|
|
Post by Boyd Percy on Mar 17, 2017 15:39:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Mar 17, 2017 20:04:24 GMT -5
They're still trying for a hard kill rather than going after the electronics -- at least, that's what they're talking about. I was trying for something that seemed reasonably logical to develop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lou williams on Mar 17, 2017 22:33:04 GMT -5
Having worked in electronics and aerospace in my younger days I think your weapon would be more effective. In the early 70's I was envoled in testing the emp hardness of minuteman missile control systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ernest Bywater on Mar 19, 2017 7:31:49 GMT -5
Even if it turns out too hard to come up with a suitable total destruction weapons carried by a single person, the electronic approach should result in one that's capable of doing sufficient damage to locating sensor system to stop and airborne system from working well enough to target troops on the ground. The problem with the Lockheed-Martin system is it's vehicle based, and thus very restricted in where it can go and how it can be sued. Vehicle based weapons are great for bases, but next to useless for most small field operations due to not being able to move in all terrain the way human carried weapons can.
On aspect of the whole laser idea I'm not sure is being carried forward or if it is it's being done behind closed doors, is the earlier such weapons were MASERS that used microwaves, and they got dropped for LASERS for a number of reasons - mostly fine control and power. However, advances in those areas in the last 50 plus years means they should be revisted because those problems are very likely to have benn solved. Yet, too many people are still focussed on the LASERS due to the research 25 to 45 years ago wandering off in that direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Mar 19, 2017 8:13:05 GMT -5
The other day I happened across a news item stating that the US Air Force is talking about developing a propeller driven subsonic fighter for ground support in places where other fighters are unlikely to show up. Might I suggest that the plans for the P-40 or F4F must still exist somewhere? Although the radios might take a hit from a Butterfly, the plane wouldn't even notice it.
Along that line, when the "sequester" went into effect a couple of years ago, the Air Force had to stop doing flyovers before NASCAR races. The warbird people stepped into the breach. It must have been thrilling to be at a race and see a flyover of six P-51s, or the one remaining flyable B-29! Most people today do not realize the significance of those aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill C. on Apr 13, 2017 21:09:47 GMT -5
If it's for ground support, how about the P-47? We could be operating the Thunderbolt and the Thunderbolt 2 at the same time, and people might actually use the A-10's official name once in a while.
|
|
