![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Pretty sure that laZor just hit a mirror and fired back at you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://insulatorz.home.att.net/argon2.jpg |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
PEW PEW PEW ! thats a rocking 747!
|
Quote:
They are trying to tag the primary fuel tank... Cause it to rupture, and detonate in mid air. They have determined even if the tanks exploded, it wouldn't be enough to trigger the nuclear warheads. They would however get launched far off of their planned trajectory.. Landing who knows where, which is the big problem with this idea. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm to lazy to look it up and you guys probably know more about this than I do... on the military channel, I saw a special where in every single test done with an ATL it was a 100% successful kill.
The question to me is, why isnt this technology on our aircrafts now? |
Quote:
Lets try shooting what its 'designed' to kill... A High speed, climbing ICBM in the atmosphere... |
Quote:
|
chris the PEW PEW PEW was in reference to the ATL. that's supposed to be against hostile ground forces, no?
and yes, i know it was a megawatt laser, i was just having fun with words XD |
Quote:
Quote:
Let's not forget the PATRIOT SAM system also has a '100%' kill ratio lol That couldn't be further from the truth... 2. The reason why is because we spent $1.1Bil just to develop the IDEA of this aircraft, and make sure it could even fly... Nothing was mentioned of if it would actually work or not. "In 1996, the Department of Defense awarded Team ABL a $1.1bn Programme Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) contract for the development and test of an airborne laser weapon system." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
High power laser weapon from airborne laser platform defeats ground target in flight test - Military & Aerospace Electronics
^ 100% kill rate, yup. 1/1 stationary vehicles. programming a target acquisition system to that amount of detail is going to be a MONSTROUS task. atmospheric interference along with the sheer difference in velocities and trajectories, topography, etc...that's a lot of variables to account for. it's a great science fiction idea that has been implemented in reality, but it really isn't worth it. |
wonder what the effect on the atmosphere would be if you tried to detonate a nuclear warhead while it's still waaaay up there, near its zenith?
hey, am i using the word zenith correctly O_o; |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
yay ^___^
and i understand the possibility (high one at that) of triggering a huge EMP burst, but i'm just thinking environmentally that's not gonna be fun. i don't know if the fallout would be necessarily less; it'll all start coming down as precipitation instead! NOTE though, aren't the ATL and ABL different programs? the YAL-1A is a separate installation than the one I read for the ATL, which was installed on a C-130 |
heys guys
|
Quote:
Thats like the E-3 Sentry, and the E-8 JSTARS lol |
shh triples, we're having technobabble in here!
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
ok, I'll just make some popcorn!
|
:eek: :icon14:
|
Quote:
|
anyhow, my oral surgeon has called and told me to start driving to the office for my lil' checkup. back later tonight, maybe.
see ya! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
ok Im back. Had to get some work done. =) I read through so Im caught up lol. Yeah I know Im making up for missed time
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2