open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Directed Energy Weapon...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Violet Serena
Posted - 2010.02.12 17:00:00 - [1]
 

...downs ballistic missile in test!

Pew pew


As you can see, we could probably fit about 200 of them on a battleship. Also, they work better in space, without air to disperse the laser.


Missile barges suxxorz!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1eleventy1!!

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.12 17:06:00 - [2]
 

Test smest they have had those monsters in the air around korea for years. This is like when the air force said waaaay back in the 80's that it was in the testing phases of its first stealth bomber when in fact it had already been deployed and in use for years also.

However I think it would be a great idea to replace the broken defender missiles with some sort of gun based point defence that takes up a high slot.

Violet Serena
Posted - 2010.02.12 17:08:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Violet Serena on 12/02/2010 17:08:53
Quote:
"The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers (miles), and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies," the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said.


So for a few trillion dollars, we could probably build space ships today that could take out anything in Eve.

Lance Fighter
Amarr
Posted - 2010.02.12 17:14:00 - [4]
 

Do keep in mind that the way it works is that it bores a hole through the missile in such a way that the propellant containment (or the actual warhead itself) is breached - At that point, the missile typically just blows up.

Sure, it could be used in eve.. To shoot down missiles. any amount of armor (or even shields..) just becomes a huge impediment to its cutting.. '

also, yeah, ive been hearing about those for years. They even have some of them mounted on armored vehicles in the middle east to detonate IEDs from afar.

Att Itude
Caldari
Odyssey SEC
Phoenix Virtue
Posted - 2010.02.12 17:37:00 - [5]
 

Here's a little secret for those with few brain cells............

When the U.S. Military makes a weapon public, that weapon is already considered obsolete and had already been replaced with something superior.


Nimzi
Posted - 2010.02.12 18:01:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Att Itude
Here's a little secret for those with few brain cells............

When the U.S. Military makes a weapon public, that weapon is already considered obsolete and had already been replaced with something superior.




I LUB SECRETS

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.12 18:23:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Att Itude
Here's a little secret for those with few brain cells............

When the U.S. Military makes a weapon public, that weapon is already considered obsolete and had already been replaced with something superior.


Its also a way to send a message at the countries its aimed at to "hey don't do anything stupid or we will blow up your missile over your own country with possibly devastating effects for your local population if the nuke/chemical warhead blows up too." Wink

Lrrp
Minmatar
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.02.12 18:40:00 - [8]
 

I seem to recall a few years back the military successfully shot out of the air a arty round. Pretty impressive feat I thought.

Blane Xero
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
Posted - 2010.02.12 18:41:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Att Itude
Here's a little secret for those with few brain cells............

When the U.S. Military makes a weapon public, that weapon is already considered obsolete and had already been replaced with something superior.


Its also a way to send a message at the countries its aimed at to "hey don't do anything stupid or we will blow up your missile over your own country with possibly devastating effects for your local population if the nuke/chemical warhead blows up too." Wink
Pointless considering if most countries are smart they will be launching them from Ocean-Based locations. Launching from within your own country is silly.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.12 18:57:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Blane Xero
Pointless considering if most countries are smart they will be launching them from Ocean-Based locations. Launching from within your own country is silly.
True but the last time I checked the countries considered most likey to launch a strike at the us or any country for that matter do not have ballistic missile subs let alone a navy that consists of moar than a few patrol boats and some vietnam era destroyers. As far as russia and china are concerned I think the leadership at large realises all that will come from them trying a missile strike is a planet that glows a nice shade of electric blue on the night side.

Kyra Felann
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.02.12 19:15:00 - [11]
 

I'd love to see missile point defense in EVE, instead of defense missiles that don't work well.

I guess it'd be unbalanced, though, since missiles are primarily used by Caldari, and there's no active turret defenses (well, tracking disruptors, I suppose).

Other sci-fi settings where most navies use missiles for long range engagements, pretty much all ships have point defense or anti-missile e-war. For example the Honorverse.

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.02.12 19:41:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Zions Child on 12/02/2010 19:47:02
Originally by: Zeba
Test smest they have had those monsters in the air around korea for years. This is like when the air force said waaaay back in the 80's that it was in the testing phases of its first stealth bomber when in fact it had already been deployed and in use for years also.

However I think it would be a great idea to replace the broken defender missiles with some sort of gun based point defence that takes up a high slot.


The first B-2 wasn't actually deployed in a combat scenario until the Kosovo war in the late 90's. I'm sure they had tested it a few times before its first public flight in 1989, but the B-2 program didn't even finalize a design until the mid-80's. Generally when the government releases info on a black project (which the laser plane is not) they have only recently become relatively assured that it will be successful. People don't like hearing $23 billion dollars were spent on a plane that doesn't work. As for the validity of your first statement, I can't comment, as I don't have proof to the contrary.

Also missile defence systems would not detonate a Ballistic Missle because detonation techniques are extraordinarily complex, and usually involve either an internal "gun" mechanism, or surrounding the material with large amounts of high-power explosives. These mechanisms are both designed to only go off when some one wants them to go off, in otherwords, the only way a ballistic missle would cause a thermonuclear explosion is either a) reaching its intended target and altitude or b) being remarkably close to another thermonuclear explosion, which could possibly ignite the radioactive material. Counter missiles just destroy the missile, as does the laser defence system. If they actually caused the ICBM to detonate, there would be little point to developing them (and ICBM's would be vastly more dangerous to store).

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.12 19:44:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Zions Child
The first B-2
Wrong stealth bomber.ugh

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.02.12 19:50:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Zions Child
The first B-2
Wrong stealth bomber.ugh


That is an air-ground attack fighter, different class. I was talking about strategic bombers, which are a tad more complex than the F-117. We certainly did have stealth technology before developing the B-2's or we wouldn't have dedicated the resources. But B-2's are designed to be able to carry nearly every payload (including nuclear loadouts) quickly and without being detected. I don't consider Attack Fighter's bombers Cool

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.12 20:03:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Zions Child
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Zions Child
The first B-2
Wrong stealth bomber.ugh


That is an air-ground attack fighter, different class. I was talking about strategic bombers, which are a tad more complex than the F-117. We certainly did have stealth technology before developing the B-2's or we wouldn't have dedicated the resources. But B-2's are designed to be able to carry nearly every payload (including nuclear loadouts) quickly and without being detected. I don't consider Attack Fighter's bombers Cool
What are you arguing about? I was talking about how the us will say that something is still in testing when it is actually in deployment. FFS who cares about what 'class' it is? Besides the f-117 is pure bomber as it has no air to air capabilitys. Its sole purpose is to deliver two 2000lb guided bombs into the heart of the enemys defence grid so call it a light stealth bomber to the b-2's heavy stealth bomber role.

Also.

Originally by: Zions Child
Also missile defence systems would not detonate a Ballistic Missle because detonation techniques are extraordinarily complex, and usually involve either an internal "gun" mechanism, or surrounding the material with large amounts of high-power explosives. These mechanisms are both designed to only go off when some one wants them to go off, in otherwords, the only way a ballistic missle would cause a thermonuclear explosion is either a) reaching its intended target and altitude or b) being remarkably close to another thermonuclear explosion, which could possibly ignite the radioactive material. Counter missiles just destroy the missile, as does the laser defence system. If they actually caused the ICBM to detonate, there would be little point to developing them (and ICBM's would be vastly more dangerous to store).
Yes because north korea spent the extra resources it probably doesn't have to spend to make it a fail safe device. It would suprise me greatly if these third world countrys bombs were not the most basic explody thing they could stick on a missile and hope it survives the ride. Also even if sufficient fail safes were designed in to make it not explode when consumed by the fireball of the exploding missile there is still that bit of inconvinience when it finally lands somewhere at high velocity and possibly shatters spreading radioactive isotopes around or deadly gas if it was a chemical warhead.

Kijo Rikki
Caldari
Point of No Return
Waterboard
Posted - 2010.02.12 20:36:00 - [16]
 

While this is all fantastic new (to the public) tech, I'm far more interested in this and why we haven't heard much about it since this report.

Yarinor
Capital Construction Research
Pioneer Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.12 20:43:00 - [17]
 

Pft, lasers are crap, just coat your missiles with mirrors and they can't do **** :P

Genya Arikaido
Posted - 2010.02.12 20:57:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Att Itude
Here's a little secret for those with few brain cells............

When the U.S. Military makes a weapon public, that weapon is already considered obsolete and had already been replaced with something superior.


Quite true, and since the thing is declassified now, I was part of a USAF feasibility test once to see if it could be shrunk and used as a small-package anti-missile point defense system for F-15/16 fighters. 11 years ago, the computing power wasn't small or fast enough to do it, but today...? Twisted Evil

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.12 21:02:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Yarinor
Pft, lasers are crap, just coat your missiles with mirrors and they can't do **** :P
WTB: Mirror finish missile skin able to reflect the staggering amount of energy in a weapons grade laser that won't increase the weight of the missle to unliftable levels.

Dario Wall
Posted - 2010.02.12 21:37:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Yarinor
Pft, lasers are crap, just coat your missiles with mirrors and they can't do **** :P
WTB: Mirror finish missile skin able to reflect the staggering amount of energy in a weapons grade laser that won't increase the weight of the missle to unliftable levels.

Would this do? Razz

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2010.02.12 22:04:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Blane Xero
Pointless considering if most countries are smart they will be launching them from Ocean-Based locations. Launching from within your own country is silly.
True but the last time I checked the countries considered most likey to launch a strike at the us or any country for that matter do not have ballistic missile subs let alone a navy that consists of moar than a few patrol boats and some vietnam era destroyers. As far as russia and china are concerned I think the leadership at large realises all that will come from them trying a missile strike is a planet that glows a nice shade of electric blue on the night side.


Yup. That defense system is not intended to stop a massive attack by Russia. Nothing would stop THOUSANDS of missiles from completely obliterating half the planet. Absolutely nothing in world could be made safe from a massive attack from either US or Russia nukes. Their arsenals are in a completely different scale from EVERY other country with mass destruction capabilities.

Would be liek tryign to use a defender launcher to stop an old ragnarok doomsday missile effect.

Matalino
Posted - 2010.02.12 22:16:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Kijo Rikki
While this is all fantastic new (to the public) tech, I'm far more interested in this and why we haven't heard much about it since this report.
You mean aside from the impracticallity of producing and storing anti-matter? Before anti-matter fuel will become practical, it must be more safe and cost effective than nuclear fuel, and nuclear fuel is already in a tight spot because of those concerns (mostly safety, rather than cost) and is therefore secondary to chemical fuel or solar power for any mission where they are practical. Anti-matter power sources sound good on paper, but are still very far from practical.

Kijo Rikki
Caldari
Point of No Return
Waterboard
Posted - 2010.02.12 22:26:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Kijo Rikki on 12/02/2010 22:27:39
I know but as with all technology, new is usually too expensive in the beginning and impractical and over time newer, more efficient ways are born and the technology becomes affordable.

I dunno jack about quantam physics but I'd like to think they can compact the collider process somehow and find ways to store it longer and safer. (theres talk of some sort of frozen pellet state suspending the antiprotons, for example) The way technology makes leaps and bounds these days is staggering, think about how far tech came along after the lightbulb, how fast it progressively picked up?

In my opinion, antimatter is the new lightbulb. Cool

EDIT: light bulb = elexctricity.

Cybarite
Gallente
YARRRDIES Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.12 22:36:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Yes because north korea spent the extra resources it probably doesn't have to spend to make it a fail safe device. It would suprise me greatly if these third world countrys bombs were not the most basic explody thing they could stick on a missile and hope it survives the ride. Also even if sufficient fail safes were designed in to make it not explode when consumed by the fireball of the exploding missile there is still that bit of inconvinience when it finally lands somewhere at high velocity and possibly shatters spreading radioactive isotopes around or deadly gas if it was a chemical warhead.


I don't think you know how a nuclear bomb works, so let me explain, in order to achieve the uncontrolled fission necessary for an explosive nuclear reaction you need to create in INCREDIBLE amount of pressure. The theory behind fission bombs is well understood, and if it were easy to engineer one anyone with an internet connection a steel mill and the right materials could make one.

The fact is that a nuclear bomb, by necessity doesn't work like a normal explosive. For the reaction to occur a conventional explosion of fairly large magnitude must be confined to a small space, within which is a kernel of fissionable material, the pressure generated mechanically by the confined explosion is what causes the fission reaction.

Because you have to confine the explosion the outer shell of the device itself must be extremely strong, strong enough in fact to resist the forces of any reasonable conventional explosion. Thus a conventional explosion won't set off a nuke, it will just destroy the external components which prime and trigger the explosion that occurs within the device.

You could throw a lit stick of dynamite into a room full of nukes, all you'd accomplish is to disarm them.

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.12 22:56:00 - [25]
 

honestly the ABL has been in testing for awhile, my question is how long until they are firing these at enemy troops. because you know they are going to make one that goes on the AC-130 "spectre" gunship.(for those not in the know, picture an industrial that traded its hauling for a big freaking can of whupass, as in picture a Badger Mk II with multiple Missile launchers, 75mm Rail Gun IIs, rockets, autocannons, and other hurty things that only feel good to the guy pulling the trigger)

Lance Fighter
Amarr
Posted - 2010.02.12 23:08:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
honestly the ABL has been in testing for awhile, my question is how long until they are firing these at enemy troops. because you know they are going to make one that goes on the AC-130 "spectre" gunship.(for those not in the know, picture an industrial that traded its hauling for a big freaking can of whupass, as in picture a Badger Mk II with multiple Missile launchers, 75mm Rail Gun IIs, rockets, autocannons, and other hurty things that only feel good to the guy pulling the trigger)

if we are trying to compare the spectre to a badger II, i think you will need a bigger gun than a 75mm rail.. spectres already have 105mm howitzers :)

Sturmwolke
Posted - 2010.02.12 23:17:00 - [27]
 

Bah, zero cool factor.

This is better Raytheon Sarcos Exoskeleton.
Dune Heavy Trooper or Battletech Elementals in RL ftw!

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.02.12 23:52:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Zions Child on 12/02/2010 23:54:54
Zeba, read Cybarite's post, its informative and accurate. Whether or not you want your nuclear weapons to go off when somebody destroys them, its impossible. And even if the explosion were to detonate the explosives surrounding the fissile material, it would not go off, as the timing of the explosions must be exact, there is no room for error, a slight delay, of millionth's of a second, can prevent the proper pressure from being reached. And, as for the F-117A, it has never had to go into combat where there were enemy aircraft, as no country we've invaded recently has an air force (at least thats worth damn). Its highly unlikely that they would send the F-117A into aerial combat, as its designed as a ground attack aircraft, like A-10 Warthogs. However, there is a significant difference between tactical bombers/ ground attack aircraft/ fighter bombers/ w/e and a strategic bomber. The amount of sophistication required to produce the B-2 is considerably more than that to make the F-117A. And, the F-117A is not nearly as stealthy as they wished. It also lacks any sort of radar, in short, against anything that has effective AA or an airforce, the F-117A is the wrong choice. On the other hand, the B-2, despite being larger, is considerably more stealthy, and is capable of "delivering" strategic amounts of firepower to any location on Earth, and doing it without being detected. The F-117A worked, but poorly, the B-2 is one of the masterpieces of aviation technology. When they said they were in the testing phases of their first stealth bomber, they were in the testing phases of their first stealth bomber. The military is exceedingly exact, and they mean what they say. When something is unclassified, they tend not to lie about development, as that is illegal in our great country. That is because they are using taxpayer dollars, and thus, must answer the public. The reason for spending money on some classified project must be given, the details are unnessecary.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.13 00:47:00 - [29]
 


Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.02.13 03:10:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Cybarite
I don't think you know how a nuclear bomb works,
Kekeke.. I don't think you realise that not every country makes their nuclear bombs 'accident' proof. Please mate all you need to do to set off a nuke is to get the explosives in the bomb to detonate. The shell could be made of paper mache' for all the strength that is needed to 'contain' the implosion effect of an inner shell of explosives to drive the nuclear material together at sufficient velocity to produce the required fission or fusion effect. High tech bombs made by a developed high tech country have ample reason to make sure there are no accidents in the literal thousands of warheads by over engineering them to not go off accidentally due to whatever accident may happen. Somehow I don't think a cash and resource strapped county like north korea will take the nessesary steps to make sure they have sufficient fail safes to make the warhead completely inert if not specifically set to detonate. But hey if you want to believe they or other third world nuclear power have an iron clad safety regulatory agency to keep the local dictator from making and storing unsafe bombs then go right on with your fantasy. ugh
Originally by: Zions Child
Hi! I'm just spamming away with useless facts and figures that have no bearing on the topic at hand because I can't stand to be wrong and must respond with something, anything.
It's ok mate we understand.Wink


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only