http://www.jiveturkeyjives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/lawnmower.gif

are we bad people?

Sweet weapon, brah

My cell would not post for whatever reason lol. Ok The American, Connecticut based helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky has embarked on a $1-billion program to produce the first pilotless combat helicopter. I think the prototype came out in 2011. Based on the company's woulds-famous black hawk aircraft. It is suppost to enter service in 2015 at a cost of $17.25 million each!

Dude, "Weapons of Tomorrow" should be the name of your boardgame!

Here is one that i can not vouch for if it is true or not. there is a weapon (a lazzior to be precise) that can burn through 23 feet of solid steel in just 3.5 seconds! Whether this is true or not i can not say. But if so imagine what that would do mounted on a aircraft! If it flew over a convoy there would be nothing left except dust, ashes and burnt mettal! It would be a BIG advantage on the battlefield if it were true.

Ha, yeah i can imagine a laser capable of doing that, but i can't imagine mounting it on a aircraft, I mean i've seen the labs with such machines, and while the laser could probably to made small and light enough to mount the power supply can not.

Melt 23 feet of solid steel... i can't find a figure for the energy required to vapourise a kg of steel... but i'm imagining these power supply is into mega/giga-wattts...

Yes at first that would present a problem. But i think over time it could be done. After all what is the name of this thread.

@ezra

3 problems with lasers on aircraft:

1) Size/Weight: Probably OK for a Chinook, but not a fighter
2) Power: I'm doubt very much a fighter could power such a laser
3) Distance: Light refracts/defracts/we through the atmosphere. Lasers that cut through metal like that are doing so a foot away, not from thousands of feet in the air.

Havent you ever heard of A10s or low flying aircraft? You are right about the weight and the energy source. That would just take time. But it can be done.

The idea has been around for quite some time, but because of bulk they're usually surface to air. There are some airborne protitypes, but up until now mainly aimed for (and suitable for) ballistic missile deterrence. Though, for sure, air to surface is soon to follow.

High-Energy-Laser is the term to google for. Here I found a nice overview.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL-Analysis.html#mozTocId931080

Umm...Low flying aircraft are a lot more than a foot off the ground, no?

Here is another one. Supposedly (and i cant varify this one either) but supposedly Russia has created a microrowave weapon that if you point it at objects it will basicly do the same thing a microwave does to food. It fries it. Now suposedly and again i dont know that this is true but Russia is to have tested it out on terrorists. Our boys came in and found them fryed from the inside out. Again this could just be another made up story. But the idea of the weapon itself is fesable. Oh and i think if this is true they did mount it on a helicoptor.

That's much more reasonable, actually. Still requires too much power for a plane, but certainly possible.

Yes but most arent thousands of feet off the ground either. As a matter of fact A10s fly really low and are extremely heavily armed with thick armer as well as firepower ment to attack ground units. Yes they arent a foot off the ground but their not so far off that it would not work. The problem i see is getting it all to fit in the plane.

Sure, but they are still hundreds of feet away, right? A smaller problem, for sure, but still 1 or 2 orders of magnitude than current lasers do.

Have you ever looked into propulsion? Were not quite as primitive as you may think. My sister knows more about it then what i do but from what i understood it is a very powerful energy.

"Have you ever looked into propulsion? Were not quite as primitive as you may think. My sister knows more about it then what i do but from what i understood it is a very powerful energy."

What???

Electromagneticpropulsion lol. excuse me for forgeting half of it. Maby that will make more sence.

Well, EMP is great for trains, but I've never heard of it for planes.

Two words that go with the misnamed EMP (should have been mag lev as that is what the trains are and EMP is electromagnetic pulse which takes out computer systems)
Anyhow: Rail Gun. Using magnetism to rapidly hurl a projectile.

I figured the acronym was clear given the context.

Rail guns are certainly possible. I'd still like to know how someone plans on using an EMP *ahem* Mag Lev to fly a plane...

It might be possible to spin a turbine silently with magentism. After all that is essentially what an electric motor is. If the brushless low friction magentic pulse ran throw the cowl then the blades of the turbine could be light weight enough to build upbgreat pressure and expel.it out the back like the supposed wormdrive on the sub in Hunt for Red October.

It wouldn't have the kind of thrust you'd get from.superheating pressurized air mixed with jet fuel, but for lightweight aircraft like AR drones, it would be potentially quiter than the brushless pusher motors they currently use andbthe ducted cowl is less radar exposed.

Rail guns use very high powered magnets and very high current flow to make what is effectively an electric motor with a single wire "rotor". The magnetic field pushes on the rotor accelerating it to very high "hypersonic" speeds - at least 5 times the speed of sound. The accelerations are huge, 600,000m/s^2. However, this requires truly enormous amounts of energy, not the amount generated by an aircraft engine but it's possible to generate those amounts with the power plant of a warship. One big advantage of rail guns would be that you don't need explosive ordinance, the rail gun doesn't need explosives to launch the projectile and there is no warhead - the target is damaged/destroyed by the kinetic energy released on impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

The idea behind Red October's "Caterpillar Drive" was that it passed a very high electrical current through sea water inside a tube running the length of the boat and used super-conductor (i.e. very powerful) magnets to "push" on the sea water in the same way that it would on a wire that had a current flowing through it. This idea overcomes one of the big bug-bears for submarines - noise caused by the vibration of moving parts - and a propeller shaft and motor can vibrate a lot. Having a caterpillar drive does away with those moving parts. A caterpillar drive wouldn't work in air - air doesn't conduct electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_drive

Here is one for you. We are already using a primitive version of Robots in combat. The first use of robots in combat were used in Afghanistan around July 2002. "Hermes," a wheeled robot fitted with cameras, a grenade launcher, and a shotgun. It was used to search a network of caves in Qiqay for enemy personnel and weaponry.

No, but the idea of using a cowl based magnetic propulsion system was similar in that it provides a bit of stealth by reducing air flow disturbance like a jet does and by not actually superheating the air amd combuating jet fuel, it would slso be quieter.

We could do a Web dip poll of how young people were when they moved out on thirty own. I know I was completely on my own at 21. Paid rent since 18 however.

Sorry wrong topic. Silly phone let me down.