Space Planes and Bombers

B

Blacktiger2005

Well-Known Member
Anyone have any information that could point me in the right direction on our government building and testing spaceplanes and spacebombers that can destroy any target on earth in short order. There is even a rumor that there is space based lasers on these things that can destroy missiles launched from the surface of the earth which is one of the things the Russians want to know more of what we have in missile defenses. Anybody?
 
Blacktiger2005 said:
Anyone have any information that could point me in the right direction on our government building and testing spaceplanes and spacebombers that can destroy any target on earth in short order. There is even a rumor that there is space based lasers on these things that can destroy missiles launched from the surface of the earth which is one of the things the Russians want to know more of what we have in missile defenses. Anybody?
Click to expand...


google

:o

AFAIK tho, there have been 'draw-ups' of moon-based military structures, such as bases. Fights over territory have been around since recorded history, so why should space be any different. Imagine what's going to occur when valuable minerals and fuels are discovered. Do you think everyone is going to be happy and just share everything, 50/50?

As for the space bombers (and this thread topic in general), if you look at some X-planes that can go into suborbital space, they resemble fighter craft. I would not doubt that someone at NASA, right at this moment, is thinking of ways to implement WDS (weapons delivery systems) onto them. The BIGGEST advantage of a bomber at such altitudes above earth, is that their PoK (probability of kill) from a surface-to-air missile (a pilot's worse nightmare), will steadily decrease, as SAMs have specific flight ceilings (example, 50,000 ft Above ground level), and can't go beyond them. A bomb, on the other hand, has no flight ceiling. They just require guidance onto a target. Anyone who's seen spy satellite imagery, knows how sophisticated targeting systems and imaging can be.

During the time of the SR-71 blackbird, speed was the key to escaping SAMs (this thing was literally faster than a missile). During modern day times, stealth is the key. In the future, it'll be altitude. Simply go vertical until the missile dies out, lol.
 
Blacktiger2005 said:
Thanks again pettyofficerj.
Click to expand...

honestly

i do find myself reading about different manufacturers, weapons, aircraft, ordnance etc. It's kind of a hobby. I'm not a war monger, but I'm fascinated at the technicality of everything involved. For instance, there are 'cluster' bombs, that actually survey the battlefield, to gravitate towards hostile targets for high PoK. All of this happens without someone operating them. Pretty neat.
 
pettyofficerj said:
honestly

i do find myself reading about different manufacturers, weapons, aircraft, ordnance etc. It's kind of a hobby. I'm not a war monger, but I'm fascinated at the technicality of everything involved. For instance, there are 'cluster' bombs, that actually survey the battlefield, to gravitate towards hostile targets for high PoK. All of this happens without someone operating them. Pretty neat.
Click to expand...
I also find this very interesting. PO, I'm glad you're up on game, we might learn something.
 
Intriguedone said:
I also find this very interesting. PO, I'm glad you're up on game, we might learn something.
Click to expand...

honestly

you have to keep up with the times

in the old days, native americans were going up against guys with guns, cannons and armor (in the days of the Spanish explorers like Cortez), while using bows and arrows (now look what happened to them)

even if you don't like war, it's still good to know about it, to better defend against it..

'a good defense, is a good offense'

another good example of technological advantage is night vision. That definitely tips the scales of night-fighting, into the hands of the people with that equipment.

oh yeah, let's not forget about the theory behind 'bunker busting.' A simple thing as delaying the fusing on a warhead, allowing it to penetrate a hardened structure with it's tip, so that it can explode inside and destroy everything.....versus having a warhead detonate on impact, on the exterior, with most of the force of the blast being unfocused
 
pettyofficerj said:
honestly

you have to keep up with the times

in the old days, native americans were going up against guys with guns, cannons and armor (in the days of the Spanish explorers like Cortez), while using bows and arrows (now look what happened to them)

even if you don't like war, it's still good to know about it, to better defend against it..

'a good defense, is a good offense'

another good example of technological advantage is night vision. That definitely tips the scales of night-fighting, into the hands of the people with that equipment.

oh yeah, let's not forget about the theory behind 'bunker busting.' A simple thing as delaying the fusing on a warhead, allowing it to penetrate a hardened structure with it's tip, so that it can explode inside and destroy everything.....versus having a warhead detonate on impact, on the exterior, with most of the force of the blast being unfocused
Click to expand...
Very good point. I'm not a war-hawk, but I'm a proponent of healthy defense spending. The U.S. wouldn't be where it is today if we didn't stay 'ahead of the curve' in terms of weapons/defense technology. Whether people like it or not, it's the reality.
 
it is

a country needs to spend dollars on its military

or you end up on the receiving end of an invasion, a la Iraq

:p

seriously

I remember the Iraqi armored corps fortifying their positions with sandbags, only to have Apaches (army helicopter) using their missile systems, to take them out. The pilots were on a military show teasing the Iraqis, for using such an old tactic, against a modern helicopter. The Apache has missile modes, which allows it to fire behind cover, such as a mountain or trees. The fired missile does a steep climb and comes down on top of its target. Generally, when fortifying a tank position, you put barriers in front and on the sides of a tank, which is good for frontal engagements versus armor or infantry. A tactic like that would have worked in the past (when helicopters weren't as sophisticated), but since they were unable to keep up with modern times, they ended up losing tons of equipment like that.
 
pettyofficerj said:
it is

a country needs to spend dollars on its military

or you end up on the receiving end of an invasion, a la Iraq

:p

seriously

I remember the Iraqi armored corps fortifying their positions with sandbags, only to have Apaches (army helicopter) using their missile systems, to take them out. The pilots were on a military show teasing the Iraqis, for using such an old tactic, against a modern helicopter. The Apache has missile modes, which allows it to fire behind cover, such as a mountain or trees. The fired missile does a steep climb and comes down on top of its target. Generally, when fortifying a tank position, you put barriers in front and on the sides of a tank, which is good for frontal engagements versus armor or infantry. A tactic like that would have worked in the past (when helicopters weren't as sophisticated), but since they were unable to keep up with modern times, they ended up losing tons of equipment like that.
Click to expand...
Damn! It's a simple concept, yet advanced technology. I hope we stay ahead of the curve. I know they wanted to redirect defense spending to Guerilla warfare, but I sure hope we're staying ahead of the game in regards to "Star Wars" technology. China didn't send a Defense satelite into space for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom