnt be like cave men, it would be like the middle ages, we would be smart and knowlegible. not simple and idiocracy
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    After the nuclear exchange next summer we go back to sticks and stone .. we escalate by tying a sharp stone onto the end of the stick .. we escalate to missiles by throwing the thing ..

    okay .. "next summer" is just an educated guess, not a prophecy.
    With sticks and stones I can make steel and with steel I can make all kinds of stuff. it wouldnt be like cave men, it would be like the middle ages, we would be smart and knowlegible. not simple and idiocracy
    Right .. you know, I suggest a new religion will rule after the exchange .. a religion which forbids metals so that mankind will never again attain capacity for total destruction of the world .. I think that religion will rule at armageddon, and those armies will surround the camp of the saints, as prophecied, with the saints burning their weapons for fuel for seven years after the fire falls from heaven .. the saints of course will not worship the new religion, but will have grace.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,333
    The main, and slow, progress in warfare has been in compelling men to fight. We had to line them up and command them through each robotic movement, once. Very few men would fight if left to their own initiative.

    I think now a good supply of men want to wear uniforms, hold guns, and kill. I don't know why.

    The limit "how far" this could go of course is where an entire nation marches as one army, thankful for the privilege.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    The main, and slow, progress in warfare has been in compelling men to fight. We had to line them up and command them through each robotic movement, once. Very few men would fight if left to their own initiative.

    I think now a good supply of men want to wear uniforms, hold guns, and kill. I don't know why.

    The limit "how far" this could go of course is where an entire nation marches as one army, thankful for the privilege.
    Is that a world-wide phenomenon, or is that just in the greatly industrialised countries? Look back at WWI, war was romanticized and plenty of people volunteered for service thinking it would be like previous wars - but at the beginning, without mobile armour, skirmishes had crazy high casualties - so naturally the front evolved into trench warfare. When WWII came around, people weren't exactly willing to volunteer in the beginning.

    Wars between the greatly industrialised countries seems pretty unlikely now. To me it seems like the big boys don't want to fight each other anymore. They only go after the small-fries now. For this reason, casualties for the more powerful nations are very few - because they have the technological advantage, and probably better training as well. It's like an eight year old picking a fight with a five year old, a war like that offers little threat. That's why I figure if more people are willing to serve in the military now, it's because they don't expect to go to war with a country that rivals their own. If the USA was to go to war with Russia, I bet the number of people wanting to serve in the military would come crashing down.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,333
    I think you're very right, thanks.

    Another factor I've thought about is the depersonalization of violence. It is a lot easier, psychologically, to spot for napalm artillery than to inflict the same sustained burn injuries with a handheld torch. Our increasingly depersonalizing military technology is normally justified as "force protection" (which is true) but it also carries this real advantage.

    So, another "how far" would be having kids innocently playing computer games which actually command the dirty work of warfare.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I think you're very right, thanks.

    Another factor I've thought about is the depersonalization of violence. It is a lot easier, psychologically, to spot for napalm artillery than to inflict the same sustained burn injuries with a handheld torch. Our increasingly depersonalizing military technology is normally justified as "force protection" (which is true) but it also carries this real advantage.

    So, another "how far" would be having kids innocently playing computer games which actually command the dirty work of warfare.
    That's a really good point too, people definitely care less when they don't have to see (or don't actually know) what they're doing will cause. By any chance.. Have you read Ender's Game?
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,333
    No. Recommend it and I will.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    No. Recommend it and I will
    I read it when I was 14, I imagine if I were to read it again - my opinion would be different, so I don't know if I'm willing to recommend it. I'm thinking it's mostly a 'young adult' kind of book too, not sure if that is something that would factor in. Nonetheless here is a citation from wikipedia about its reception.

    Critics have generally received Ender's Game well. The novel won the Nebula Award for best novel in 1985,[9] and the Hugo Award for best novel in 1986,[10] considered the two most prestigious awards in science fiction.[11][12] Ender's Game was also nominated for a Locus Award in 1986.[7] In 1999, it placed #59 on the reader's list of Modern Library 100 Best Novels. It was also honored with a spot on American Library Association's "100 Best Books for Teens". In 2008, the novel, along with Ender's Shadow, won the Margaret A. Edwards Award, which honors an author and specific works by that author for lifetime contribution to young adult literature.[13]
    New York Times writer Gerald Jonas admits that the novel's plot summary reads like a "grade Z, made-for-television, science-fiction rip-off movie", but then says that Card develops the elements well despite this "unpromising material". Jonas further praises the development of the character Ender Wiggin: "Alternately likable and insufferable, he is a convincing little Napoleon in short pants."[14]
    The novel has received negative criticism for violence and for the way Card justifies Ender's violence. Elaine Radford's review, "Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman", criticizes the novel on several points. She posits that Ender Wiggin is an intentional reference by Card to Adolf Hitler and criticizes the violence in the novel, particularly at the hands of the protagonist.[3] Card responded to Radford's criticisms in Fantasy Review, the same publication. Radford's criticisms are echoed in John Kessel's essay "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality". Kessel reasons that Card justifies Ender's righteous rage and violence: "Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault."[4]
    The U.S. Marine Corps Professional Reading List makes the novel recommended reading at several lower ranks, and again at Officer Candidate/Midshipman.[15] The book was placed on the reading list by Captain John F. Schmitt, author of FMFM-1 (Fleet Marine Fighting Manual, on maneuver doctrine) for "provid[ing] useful allegories to explain why militaries do what they do in a particularly effective shorthand way."[16] In introducing the novel for use in leadership training, Marine Corps University's Lejeune program opines that it offers "lessons in training methodology, leadership, and ethics as well [....] Ender’s Game has been a stalwart item on the Marine Corps Reading List since its inception."[16] Ender and other children who are military geniuses are sent to battle school to learn to become commanders and fight the formics.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    The main, and slow, progress in warfare has been in compelling men to fight. We had to line them up and command them through each robotic movement, once. Very few men would fight if left to their own initiative.

    I think now a good supply of men want to wear uniforms, hold guns, and kill. I don't know why.

    The limit "how far" this could go of course is where an entire nation marches as one army, thankful for the privilege.
    Is that a world-wide phenomenon, or is that just in the greatly industrialised countries? Look back at WWI, war was romanticized and plenty of people volunteered for service thinking it would be like previous wars - but at the beginning, without mobile armour, skirmishes had crazy high casualties - so naturally the front evolved into trench warfare. When WWII came around, people weren't exactly willing to volunteer in the beginning.

    Wars between the greatly industrialised countries seems pretty unlikely now. To me it seems like the big boys don't want to fight each other anymore. They only go after the small-fries now. For this reason, casualties for the more powerful nations are very few - because they have the technological advantage, and probably better training as well. It's like an eight year old picking a fight with a five year old, a war like that offers little threat. That's why I figure if more people are willing to serve in the military now, it's because they don't expect to go to war with a country that rivals their own. If the USA was to go to war with Russia, I bet the number of people wanting to serve in the military would come crashing down.
    The freedom, the flood of stimulation, bombs, tanks, or even just staying up doing nothing for days without sleep. its all awe-some.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I suspect that, in the old days when you ran into battle with a sword, people might have felt differently about war. It proved something about you. Less of the outcome was up to chance, and more of it depended on your own individual skill and bravery.... etc. Nowadays, even the best soldiers sometimes get blown up by artillery, or fall under a sniper's scope. It's not so glorious. There's lots more survivor's guilt because in many cases the survivors were faced with situations where it was apparent that their individual abilities weren't the sole determining factor. That isn't likely to change any time in the future. War will be increasingly a matter of blind luck for soldiers, and more deterministic at the command, political, and technology level.

    I don't see any point in holding back. We should go full robot as soon as possible. That's the trend, and if we hold off we're falling behind others who are willing to embrace it more eagerly. It's ironic that a bunch of primitive tribes people in Afghanistan have seized on this better and faster than we have (using IED's, which are effectively just very simple battle robots.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I suspect that, in the old days when you ran into battle with a sword, people might have felt differently about war. It proved something about you. Less of the outcome was up to chance, and more of it depended on your own individual skill and bravery.... etc. Nowadays, even the best soldiers sometimes get blown up by artillery, or fall under a sniper's scope. It's not so glorious. There's lots more survivor's guilt because in many cases the survivors were faced with situations where it was apparent that their individual abilities weren't the sole determining factor. That isn't likely to change any time in the future. War will be increasingly a matter of blind luck for soldiers, and more deterministic at the command, political, and technology level.

    I don't see any point in holding back. We should go full robot as soon as possible. That's the trend, and if we hold off we're falling behind others who are willing to embrace it more eagerly. It's ironic that a bunch of primitive tribes people in Afghanistan have seized on this better and faster than we have (using IED's, which are effectively just very simple battle robots.)
    If I could like comments, I would click like on yours.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Warefare is about control of resources,population and religion.I think at the rate of science the earth cannot endure the population and strain of resources to keep civilizations maintained.There will be war.Technology will decide the winner.Tech in which persons or controlled mechs cannot be detected,or obtained inwhich can cause multipile injuries not deaths without intervention..and cause minimal civilian loss and obtain set objectives will be the most advance tech.
    Last edited by bryan; April 6th, 2012 at 02:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Directed Energy Weapons already exist, and now they're developing what is probably the coolest thing ever, imo.

    LIPC-Tesla Guns. Which are basically taser-rifles. They shoot a laser, which ionizes the air in the laser's path - creating plasma, which acts a medium for an electric current to flow through. Such a weapon would also disable vehicles.

    We already have laser guns too. Having said this, future tech is going to be crazy.. Provided we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that point.. Then we'll have the lamest high-tech weaponry ever.. Pointy Sticks.
    That is cool,but I got a better way that does not produce heat and will not give away the location I got a thread on the very basic concept of my idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    one thing we will not see is a foot soldier armed with a laser weapon. A infantry weapon has to tolerate dirt and still function but a dirty lens on your lasar rifle turns it into a bomb going of in the user's face.

    The trend seems to be toward smaller and faster projectiles.

    I'm a little suspect of hightech infantry weapons. Not that don't work but that they cost too much. In the long run warfare is a question of economics. If a weapon that costs a tenth as much is half as effective, its a winner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    27
    I would suggest that war will become fully mechanized very shortly. Right now we are needed to provide a safe base for any weapons production and as manpower. Soldiers (marines anyway) are taught basic manuvers but are also trained to present a moving target of strategy. If you can outthink your enemy you can defeat him.

    That being said, we are quickly approaching the creation of a mechanical army. How do you think we can fight wars on so many fronts and have such low casualties. Drones kill from the sky with the operators a continent away. Robotics are the wave of the future in warfare.

    Sort of like terminator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    I would suggest that war will become fully mechanized very shortly.
    Doubtful. The killing part is the easy stuff that robots can do, but it often needs its target IDed---but to do that you need a human on the ground.
    Also most warfare goes deeper into stuff that doesn't involve killing--convincing a villege elder to let the rest of his town to use the tribe's bridge, or open a market, or reporting if insurgents moving into the abondoned house next door etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    [QUOTE=Japith;304733]How far do you think future warfare technology will go?

    Post what you think on the question!

    I think the qestion is interesting, I think that countries like america, china, russia, israel and the european countries will push to have much more automated technology in the future. I think that we are coming to the end of the age in which it is acceptable to have troops coming home in body bags.

    I think we will see actual fighting robots like what have existed in japanese manga films for decades actually come to fruition within the next 50 years. The idea of 'boots on the ground' can be replaced by intelligent robots on the ground that can be remotely navigated or put into 'cruise control' for more simple tasks.

    I also think we will see the advent of 'Swarm warefare', which will traditional human manned aircraft replaced with thousands of tiny drone aircraft that can be controlled as a swarm and present a very hard target to destroy. As well as safety element in removing the pilot from the aircraft it wll also offer cost benifits as the micro drones will be able to be mass produced and evolved quicker because of cost of such tiny craft.

    Then we come to other interesting things such as the fact that the chinese included technological knowlege gained from ancient texts in their space program. Some of the texts detail quite complicated technology dated from many thousands of years ago from times of supposedly very advanced human civilisations that have long since become extinct, even some of the nazi advancements which went on to be used for the apollo program were rumoured to have been learned from ancient texts, as hitler was obsessed with finding knowlege he had teams searching accross asia and africa, some of the world war 2 nazi 'wonder weapons' were rumoured to be decades ahead of anything of the time. Vimanas or ancient flying machines have been documented accross the world dating back thousands of years. The actual amount of evidence for their existance is staggering.

    With all this in mind is surely only a matter of time before some of the major governments start putting some of this advanced knowledge towards military hardware. Also it has remained unclear wether it was the russians or the americans that managed to grab the bulk of hitlers collection of ancient knowledge. Everyone knows america got the scientists, but did the russians get the texts?

    Anyway the point is some of these texts exist in the public domain and have clear diagrams of actual technology! So we can only wonder at the texts kept and hidden away by governments actually contain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Some of the texts detail quite complicated technology dated from many thousands of years ago from times of supposedly very advanced human civilisations that have long since become extinct, even some of the nazi advancements which went on to be used for the apollo program were rumoured to have been learned from ancient texts, as hitler was obsessed with finding knowlege he had teams searching accross asia and africa, some of the world war 2 nazi 'wonder weapons' were rumoured to be decades ahead of anything of the time. Vimanas or ancient flying machines have been documented accross the world dating back thousands of years. The actual amount of evidence for their existance is staggering.
    We have a pseudoscience forum if you wish to discuss this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    I don't think warefare could ever truely become non-lethal as there has to be a way for polititians to conduct intimidation and without people dying other governments couldn't be scared into submission. Also at some stage polititians will want to use warefare to carry out population reduction as the world gets ever more crowded.

    I also think whilst all the permanent members of the UN security council are the worlds leading arms exporters there will always be conflicts because without wars these countries arms manufacturers and the polititians in their pockets won't make any money. So thats what will continue to happen new and more deadly weapons will be pushed into conflict zones so bent western polititians with vested interests can get rich, regardless of how many people are maimed or killed as result.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I would suggest that war will become fully mechanized very shortly.
    Doubtful. The killing part is the easy stuff that robots can do, but it often needs its target IDed---but to do that you need a human on the ground.
    Also most warfare goes deeper into stuff that doesn't involve killing--convincing a villege elder to let the rest of his town to use the tribe's bridge, or open a market, or reporting if insurgents moving into the abondoned house next door etc.
    Those tasks require intelligence. I think once soldiers are limited to just performing those kinds of roles, the military will no longer be serve one of its current purposes: which is to be an employer of last resort.

    When you've got large demographic of people who's aptitudes don't make them cut out for high profile work in the corporate sector or doing anything highly technical, and manufacturing is getting increasingly automated, firing a big machine gun may be the only kind of job you can give them where they'd actually feel important and want to continue to participate actively in society (to what degree they can after they get PTSD anyway.) If we don't give them a role like that one, then well.... the mafia is always hiring, or maybe a local drug gang.

    Certainly those aren't the only kind of people the military employs, but it does employ them. And it treats them with respect, while the rest of the private sector either doesn't employ them or employs them but doesn't treat them with respect hardly at all. It even pays them a wage comparable to that which its highest ranking members make. You can see on this chart, that an E-3 (I'm thinking that's private first class?) with 20 years of service would make a little over 10% what a 0-10 (which I'm assuming is 4 Star General) makes. 1981.20/month vs. 15647.10/month. There's no way a factory worker working for a large private corporation would ever make 10% of what their company's CEO is making.

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp






    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    How about the G33 submersible aircraft carrier, 1000 meters long 150 meters wide designed to carry drone fighter and bomber aircraft. Astronomical build costs, but very small crew needed and could replace entire battle groups.
    Japith likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    28
    I would hope we all learn to get along before it goes to far. I would think one of the more realistic things possibly being produced would be a bunker busting nuke by Israel, perhaps even trying to shape its detonation. I think supercavition in naval warfare and things like the Aurora are possible aswell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    would be a bunker busting nuke by Israel, perhaps even trying to shape its detonation.
    Mostly a starry eyed boondoggle by contractors selling snake oil to the ignorant. Place your bunker deep enough--even using 19th century mining technology and it's physically impossible to "bust it."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    would be a bunker busting nuke by Israel, perhaps even trying to shape its detonation.
    Mostly a starry eyed boondoggle by contractors selling snake oil to the ignorant. Place your bunker deep enough--even using 19th century mining technology and it's physically impossible to "bust it."
    One defense analyst on c-span seemed to believe it was possible to get to the Iranian bunker some 300ft underground if they dropped a 100 or so bombs and managed to line them up all perfectly. I imagine on the engineering side the problem is the bomb surviving the impact pressures as attaining the required impact velocity could always be achieved with a rocket. Certain very expensive forms of carbon could be used as a casing to make it more resilient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Sounds about right....deep enough for aircraft bunkers and submarine bunkers...worthless for a well buried nuke building facility.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    one thing we will not see is a foot soldier armed with a laser weapon. A infantry weapon has to tolerate dirt and still function but a dirty lens on your lasar rifle turns it into a bomb going of in the user's face.

    The trend seems to be toward smaller and faster projectiles.

    I'm a little suspect of hightech infantry weapons. Not that don't work but that they cost too much. In the long run warfare is a question of economics. If a weapon that costs a tenth as much is half as effective, its a winner.

    Of course if I got a bunch of dirt and mud in the barrel of m-4 it would also be turned into a bomb going off in my face. That is why we are trained to avoid getting crap in the barrel of our weapon. A LASER(Light Amplified Stimulated Emission of Radiation) could be protected with a lens-cap, for lack of a better word, that would retract as the weapon fires. That keeps mud off your lens and defeats catastrophic failure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by thevillageidiot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    would be a bunker busting nuke by Israel, perhaps even trying to shape its detonation.
    Mostly a starry eyed boondoggle by contractors selling snake oil to the ignorant. Place your bunker deep enough--even using 19th century mining technology and it's physically impossible to "bust it."
    One defense analyst on c-span seemed to believe it was possible to get to the Iranian bunker some 300ft underground if they dropped a 100 or so bombs and managed to line them up all perfectly. I imagine on the engineering side the problem is the bomb surviving the impact pressures as attaining the required impact velocity could always be achieved with a rocket. Certain very expensive forms of carbon could be used as a casing to make it more resilient.

    Of course if you detonate a fuel-air explosive device it will suck all the oxygen out of the bunker and you are screwed. if you are using 19th century techniques. of course multiple blast doors etc. would help stop this. But how would you defend against the radiation of a nuclear device?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    I was just reading up on some weapons as I am on the hunt for a good .12g shotgun and I was thinking it would be awesome if someone went back to the drawing board and reworked the gyro-jet pistol and rifle concepts from the 60's. It was a good idea then but we just didn't have the tech to make it "fly" (forgive the pun... couldn't resist) I think it would be possible now with the advances made in caseless munitions and such. Make a six shot 15mm revolver and a rifle of some sort, preferably bullpup configuration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    I was just reading up on some weapons as I am on the hunt for a good .12g shotgun and I was thinking it would be awesome if someone went back to the drawing board and reworked the gyro-jet pistol and rifle concepts from the 60's. It was a good idea then but we just didn't have the tech to make it "fly" (forgive the pun... couldn't resist) I think it would be possible now with the advances made in caseless munitions and such. Make a six shot 15mm revolver and a rifle of some sort, preferably bullpup configuration.
    Ive always figured the guass rifle to be the eventual small arms replacement, Coilgun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. With better battery and magnet technology you could potentially get the same stopping power with a much more compact round.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    Of course if you detonate a fuel-air explosive device it will suck all the oxygen out of the bunker and you are screwed. if you are using 19th century techniques. of course multiple blast doors etc. would help stop this. But how would you defend against the radiation of a nuclear device?
    The FE needs to get into the cavity bunker...that is the problem. It is physically imposible for a penetrator able to get deep enough to survive the impact.

    Ground is an excellent shield against radiation--nothing is better.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by thevillageidiot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    I was just reading up on some weapons as I am on the hunt for a good .12g shotgun and I was thinking it would be awesome if someone went back to the drawing board and reworked the gyro-jet pistol and rifle concepts from the 60's. It was a good idea then but we just didn't have the tech to make it "fly" (forgive the pun... couldn't resist) I think it would be possible now with the advances made in caseless munitions and such. Make a six shot 15mm revolver and a rifle of some sort, preferably bullpup configuration.
    Ive always figured the guass rifle to be the eventual small arms replacement, Coilgun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. With better battery and magnet technology you could potentially get the same stopping power with a much more compact round.
    I like gauss weaponry. another one I read about in a fiction book of course was plasma cartridge weapons. Basically a cartridge contained material that flash converted to plasma the the weapon directed the plasma burst with a magnetic containment system.

    I think fairly soon we may have armor along the lines of Heinlein's Starship Troopers. The US Army currently has an exoskeleton that greatly increases a soldiers carrying ability and speed and endurance. Here is an article from Scientific American about it. Real-Life Iron Man: A Robotic Suit That Magnifies Human Strength: Scientific American
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    How about a liquid explosive that is virtually undetectable that can be sprayed from high in the air on enemy installations and vehicles and detonated with a directed sonic frequency. This type of a weapon would be very hard to defend against and the enemy would never know what will blow up next or even how they are being attacked.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    This type of a weapon would be very hard to defend against and the enemy would never know what will blow up next or even how they are being attacked.
    Anti-Air.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    The idea would be that it could be deployed well in advance of use, so that the target didn't even know they were being attacked, also a voice recognition sonic trigger could be used to target for example a terrorist leader. If the terrorist doesn't show up the trigger is not activated. It could lay dormant for weeks waiting to strike.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The idea would be that it could be deployed well in advance of use, so that the target didn't even know they were being attacked, also a voice recognition sonic trigger could be used to target for example a terrorist leader. If the terrorist doesn't show up the trigger is not activated. It could lay dormant for weeks waiting to strike.
    If you know where the terrorist leader is going to be then a missile is just as practical. Or if it's the terrorists voice that unwittingly triggers the attack then they can do the same with any other weapon. It seems to me that for billions of dollars to be spent on developing a weapon then it needs to either greatly improve an existing weapon or do something that current weapons can't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The idea would be that it could be deployed well in advance of use, so that the target didn't even know they were being attacked, also a voice recognition sonic trigger could be used to target for example a terrorist leader. If the terrorist doesn't show up the trigger is not activated. It could lay dormant for weeks waiting to strike.
    If you know where the terrorist leader is going to be then a missile is just as practical. Or if it's the terrorists voice that unwittingly triggers the attack then they can do the same with any other weapon. It seems to me that for billions of dollars to be spent on developing a weapon then it needs to either greatly improve an existing weapon or do something that current weapons can't.

    I think the idea is having a 'stealth' weapon. Unlike conventional weapons the idea is that this weapon can be deployed, concealed and triggered without the enermies knowledge that they had even been attacked. This would be possible with conventional missiles or explosives.

    But you are correct about spending billions though, if your contemplating spending that sort of money there needs to be clear advantages over other weapon systems.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Biological Warfare
    By Spaceman in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 14th, 2011, 11:18 PM
  2. The IED approach to warfare
    By kojax in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 12th, 2010, 12:34 AM
  3. Biological warfare
    By tritai in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 5th, 2009, 08:01 PM
  4. The future of Technology!!!!!! What do u think? :idea:
    By jibblin in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 19th, 2006, 03:52 AM
  5. Future Technology - The Road to Star TreK
    By redewenur in forum Physics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2005, 08:21 AM
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
  •