Sounds like bullshit to me. There are plenty of adhesives that would work nowadays, you can even spend a million and get a custom patented glue that does every fricking thing you want.
Im not saying that they didnt say that, but i highly doubt thats really why.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Agreed. They could wire the plates together if they really had to.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Or riveting, basically modern day coat of plates. I assume there'd be some structural weakness issues or spalling concerns about the rivets. That, or whereas in the past material was expensive but manpower was cheap so making a lot of little plate bits was easy peasy now it's materials are cheaper and manpower isn't as necessary as skilled labor so it may just be easier to make a big ceramic plate. Since replacement is: >Go and unseal your coat of ceramic plates, replace broken ones ,worry about structural integrity of the rest of them
versus >Your plate broke buy a new one you're the US military or other well funded apparatus this shit is peanuts.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It was because they were WAY too overenthusiastic about getting their military contract. They lied to the Air Force about having Level III certification, in the most moronic way possible. They had a verbal from the NIJ that they had passed the certification (even though the Army AND Air Force had shown they had a massive defect rate on delivery, mostly due to...you guessed it...the scales being fricked up). It's kind of like the MEG general. Lying about your certification to smoothbrained History Channel dipshits? GOOD. Lying to the DOD about having a body armor certification you didn't have on paper yet? BAD.
If the people at Pinnacle could have kept their dick in their pants for two seconds, they could have gotten the contracts completed and used that time to iron out the production issues. But they were too busy clout chasing and waving their bare asses at Interceptor that they lost their contract, and couldn't make ends meet selling it just to LEO's. They went bankrupt in 2010, and their lawsuit against NIJ was dismissed in '13.
Didn't live up to the hype when the armor was actually tested in a controlled environment. Instead of fixing the problems, the company spent money on advertising trying to convince the public the military was out to get them.
Company went bankrupt and the inventor opened up a new body armor company and he apparently solved the issues with the adhesive melting under hot temperatures since he now sells and improved version of Dragonskin's original concept. Stealth Armor Systems IIRC.
I kinda feel sorry for guys like this. The mind virus they contracted online prevents them from ever having any innocent enjoyment. It must be a shitty way to live.
You can enjoy a gun, like say a MP40, without agreeing with the politics of the people who made it. Likewise you can enjoy a story without necessarily agreeing with the message the author is trying to convey. Especially if it's light holiday reading like that series was.
I kinda feel sorry for guys like this. The mind virus they contracted online prevents them from ever having any innocent enjoyment. It must be a shitty way to live.
You can enjoy a gun, like say a MP40, without agreeing with the politics of the people who made it. Likewise you can enjoy a story without necessarily agreeing with the message the author is trying to convey. Especially if it's light holiday reading like that series was.
The author is super libtarded, and sometimes that leeches into his books.
I like John Birmingham's works, but really have to suspend some disbelief when reading.
Consider reading Cruel Stars.
>nazi f-35 on front cover
They never get past me262. Also prince Harry is a badass SAS commando who kills Otto Skorzeny and the Hillary has an aircraft carrier named after her.
>NATO
True 15 months ago. NATO and EU were going to disappear by themselves
Now Putin resurrect them and we will have NATO and EU a few generations more at least. And stronger.
Frick Putin. What the frick were you thinking?
A buddy of mine has a sl8 and any time it's brought up he complains of how hard it has been for him to find a g36 kit. I keep telling him to just send it for the xm8 treatment since Tommy makes all those parts new, but he keeps deflecting
Where there is a failed future aesthetic assault rifle, Malaysia is there to give it the use it deserves. Never forget what they do for your favorite meme guns.
Holy shit I have had a cropped cut out image of that elephant-like thing with the gun for ever with no context as to the source.
Someone used to spam it as a reaction image literal years ago and I had saved it.
Niven and Pournelle have several other books that are awesome. If you like Footfall you should check out A Mote in God's Eye and its sequel The Gripping Hand.
Why are they always depicted as rods, wouldn't you want to drop spheres or something for maximum surface area when it impacts? Rods would go straight into the ground.
>Jerry Pournelle created the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.[8][9]
Why are they always depicted as rods, wouldn't you want to drop spheres or something for maximum surface area when it impacts? Rods would go straight into the ground.
In today's world, I suspect that depleted uranium would be a strong contender. The originals were envisioned as titanium, if I recall that correctly. There are other possibilities should they provide unique properties to make their expense worth it. Titanium provides a lot of resistance to burning up (as do various ceramics & composites) in the atmosphere. Such things might be used as cladding to provide a heat shield for a core (such as uranium) to ensure the payload reaches the ground at 60 or 80 miles per second.
In a sense, it's a Good Thing that Rods From God wasn't implemented in the 1950s. Our understanding of how to effectively employ it today (and modify it with other concepts) is significantly evolved; such a system would be even more effective than originally envisioned by Dr. Pournelle.
The reason that "rods" (or "spears") was considered originally was to vastly reduce the air resistance compared to the mass delivered, using gravity as the main accelerator, and delivering them with precision in the 1 meter radius rage. They were also envisioned as being the size of telephone poles, in part to compensate for ablation due to atmospheric drag that would burn off some of the mass.
Today, we could make ceramic rods a dozen times thicker than a telephone pole that would be even more resistant to burning than titanium. Fill the core with depleted uranium and drop them with a hypersonic engine to give them an initial boost and they could reach ... well, frick if I know the upper velocity limits. 200 miles per second? More? The kinetic energy & penetration power of that dwarfs Dr. Pournelle's original vision.
One of those could be capable of a Meteor Crater event. Imagine having 20 permanent geostationary satellites with 50 each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater
Being as how you start in space, i think just some kind of solid motor on a gimble to get it going and point it should be enough to get stupid velocities.
I think the real issue is getting to be a coherent object at sea level at those speeds.
Come on everyone, I know this is a fricking old-ass millenial board.
Rods from god are moronic and wouldn’t work. Satellites aren’t just abstractly floating above earth. They’re in orbit, which means moving very quickly and predictably. You can’t just drop something, you’d have to fire it - but in most cases it would also have a significant horizontal velocity relative to the atmosphere/earth, not just heading straight down. GSO has its own problems
the author of the concept worked as aerospace engineer for Boeing and as presidential science advisor for POTUS
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yeah and he was wrong + Boeing is gay. It has limited applications. Weapons in space pointing at earth are generally not very useful or practical until you start getting into the crazier theoretical stuff.
1 year ago
Anonymous
you're the one who thinks math doesn't exist
1 year ago
Anonymous
>thinks math doesn’t exist
Wut.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>oh no our projectile has inertia, this means our engineers will be unable to make it work
1 year ago
Anonymous
You are genuinely too stupid to understand the issues here holy shit.
The problem is not (solely) the calculations but the resistance and unequal forces and there’s issues with having the satellite be in a useful orbit in the first place because orbits are fairly complicated. All in all it’s just not a practical and useful weapon and though it’s possible it’s not… good.
1 year ago
Anonymous
dude did you even read the book
1 year ago
Anonymous
No I did not read a science fiction book
1 year ago
Anonymous
all the complaints against the system are made from perspective of the complaint maker being from a poor podunk backwater, literally
Geostationary satellites also exists. But the problems you outline could be solved with a rocket booster to launch, and a navigation module + control surfaces once it enters the atmosphere.
The real question is, is it worth the massive investment and r&d required to actually make it work.
1 year ago
Anonymous
When I say wouldn’t work I mean “wouldn’t be practical to make work”
>You can’t just drop something, you’d have to fire it - but in most cases it would also have a significant horizontal velocity relative to the atmosphere/earth, not just heading straight down
I'm not going to say this is easy math, but it is very well understood math, and we have gotten very good at doing it. Give each rod a controllable solid booster so it can perform its own de-orbit burn and a scramjet for in-atmosphere corrections/acceleration, put the carrier in a polar orbit, call it a day.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Give each rod a controllable solid booster so it can perform its own de-orbit burn and a scramjet for in-atmosphere corrections/acceleration, put the carrier in a polar orbit, call it a day
But thats the point.You can achieve exactly the same thing by a terrestrial launch - at a zillionth of the cost/hassle
1 year ago
Anonymous
You can deliver a large payload, globally, quickly, without any of the signatures that are associated with a nuclear launch? No, you can't.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It isn't a very large payload unless you use rods that are too heavy to feasibly launch
It isn't actually faster than ICBMS without using so many satellites that it would be prohibitively expensive
And satellites are extremely easy to track + reentry vehicles are very much visible
Literally everything about it is worse than ICBMS, and we already have ICBMS.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You aren't factoring in the political costs. Irradiating someone with a nuke is far less acceptable to the world community than dropping a heavy inert object on them.
1 year ago
Anonymous
And we can already do that acceptably well with cruise missiles
If we want to blow something up somewhere in the world we don't need a mad scientist level satellite network that would require an Apollo program level investment
It just isn't a good idea for so many reasons
1 year ago
Anonymous
Exactly
You can deliver a large payload, globally, quickly, without any of the signatures that are associated with a nuclear launch? No, you can't.
A satellite in polar orbit would be extremely vulnerable. It’s not something you can reasonably hide and it’s motion is generally very predictable
>You can’t just drop something, you’d have to fire it - but in most cases it would also have a significant horizontal velocity relative to the atmosphere/earth, not just heading straight down
I'm not going to say this is easy math, but it is very well understood math, and we have gotten very good at doing it. Give each rod a controllable solid booster so it can perform its own de-orbit burn and a scramjet for in-atmosphere corrections/acceleration, put the carrier in a polar orbit, call it a day.
Solid rockets suck at that scale. They can’t be throttled or shut down and relighted. They do in fact degrade at an unacceptable rate for this kind of thing.
>Satellites aren’t just abstractly floating above earth.
Artillery batteries have been taking the Coriolis effect into consideration since 1916 and they had to do the math by hand. And with sixty years experience of launching satellites and firing intercontinental ballistic missiles, science has a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics.
Yeah and orbital mechanics is pretty restrictive once you’re actually in orbit. You can’t just casually change orbits, not to a significant amount, certainly not discreetly, not without aero surfaces on the vehicle itself - which is basically the only advantage of a spaceplane.
The idea was that it'd be an incredibly effective non-nuclear bunker buster that wouldn't be detectable by existing missile launch warning systems or be easily confused for a nuclear strike, and you could hit ANYWHERE on Earth in less than 15 minutes (half an ICBM's flight time). You can't do any of that with a conventional ballistic missile.
Yeah and it wouldn’t work at that.
>what you are describing would have far more mass than the entire ISS
The ISS weights more than 50 tons, anon.
On top of what the others said, this thing would be moronicly easy to spot and to target. You’d have to regularly refuel it because you can’t just do electric thrusters for something that big which needs to be that precise. It’s simply speaking not practical
It becomes much more practical if, say, you are already in space and have the ability to process asteroids and manufacture things from them, and aren’t particularly fussed about where on the planet you hit with any given projectile. At that point it’s basically just a very big kinetic kill projectile and one of those that is big enough doesn’t need to be precise
1 year ago
Anonymous
>A satellite in polar orbit would be extremely vulnerable. It’s not something you can reasonably hide and it’s motion is generally very predictable
It can be as predictable and visible as it wants, you aren't going to intercept it during its acceleration phase because you won't have time, and what the hell are you going to do to a big chunk of heat-resistant ceramic and depleted uranium that's de-orbiting? You gonna nuke it? That's cute, nukes are just radiation bombs in space. Little flashbangs with tiny effective distances, much less against that. And you know what happens? You know the worst part?
It only gets worse. It only falls faster. It only gets harder to stop.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The satellite is visible you moron not the payload. Christ on the cross
>Satellites aren’t just abstractly floating above earth.
Artillery batteries have been taking the Coriolis effect into consideration since 1916 and they had to do the math by hand. And with sixty years experience of launching satellites and firing intercontinental ballistic missiles, science has a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You are still better off just using long-range missiles, even if you assume that said rod works as intended.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The idea was that it'd be an incredibly effective non-nuclear bunker buster that wouldn't be detectable by existing missile launch warning systems or be easily confused for a nuclear strike, and you could hit ANYWHERE on Earth in less than 15 minutes (half an ICBM's flight time). You can't do any of that with a conventional ballistic missile.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>The idea was that it'd be an incredibly effective non-nuclear bunker buster that wouldn't be detectable by existing missile launch warning systems or be easily confused for a nuclear strike, and you could hit ANYWHERE on Earth in less than 15 minutes (half an ICBM's flight time)
At the time he came with the idea it cost U$150.000.000,00 a pop minimum, hell even today it would cost +U$20.000.000,00.
Also, you wouldn't be able to hit anywhere on Earth unless the satellite carrying the rod goes just above it, because of the way orbital mechanics work.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you wouldn't be able to hit anywhere on Earth unless the satellite carrying the rod goes just above it, because of the way orbital mechanics work.
Orbital mechanics do not, in fact, work that way.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you wouldn't be able to hit anywhere on Earth unless the satellite carrying the rod goes just above it
I'll take "Polar Orbit" for $400, Alex
1 year ago
Anonymous
> I'll take "Polar Orbit" for $400, Alex
So you have to wait upwards to 12 hours to hit your target?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why would they use just one satellite?
1 year ago
Anonymous
So now instead of one absurdly expensive, fragile weapon platform, you have MULTIPLE absurdly expensive, fragile weapons platforms. That don’t really do much more than a Tomahawk or MOP can do.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If you are using multiple satellites, what is the point of a polar orbit that makes it useless for 90% of the time?
1 year ago
Anonymous
The idea is to be able to lunch an undetectable preemptive strike on an enemy force. The problem is submarines mean that even if you take out 100% of silos an air bases you're still getting nuked.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>even today it would cost +U$20.000.000,00.
I see you've never seen what the military spends on shit
RfG are very dumb because what you are describing would have far more mass than the entire ISS and is entirely impractical to launch let alone maintain station in orbit. You would need a huge number of these to approach the launch to impact times of existing ICBMs and the ultimate performance would be less than ICBMS. They are just bad
>what you are describing would have far more mass than the entire ISS
The ISS weights more than 50 tons, anon.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Bud you are describing something carrying multiple rods "several times thicker than telephone poles" and "filled with depleted uranium," that's gonna be a hell of a lot more than 50 tons
1 year ago
Anonymous
A single one of the poles you are talking about would weigh nearly 50 tons, any satellite carrying multiples will quickly surpass the ISS which weighs 460 tons and that doesn't account for any station keeping engines or propellant on the satellite which would be critical, all so you can have something that performs worse than an ICBM
It's not like a shell moron, it's just the air/gasses caught in Earth's gravity field. It causes drag when the object getting close starts going through it. A sphere would be the most likely object to not burn up by impact. The rods are likely just due to them being easier to shoot accurately, and their design goes through the railgun better. I get how a rod words through it but not sure how a sphere would.
Force equals mass times acceleration fren, an object with the same mass and the least amount of surface area for drag resistance is going to reach a much faster speed upon impact.
In f=ma, for a constant ~9.8m/s^2 gravitational acceleration, mass increases the force delivered on impact. It does not accelerate to higher velocities.
Or riveting, basically modern day coat of plates. I assume there'd be some structural weakness issues or spalling concerns about the rivets. That, or whereas in the past material was expensive but manpower was cheap so making a lot of little plate bits was easy peasy now it's materials are cheaper and manpower isn't as necessary as skilled labor so it may just be easier to make a big ceramic plate. Since replacement is: >Go and unseal your coat of ceramic plates, replace broken ones ,worry about structural integrity of the rest of them
versus >Your plate broke buy a new one you're the US military or other well funded apparatus this shit is peanuts.
I didn't think of spalling, good call, though as you said, it could probably be light enough for the anti-spall liner to catch it. Also, it would probably get caught in the other scales anyway.
https://i.imgur.com/pTKxSOs.jpg
[...]
wasn't it kind of surpassed by the CIWS?
No. Higher ROF on metal storm. It would be effective for CIWS shit, the problem is cost, slow reloading, and much lower barrel speeds on initial rounds.
As anon said, it will likely see some single-tube applications.
>In f=ma, for a constant ~9.8m/s^2 gravitational acceleration, mass increases the force delivered on impact. It does not accelerate to higher velocities.
Air resistance applies a negative acceleration vector in the opposite direction of gravity, resulting in a net acceleration less than 9.8m/s^2. Hence why parachutes work. A sphere will have more surface area than a spear shape of equal volume resulting in a greater negative acceleration vector and a lower net acceleration.
You can also think of it as PE=mgh but enegry is lost due to friction against the atmosphere.
Right, I understand drag. The point that acceleration doesn't increase with mass still stands.
> A sphere will have more surface area than a spear shape of equal volume resulting in a greater negative acceleration vector and a lower net acceleration.
Terminal velocity is higher with rod over sphere. The trick is to get as much mass going as fast as possible. The surface area doesn't matter. It's the kinetic energy.
Why are they always depicted as rods, wouldn't you want to drop spheres or something for maximum surface area when it impacts? Rods would go straight into the ground.
the words of the day are "sectional density"
Its a rod because a rod allows you to have the most mass with the least air resistance on the way down and its naturally stable in descent, all it needs is some fins on one end.
[...]
Rods from god are moronic and wouldn’t work. Satellites aren’t just abstractly floating above earth. They’re in orbit, which means moving very quickly and predictably. You can’t just drop something, you’d have to fire it - but in most cases it would also have a significant horizontal velocity relative to the atmosphere/earth, not just heading straight down. GSO has its own problems
you can absolutely just drop it if you drop it at the precisely correct time. the whole point of an ultra dense long rod with a thin profile is to minimize atmospheric drag. All that needed is a calculated trajectory and a slight push out of orbit at precisely the right place and time, thats achieved with a relatively small motor. I mean shit this can be done EASILY in kerbal space program by children, you think DoD can't make it work?
You make something dense enough and outside factors stop having much effect on its momentum, Rod from God/Project thor was all about exploiting this to make a clean, relatively cheap and completely unstoppable weapon, because at the end of the day its just a massive chuck of metal falling out of the sky. Theres frickall that can be done about it because you need so much energy to alter its course and you have minutes at best to deliver it.
There is absolutely nothing cheap about putting a satellite loaded with 30-50 ton rods into orbit
A whole ass delta IV heavy can only bring 30 tons to LEO and the kind of rods you have described ITT would weigh that much each
Each delta IV heavy costs $350M btw so rather than put up a state of the art spy satellite, you want to put up a big dumb telephone pole of ceramic and DU so you can drop it on an extremely limited range of targets at not-very-short notice because you can neither afford nor logistically maintain a fleet of launchers
Downscaling the reentry vehicles to the point where you could (1-2 ton rods) would result in embarrassingly poor performance compared to vastly cheaper conventional munitions.
A JASSM is $1.2M, you can sling 300 of those for the price of a single Delta IV heavy launch to put one of your dumb rods into a single orbit with limited coverage
Please go into KSP yourself and try this because it's very underwhelming
>It was a ram-air turbine that drove an electric generator. The electricity from this was used to power the radio and some of the flight instruments, like the gyroscopic compass for example.
>Crewed missiles
And you used the Me-163 as the picrel, not the X-20 Dyna-Soar, a literal crewed Titan III missile? Pathetic.
Fun fact: Before Neil Armstrong joined NASA he had been selected for two different USAF manned space programs. He was one of nine astronauts selected in 1958 for the "Man In Space Soonest" program which hoped to beat the Soviet Union in putting the first man into space. Then in 1960, he was named as one of the seven initial pilots of the X-20 Dyna-Soar orbital bomber/reconnaissance spaceplane. He ended up flying on the Gemini 8 and Apollo 11 missions. Afaik, he holds the record for "most selections for a manned space program" with four.
israelites unironically killed the project because they wanted more congressional money for THAAD and Arrow/ David’s sling weapons.
An aerial platform is the perfect utilization of Laser weapons since range is extended by the thinner altitude. >INB4 too ineffective and costly
I have yet to see any anti-ballistic missile system with a success rate justifying their immense cost. The project got fricked by defense sequester cuts that killed research.
Bombers on flattops got canned because the USAF got their panties in a twist and complained that only they should have the ability to operate strategic bombers and the US government agreed and forever consigned to use only fighters and strike aircraft.
How do you refit a slowly melting conglomerate of ice and sawdust? Go drive in circles at the north pole while navies shoot sawdust slurry cannons at your mega ship?
Was this actually considered as something the military thought of trying or was it just something the intern came up with that nobody actually took seriously?
They went so far as having built a 60 ft model on a lake in Canada. The model gained interest but by the time that was done Britain and the US decided that they would be better served putting those funds into conventional weapons than an experimental ice island.
They built the islands to extend their territorial waters, and thus, influence in the region. The fact that they can stick military shit on them is just a happy coincidence.
Siemens Torpedo Glider comes to mind. Why yes, I would like an air-launched, guided cruise missile in World War 1, thank you for asking >canceled due to end of war
>An alternate history scenario where Kaiser wins, the Cold War starts 25 years early, and instead of nuclear ballistic missiles, the German-American arms race involves poison gas cruise missiles.
World War 1 had all kinds of stuff that just kind of vanished until late WW2 or the Cold War. While this one doesn't have active guidance, it is a cruise missile capable of striking targets over the horizon autonomously
this company going out of business made me sad
i remember the CEO doing the reveal or whatever and he was so excited and said "i really hope people like the gun"
i imagine he was crushed when people did not like the gun
I assume expense/complexity that didn't really make it better.
KRISS has done a lot of 'should be a thing but didn't happen'. It's a bit like when they said they could reduce the weight of the M2 by 50% and recoil by up to 90% and it was probably because they'd either make it so expensive it isn't worth it or make the measuring for the recoil not actually measure it properly.
Do you mean picrel? It's the AAI Elevated Kinetic Energy Vehicle, which was part of a program to replace the M551 Sheridan. It used the ARES XM274 which was a 75mm autocannon designed by Eugene Stoner that had a rate of fire of 70(!) rounds per minute.
Do you mean picrel? It's the AAI Elevated Kinetic Energy Vehicle, which was part of a program to replace the M551 Sheridan. It used the ARES XM274 which was a 75mm autocannon designed by Eugene Stoner that had a rate of fire of 70(!) rounds per minute.
Ares was also flogging a towed XM274 anti-tank gun for a while, including a version where a single operator could remotely control an entire battery.
Metal Storm is STILL around owned by another company. last i heard they were developing an apparently actually useful 3 shot mgl, and adapting their tech for bushfire fighting.
I always thought these things might have worked great as like a smoke discharger or multi shot flare system for vehicles,
>I solve practical problems! >For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean wild-fire from tearin' me a structurally superfluous new behind? >The answer? Use a gun. And if that don't work, use more gun. >Like this, heavy-caliber tripod-mounted little-old-number designed by me. Built, by me. And you best hope... >Not pointed at you.
So massively moronic that even the fricking Navy smacked down the wiener-gobblers that were pushing it.
Every attack sub skipper alive had a boner the size and rigidity of a torpedo at the thought of putting one into one of those floating armories full of high explosives.
I'm surprised no one else has tried. Is the technology really doomed to fail? Why aren't we all running arrow with caseless ammo?
I imagine I'd make ammo much cheaper too.
Bullet cases are most useful as heat sinks. Caseless ammo builds up heat in the chamber until it's hot enough to cook off the next round fed from the magazine, and then the whole mag runs away. It will be hard to get around that until chamber cooling tech dramatically improves without water jackets.
while this was the issue with the G11, it wasn't an issue at all for the LSAT, mostly because the LSAT is an open bolt weapon, all report done during test were positive about it
What was the point of it anyways? I just remember stumbling upon it when I was looking for funky weapons I didn't know yet. I still haven't really figured out how that thing is supposed to work
The Shrike upper from Ares > early 2000s > any day now > yeah, taking deposits > real soon > uh design improvement, slight delay
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I saw one at Knob Creek and the SAR show in Phoenix and almost put down cash. Glad I didn't.
Mack
:,^(
i miss him bros
what ever happened to dragon skin?
They ended with Dragon Cum and made high profit
The glue that held the plates together melts in the heat.
The heat of the plates cooks the glue?
Sun hot
don't fly too close to the sun
Oh no that’s the only glue substance in existence, pack it up boys we’re out of business.
That’s like if Eugene Stoner and Armalite committed sudoku when countries said they’d be more interested in an intermediate caliber version.
Its worse than that. Its like stopping at Bakelite when you want a plastic gun.
WELP ITS UNPOSSIBLE!
Company went bankrupt because they couldn't figure out the adhesive problem.
Sounds like bullshit to me. There are plenty of adhesives that would work nowadays, you can even spend a million and get a custom patented glue that does every fricking thing you want.
Im not saying that they didnt say that, but i highly doubt thats really why.
Agreed. They could wire the plates together if they really had to.
Or riveting, basically modern day coat of plates. I assume there'd be some structural weakness issues or spalling concerns about the rivets. That, or whereas in the past material was expensive but manpower was cheap so making a lot of little plate bits was easy peasy now it's materials are cheaper and manpower isn't as necessary as skilled labor so it may just be easier to make a big ceramic plate. Since replacement is:
>Go and unseal your coat of ceramic plates, replace broken ones ,worry about structural integrity of the rest of them
versus
>Your plate broke buy a new one you're the US military or other well funded apparatus this shit is peanuts.
It was because they were WAY too overenthusiastic about getting their military contract. They lied to the Air Force about having Level III certification, in the most moronic way possible. They had a verbal from the NIJ that they had passed the certification (even though the Army AND Air Force had shown they had a massive defect rate on delivery, mostly due to...you guessed it...the scales being fricked up). It's kind of like the MEG general. Lying about your certification to smoothbrained History Channel dipshits? GOOD. Lying to the DOD about having a body armor certification you didn't have on paper yet? BAD.
If the people at Pinnacle could have kept their dick in their pants for two seconds, they could have gotten the contracts completed and used that time to iron out the production issues. But they were too busy clout chasing and waving their bare asses at Interceptor that they lost their contract, and couldn't make ends meet selling it just to LEO's. They went bankrupt in 2010, and their lawsuit against NIJ was dismissed in '13.
Didn't live up to the hype when the armor was actually tested in a controlled environment. Instead of fixing the problems, the company spent money on advertising trying to convince the public the military was out to get them.
Adhesive issues others mentioned and people coming up with smarter lighter ways to achieve the same thing
Was also quite heavy.
It melted
Heavy and melted in the hot desert environments. You know the place they were marketing it to.
You could solve the problem by just making a nylon vest with like 100 pockets to place individual plates instead of using glue.
Company went bankrupt and the inventor opened up a new body armor company and he apparently solved the issues with the adhesive melting under hot temperatures since he now sells and improved version of Dragonskin's original concept. Stealth Armor Systems IIRC.
the front fell off
Machowicz isn't a israeli name fricking moron op in that thread as usual
for me its picrel
OH NO NO NO NOT HIM BROS
MY CHILDHOOD
He was born to a Catholic family tho and died a Buddhist priest.
didn't he start doing a punch of troony porn?
they were real in my dreams
I regret ever having started that absolutely pozzed moronic book series.
show on the dolly where the author touched you
I kinda feel sorry for guys like this. The mind virus they contracted online prevents them from ever having any innocent enjoyment. It must be a shitty way to live.
You can enjoy a gun, like say a MP40, without agreeing with the politics of the people who made it. Likewise you can enjoy a story without necessarily agreeing with the message the author is trying to convey. Especially if it's light holiday reading like that series was.
Still not reading your shitty book john.
whats wrong with the books?
The author is super libtarded, and sometimes that leeches into his books.
I like John Birmingham's works, but really have to suspend some disbelief when reading.
Consider reading Cruel Stars.
>nazi f-35 on front cover
They never get past me262. Also prince Harry is a badass SAS commando who kills Otto Skorzeny and the Hillary has an aircraft carrier named after her.
Those where fun books, might reread them
*fixed
>NATO
True 15 months ago. NATO and EU were going to disappear by themselves
Now Putin resurrect them and we will have NATO and EU a few generations more at least. And stronger.
Frick Putin. What the frick were you thinking?
It hurts bros
too fish for me but xm25 was sex
I still remember when every single videogame was featuring it
A buddy of mine has a sl8 and any time it's brought up he complains of how hard it has been for him to find a g36 kit. I keep telling him to just send it for the xm8 treatment since Tommy makes all those parts new, but he keeps deflecting
That’s a g36
My first airsoft gun was an xm8 kek
Even the airsoft xm8 was discontinued I think
Service history
In service 2010–present
Used by Royal Malaysian Navy
This. They landed the coveted Royal Malaysian Navy contract and didn't need anything else. Hardly a flop.
Where there is a failed future aesthetic assault rifle, Malaysia is there to give it the use it deserves. Never forget what they do for your favorite meme guns.
At least we still have it in MGS4.
Come on everyone, I know this is a fricking old-ass millenial board.
>Jerry Pournelle created the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.[8][9]
>that fricking cover
>the synopsis for the setting/premise
I will now read your book
you're in for a weird treat
damn I forgot they strapped shuttles to that thing, makes me want to read it again
it's good and worth reading. Also checkout Lucifer's Hammer, and More in God's Eye
Holy shit I have had a cropped cut out image of that elephant-like thing with the gun for ever with no context as to the source.
Someone used to spam it as a reaction image literal years ago and I had saved it.
Footfall is an awesome read. One of the authors has some weird cuck fetish though as every character seems to be in an unwittingly open relationship.
That's the Air Force for ya. Didn't bomber crews promise each other to take care of each others' wives, which eventually ended up in swinger orgies?
No one should ever have to justify a swinger's orgy.
Niven and Pournelle have several other books that are awesome. If you like Footfall you should check out A Mote in God's Eye and its sequel The Gripping Hand.
Imho, A Mote in God's Eye is one of the best sci-fi books ever written.
Also check out Legacy of Heorot if you like killing murderous alien beasts and breeding women. I do not reccomend the sequels, however.
>Someone used to spam it as a reaction image literal years ago and I had saved it.
You know what you just restarted right?
Space Barbar is about to bayonet that man and elephant dick his girl while he looks on breathing in his last pints of blood
I remember seeing this book at my grandma's house and being freaked out by the elephant alien thing.
Why are they always depicted as rods, wouldn't you want to drop spheres or something for maximum surface area when it impacts? Rods would go straight into the ground.
stabilization i guess? its got fins.
>Rods would go straight into the ground.
thats why they're better than nukes for nailing bunkers
>Rods would go straight into the ground.
That's the point
Subtle. Two internets points.
In today's world, I suspect that depleted uranium would be a strong contender. The originals were envisioned as titanium, if I recall that correctly. There are other possibilities should they provide unique properties to make their expense worth it. Titanium provides a lot of resistance to burning up (as do various ceramics & composites) in the atmosphere. Such things might be used as cladding to provide a heat shield for a core (such as uranium) to ensure the payload reaches the ground at 60 or 80 miles per second.
In a sense, it's a Good Thing that Rods From God wasn't implemented in the 1950s. Our understanding of how to effectively employ it today (and modify it with other concepts) is significantly evolved; such a system would be even more effective than originally envisioned by Dr. Pournelle.
The reason that "rods" (or "spears") was considered originally was to vastly reduce the air resistance compared to the mass delivered, using gravity as the main accelerator, and delivering them with precision in the 1 meter radius rage. They were also envisioned as being the size of telephone poles, in part to compensate for ablation due to atmospheric drag that would burn off some of the mass.
Today, we could make ceramic rods a dozen times thicker than a telephone pole that would be even more resistant to burning than titanium. Fill the core with depleted uranium and drop them with a hypersonic engine to give them an initial boost and they could reach ... well, frick if I know the upper velocity limits. 200 miles per second? More? The kinetic energy & penetration power of that dwarfs Dr. Pournelle's original vision.
One of those could be capable of a Meteor Crater event. Imagine having 20 permanent geostationary satellites with 50 each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater
Being as how you start in space, i think just some kind of solid motor on a gimble to get it going and point it should be enough to get stupid velocities.
I think the real issue is getting to be a coherent object at sea level at those speeds.
Rods from god are moronic and wouldn’t work. Satellites aren’t just abstractly floating above earth. They’re in orbit, which means moving very quickly and predictably. You can’t just drop something, you’d have to fire it - but in most cases it would also have a significant horizontal velocity relative to the atmosphere/earth, not just heading straight down. GSO has its own problems
the author of the concept worked as aerospace engineer for Boeing and as presidential science advisor for POTUS
Yeah and he was wrong + Boeing is gay. It has limited applications. Weapons in space pointing at earth are generally not very useful or practical until you start getting into the crazier theoretical stuff.
you're the one who thinks math doesn't exist
>thinks math doesn’t exist
Wut.
>oh no our projectile has inertia, this means our engineers will be unable to make it work
You are genuinely too stupid to understand the issues here holy shit.
dude use a fricking calculator?
hello?
The problem is not (solely) the calculations but the resistance and unequal forces and there’s issues with having the satellite be in a useful orbit in the first place because orbits are fairly complicated. All in all it’s just not a practical and useful weapon and though it’s possible it’s not… good.
dude did you even read the book
No I did not read a science fiction book
all the complaints against the system are made from perspective of the complaint maker being from a poor podunk backwater, literally
Geostationary satellites also exists. But the problems you outline could be solved with a rocket booster to launch, and a navigation module + control surfaces once it enters the atmosphere.
The real question is, is it worth the massive investment and r&d required to actually make it work.
When I say wouldn’t work I mean “wouldn’t be practical to make work”
>You can’t just drop something, you’d have to fire it - but in most cases it would also have a significant horizontal velocity relative to the atmosphere/earth, not just heading straight down
I'm not going to say this is easy math, but it is very well understood math, and we have gotten very good at doing it. Give each rod a controllable solid booster so it can perform its own de-orbit burn and a scramjet for in-atmosphere corrections/acceleration, put the carrier in a polar orbit, call it a day.
>Give each rod a controllable solid booster so it can perform its own de-orbit burn and a scramjet for in-atmosphere corrections/acceleration, put the carrier in a polar orbit, call it a day
But thats the point.You can achieve exactly the same thing by a terrestrial launch - at a zillionth of the cost/hassle
You can deliver a large payload, globally, quickly, without any of the signatures that are associated with a nuclear launch? No, you can't.
It isn't a very large payload unless you use rods that are too heavy to feasibly launch
It isn't actually faster than ICBMS without using so many satellites that it would be prohibitively expensive
And satellites are extremely easy to track + reentry vehicles are very much visible
Literally everything about it is worse than ICBMS, and we already have ICBMS.
You aren't factoring in the political costs. Irradiating someone with a nuke is far less acceptable to the world community than dropping a heavy inert object on them.
And we can already do that acceptably well with cruise missiles
If we want to blow something up somewhere in the world we don't need a mad scientist level satellite network that would require an Apollo program level investment
It just isn't a good idea for so many reasons
Exactly
A satellite in polar orbit would be extremely vulnerable. It’s not something you can reasonably hide and it’s motion is generally very predictable
Solid rockets suck at that scale. They can’t be throttled or shut down and relighted. They do in fact degrade at an unacceptable rate for this kind of thing.
Yeah and orbital mechanics is pretty restrictive once you’re actually in orbit. You can’t just casually change orbits, not to a significant amount, certainly not discreetly, not without aero surfaces on the vehicle itself - which is basically the only advantage of a spaceplane.
Yeah and it wouldn’t work at that.
On top of what the others said, this thing would be moronicly easy to spot and to target. You’d have to regularly refuel it because you can’t just do electric thrusters for something that big which needs to be that precise. It’s simply speaking not practical
It becomes much more practical if, say, you are already in space and have the ability to process asteroids and manufacture things from them, and aren’t particularly fussed about where on the planet you hit with any given projectile. At that point it’s basically just a very big kinetic kill projectile and one of those that is big enough doesn’t need to be precise
>A satellite in polar orbit would be extremely vulnerable. It’s not something you can reasonably hide and it’s motion is generally very predictable
It can be as predictable and visible as it wants, you aren't going to intercept it during its acceleration phase because you won't have time, and what the hell are you going to do to a big chunk of heat-resistant ceramic and depleted uranium that's de-orbiting? You gonna nuke it? That's cute, nukes are just radiation bombs in space. Little flashbangs with tiny effective distances, much less against that. And you know what happens? You know the worst part?
It only gets worse. It only falls faster. It only gets harder to stop.
The satellite is visible you moron not the payload. Christ on the cross
>Satellites aren’t just abstractly floating above earth.
Artillery batteries have been taking the Coriolis effect into consideration since 1916 and they had to do the math by hand. And with sixty years experience of launching satellites and firing intercontinental ballistic missiles, science has a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics.
You are still better off just using long-range missiles, even if you assume that said rod works as intended.
The idea was that it'd be an incredibly effective non-nuclear bunker buster that wouldn't be detectable by existing missile launch warning systems or be easily confused for a nuclear strike, and you could hit ANYWHERE on Earth in less than 15 minutes (half an ICBM's flight time). You can't do any of that with a conventional ballistic missile.
>The idea was that it'd be an incredibly effective non-nuclear bunker buster that wouldn't be detectable by existing missile launch warning systems or be easily confused for a nuclear strike, and you could hit ANYWHERE on Earth in less than 15 minutes (half an ICBM's flight time)
At the time he came with the idea it cost U$150.000.000,00 a pop minimum, hell even today it would cost +U$20.000.000,00.
Also, you wouldn't be able to hit anywhere on Earth unless the satellite carrying the rod goes just above it, because of the way orbital mechanics work.
>you wouldn't be able to hit anywhere on Earth unless the satellite carrying the rod goes just above it, because of the way orbital mechanics work.
Orbital mechanics do not, in fact, work that way.
>you wouldn't be able to hit anywhere on Earth unless the satellite carrying the rod goes just above it
I'll take "Polar Orbit" for $400, Alex
> I'll take "Polar Orbit" for $400, Alex
So you have to wait upwards to 12 hours to hit your target?
Why would they use just one satellite?
So now instead of one absurdly expensive, fragile weapon platform, you have MULTIPLE absurdly expensive, fragile weapons platforms. That don’t really do much more than a Tomahawk or MOP can do.
If you are using multiple satellites, what is the point of a polar orbit that makes it useless for 90% of the time?
The idea is to be able to lunch an undetectable preemptive strike on an enemy force. The problem is submarines mean that even if you take out 100% of silos an air bases you're still getting nuked.
>even today it would cost +U$20.000.000,00.
I see you've never seen what the military spends on shit
baffling post
RfG are very dumb because what you are describing would have far more mass than the entire ISS and is entirely impractical to launch let alone maintain station in orbit. You would need a huge number of these to approach the launch to impact times of existing ICBMs and the ultimate performance would be less than ICBMS. They are just bad
>what you are describing would have far more mass than the entire ISS
The ISS weights more than 50 tons, anon.
Bud you are describing something carrying multiple rods "several times thicker than telephone poles" and "filled with depleted uranium," that's gonna be a hell of a lot more than 50 tons
A single one of the poles you are talking about would weigh nearly 50 tons, any satellite carrying multiples will quickly surpass the ISS which weighs 460 tons and that doesn't account for any station keeping engines or propellant on the satellite which would be critical, all so you can have something that performs worse than an ICBM
You know there's this thing called an atmosphere, right?
It's not like a shell moron, it's just the air/gasses caught in Earth's gravity field. It causes drag when the object getting close starts going through it. A sphere would be the most likely object to not burn up by impact. The rods are likely just due to them being easier to shoot accurately, and their design goes through the railgun better. I get how a rod words through it but not sure how a sphere would.
>Rods would go straight into the ground.
Force equals mass times acceleration fren, an object with the same mass and the least amount of surface area for drag resistance is going to reach a much faster speed upon impact.
This is a subtle troll, right?
In f=ma, for a constant ~9.8m/s^2 gravitational acceleration, mass increases the force delivered on impact. It does not accelerate to higher velocities.
I didn't think of spalling, good call, though as you said, it could probably be light enough for the anti-spall liner to catch it. Also, it would probably get caught in the other scales anyway.
No. Higher ROF on metal storm. It would be effective for CIWS shit, the problem is cost, slow reloading, and much lower barrel speeds on initial rounds.
As anon said, it will likely see some single-tube applications.
>In f=ma, for a constant ~9.8m/s^2 gravitational acceleration, mass increases the force delivered on impact. It does not accelerate to higher velocities.
Air resistance applies a negative acceleration vector in the opposite direction of gravity, resulting in a net acceleration less than 9.8m/s^2. Hence why parachutes work. A sphere will have more surface area than a spear shape of equal volume resulting in a greater negative acceleration vector and a lower net acceleration.
You can also think of it as PE=mgh but enegry is lost due to friction against the atmosphere.
Right, I understand drag. The point that acceleration doesn't increase with mass still stands.
> A sphere will have more surface area than a spear shape of equal volume resulting in a greater negative acceleration vector and a lower net acceleration.
You might be quoting the wrong post.
>I understand drag
I bet you do, gay boy
Solid.
gottem
Lel
>what is Magnusson effect
imagine dropping a fatass tungsten ball and it curveballs across an entire continent kek
Imagine the US accidentally tungstening a bunch of random countries because it entirely missed hitting the Soviets and Chinese.
Terminal velocity is higher with rod over sphere. The trick is to get as much mass going as fast as possible. The surface area doesn't matter. It's the kinetic energy.
I appreciate the Tau'ri for naming this orbital weapon platform after me but I need your help with the replicators.
the words of the day are "sectional density"
Its a rod because a rod allows you to have the most mass with the least air resistance on the way down and its naturally stable in descent, all it needs is some fins on one end.
you can absolutely just drop it if you drop it at the precisely correct time. the whole point of an ultra dense long rod with a thin profile is to minimize atmospheric drag. All that needed is a calculated trajectory and a slight push out of orbit at precisely the right place and time, thats achieved with a relatively small motor. I mean shit this can be done EASILY in kerbal space program by children, you think DoD can't make it work?
You make something dense enough and outside factors stop having much effect on its momentum, Rod from God/Project thor was all about exploiting this to make a clean, relatively cheap and completely unstoppable weapon, because at the end of the day its just a massive chuck of metal falling out of the sky. Theres frickall that can be done about it because you need so much energy to alter its course and you have minutes at best to deliver it.
There is absolutely nothing cheap about putting a satellite loaded with 30-50 ton rods into orbit
A whole ass delta IV heavy can only bring 30 tons to LEO and the kind of rods you have described ITT would weigh that much each
Each delta IV heavy costs $350M btw so rather than put up a state of the art spy satellite, you want to put up a big dumb telephone pole of ceramic and DU so you can drop it on an extremely limited range of targets at not-very-short notice because you can neither afford nor logistically maintain a fleet of launchers
Downscaling the reentry vehicles to the point where you could (1-2 ton rods) would result in embarrassingly poor performance compared to vastly cheaper conventional munitions.
A JASSM is $1.2M, you can sling 300 of those for the price of a single Delta IV heavy launch to put one of your dumb rods into a single orbit with limited coverage
Please go into KSP yourself and try this because it's very underwhelming
crewed missiles
dang, that lil propeller powers that whole thing?
>It was a ram-air turbine that drove an electric generator. The electricity from this was used to power the radio and some of the flight instruments, like the gyroscopic compass for example.
Yup, it spins super fast to make up for its small diameter.
Imagine the torque they had to put on that rubber band to get to those speeds.
if it snapped during wind up, reportedly, it could send chunks of the pilot to orbit
>Crewed missiles
And you used the Me-163 as the picrel, not the X-20 Dyna-Soar, a literal crewed Titan III missile? Pathetic.
Fun fact: Before Neil Armstrong joined NASA he had been selected for two different USAF manned space programs. He was one of nine astronauts selected in 1958 for the "Man In Space Soonest" program which hoped to beat the Soviet Union in putting the first man into space. Then in 1960, he was named as one of the seven initial pilots of the X-20 Dyna-Soar orbital bomber/reconnaissance spaceplane. He ended up flying on the Gemini 8 and Apollo 11 missions. Afaik, he holds the record for "most selections for a manned space program" with four.
I wish a IL-2 would model this plane. I want to see what it was like shooting into the air like a rocket and landing on those dinky skids.
You could play War Thunder, I guess.
https://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/popular-science/20
^ interesting / kind of depressing scrolling through these. About 1/10th did end up a thing though, which is kind of cool.
israelites unironically killed the project because they wanted more congressional money for THAAD and Arrow/ David’s sling weapons.
An aerial platform is the perfect utilization of Laser weapons since range is extended by the thinner altitude.
>INB4 too ineffective and costly
I have yet to see any anti-ballistic missile system with a success rate justifying their immense cost. The project got fricked by defense sequester cuts that killed research.
>INB4 too ineffective and costly
Isn't this the defense procurement equivalent of "apart from that, how did you enjoy the parade, Mrs. Kennedy?"
Bombers on flattops got canned because the USAF got their panties in a twist and complained that only they should have the ability to operate strategic bombers and the US government agreed and forever consigned to use only fighters and strike aircraft.
Its the right choice. Strategic bombers off of a carrier would be full of compromises.
It hurts, but we had to let her go. Carriers can't really afford the hangar space for strategic bombers.
>ywn poop nukes over some pinko shithole
Its revenge for the navy not allowing the air corps to operate over water.
Anon, that carrier is made of ice. You're reacting to the wrong part.
How do you refit a slowly melting conglomerate of ice and sawdust? Go drive in circles at the north pole while navies shoot sawdust slurry cannons at your mega ship?
>Melting
The point is there are coolant loops inside the ice that keep it cool.
The only problem is the ship growing in size and odd shapes over time.
I want to see it for the lulz
Was this actually considered as something the military thought of trying or was it just something the intern came up with that nobody actually took seriously?
They went so far as having built a 60 ft model on a lake in Canada. The model gained interest but by the time that was done Britain and the US decided that they would be better served putting those funds into conventional weapons than an experimental ice island.
FRICK
imagine if this thing actually was real and sucessful
ice battleships...
Why isn't china making these instead of building fake islands in the ocean? Wouldn't it be a better use of their resources and projection of power?
They built the islands to extend their territorial waters, and thus, influence in the region. The fact that they can stick military shit on them is just a happy coincidence.
i could see metal storm making a comeback as an anti drone weapon on armored vehicles.
Nothing like having to reload it by mailing it back to the factory.
omg imagine this thing cutting down vatBlack folk in Donets Basin
wasn't it kind of surpassed by the CIWS?
no, the metalstorm is a dumb volcanic-pistol-style ammo system and the phalanx just uses ww2 era gatling gun with neat targetting.
This chunky fella
Checked. For all the money they've pissed away trying to replace the M4/M16 over the years they should have just fricking finished the OICW.
Siemens Torpedo Glider comes to mind. Why yes, I would like an air-launched, guided cruise missile in World War 1, thank you for asking
>canceled due to end of war
>An alternate history scenario where Kaiser wins, the Cold War starts 25 years early, and instead of nuclear ballistic missiles, the German-American arms race involves poison gas cruise missiles.
turd :DDDD
World War 1 had all kinds of stuff that just kind of vanished until late WW2 or the Cold War. While this one doesn't have active guidance, it is a cruise missile capable of striking targets over the horizon autonomously
Hudson H9
this company going out of business made me sad
i remember the CEO doing the reveal or whatever and he was so excited and said "i really hope people like the gun"
i imagine he was crushed when people did not like the gun
that russian power armor shit they were showing off a few years ago
>ratnik
you just can't make this shit up. the cope setup they went with is just
well kind of sad, actually
Rhodesia
these would be good to keep a mob at bay, like at at embassy or similar.
G
1
1
Lol, i used to jerk off to these vids when i was like 15. What happened?
never saw that plane before
Northrop YF-23
They promised me the Commanche ;(
Recoil bolt in the Vector Kriss .45.
Why did that one die. AEK whatever "balanced action" died too.
Anyone remember the US light tank concept that raises up to fire from behind cover / has a moving armor plate?
I assume expense/complexity that didn't really make it better.
KRISS has done a lot of 'should be a thing but didn't happen'. It's a bit like when they said they could reduce the weight of the M2 by 50% and recoil by up to 90% and it was probably because they'd either make it so expensive it isn't worth it or make the measuring for the recoil not actually measure it properly.
Still would have been nice to see.
Do you mean picrel? It's the AAI Elevated Kinetic Energy Vehicle, which was part of a program to replace the M551 Sheridan. It used the ARES XM274 which was a 75mm autocannon designed by Eugene Stoner that had a rate of fire of 70(!) rounds per minute.
Ares was also flogging a towed XM274 anti-tank gun for a while, including a version where a single operator could remotely control an entire battery.
Metal Storm is STILL around owned by another company. last i heard they were developing an apparently actually useful 3 shot mgl, and adapting their tech for bushfire fighting.
I always thought these things might have worked great as like a smoke discharger or multi shot flare system for vehicles,
>brushfight fighting
how? Put out the fire with lead?
>I solve practical problems!
>For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean wild-fire from tearin' me a structurally superfluous new behind?
>The answer? Use a gun. And if that don't work, use more gun.
>Like this, heavy-caliber tripod-mounted little-old-number designed by me. Built, by me. And you best hope...
>Not pointed at you.
No idea, i'd assume some system for firing Phos-Chek or similar moronants in more concentrated lines on the ground?
this stupid thing would only be useful on submunitions or elaborate claymores
>stupid thing
what if you mounted a pack of 1200 x 105mm APFSDS on an Abrams hull?
Arsenal Ships.
So massively moronic that even the fricking Navy smacked down the wiener-gobblers that were pushing it.
Every attack sub skipper alive had a boner the size and rigidity of a torpedo at the thought of putting one into one of those floating armories full of high explosives.
I'm surprised no one else has tried. Is the technology really doomed to fail? Why aren't we all running arrow with caseless ammo?
I imagine I'd make ammo much cheaper too.
Bullet cases are most useful as heat sinks. Caseless ammo builds up heat in the chamber until it's hot enough to cook off the next round fed from the magazine, and then the whole mag runs away. It will be hard to get around that until chamber cooling tech dramatically improves without water jackets.
So you're saying the rof increases the more you shoot?
while this was the issue with the G11, it wasn't an issue at all for the LSAT, mostly because the LSAT is an open bolt weapon, all report done during test were positive about it
> all report done during test were positive about it
Literally me in black ops 2
wasn't LSAT telescoped not caseless
The idea of bayoneting someone with a G11 seems so bizarre to me.
my hope hasn't died yet. one day, we will get portable plasma weapons
>Hey just what you see pal
Underrated post
Where are the rail guns? It's 2023 for Christ's sake.
Department of the Navy didn't request funding for them for FY2023 (2022?)
Program is dead
Before IEDs ruined the concept the army was pushing for ultra low profile vehicles.
Dragonscale armor would like a word with you
>Dragonscale armor
Dragon Skin you imbecilic shitball.
I hate siggers
XM7 contract is gonna be cancelled at less than 5% delivered resulting in a massive payout for the Sig execs.
lmao, did you actually take that Army Tmes article seriously?
It's fricking treason that this didn't win the bid.
The polymer ammo alone would have been a huge improvement to capabilities far beyond simply infantry rifles…
Return to tradition
What was the point of it anyways? I just remember stumbling upon it when I was looking for funky weapons I didn't know yet. I still haven't really figured out how that thing is supposed to work
The Shrike upper from Ares
> early 2000s
> any day now
> yeah, taking deposits
> real soon
> uh design improvement, slight delay
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I saw one at Knob Creek and the SAR show in Phoenix and almost put down cash. Glad I didn't.
just get a fightlite mcr
Then they would have to name it spaceballs