Brett's weapons of 2017.

Now i want to make a assault weapon for soldiers that does not miss. this will use thermal targeting to find the target, and, change course to get to that target.

What we have to work with is heat seeking missiles, but, getting all that stuff into a bullet or round seems impossible. therefore, we will use 'a cold bullet' that is attracted to heat, let's call it the 'mosquito?'

The way mosquitoes seek heat is with tiny feelers for sensing 'hot carbon,' this is what we breathe out, and, somehow, the fuels in our exhaled breath is like farts from our mouths, they reek of 'burned or used fuels.'

This means they need to, to detect the breath the mosquitoes do, have artificial feelers that are replicated of the mosquito insect type. then, thy need a steering mechanism to get it there, of course. this can be done to some degree with little fins on the bullet that will reflex to the turning of the feelers, like a mechanism or gear, yes?

 

And when every weapon cost a couple million dollars and a magazine the price of a BMW, you are not going to be able to afford enough soldiers to stop them from being overwhelmed by horses of guys with $30 AK's.

 

First of all, the weapons will be the same price with a different firing mechanism. gunpowder may still be used at it's minimal pricing too.

Then, the bullets will be the only thing changed, with a simple mould for the bullet they will cost a few dozen cents, even with the feelers and fins.

 

Remember back when AK-47's were free for anyone as long as you supported communism and were willing to kill the imperialist Yankee's ?

I digress.

It's like the U.S. Navy's Zumwalt class destroyer with it's 155 mm "Advance Gun System" We now have a couple of Zumwalt destroyers that hasn't any ammunition for the 155 mm guns because each round cost $800,000.

A typical conventional HE 155 mm round cost the taxpayers $750 each.

Kinda like how we use UAV's (droans) today spending $20,000 on one Hellfire missile to kill one bad guy when a .25 cent bullet can accomplish the same thing.

 

It's not sc-fi and it's on DARPA's drawing board.

But what happens when the outdoors air temp is 98.6 F. or higher ?

I've been aboard LE helicopters that were equipped with inferred cameras on warm summer nights. During the day time it was 100 degrees or higher. At night anything that absorbed heat during the daytime like manhole covers, cars, lamp post any thing that is metal and even concrete and asphalt that hasn't cooled off shows up on the screen you can't even detect a human body from everything else that is being displayed on the screen.

 

The AGS is going to get replaced with railguns anyways.

 

You are aware that the Zumwalt destroyer ( DDG-1000 ) contract was canceled after only two being built and one more still under construction.

The Zumwalt is the perfect example how not to build warships.

Re: Railgun

The railgun primary mission was to provide NSFS for the Marine Corps. It's not capable of fulfilling that mission. Unable to hit reverse slopes, no air burst capability for area targets like enemy troops in the open, no illumination rounds, unable to provide multi gun salvos. etc. etc.

But as we have seen over and over, weapons platforms are developed for one mission and end up being better at other missions that the weapons platform was never intended for like the A-10 Warthog. Originally designed for killing tanks during air/ground interdiction missions and the A-10 turns out being the second best CAS aircraft to ever to be deployed. ( A-1 Skyraider still holds on to the # 1 CAS aircraft ever flown in combat.)

The railgun maybe the answer for having a naval gun for surface warfare. Todays little 5"/54 pop guns can't sink warships.

Back in March this was released for Congress but I haven't gotten around reading the entire report.

Document: Report to Congress on Navy Laser, Railgun and Hypervelocity Projectiles

Congressional Research Service report, Navy Lasers, Railgun and Hypervelocity Projectile.
continue -> https://news.usni.org/2017/03/23/24...-railgun-hypervelocity-projectiles#more-24782


Document: Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Destroyer Programs


USS Zumwalt

The following is the March 21, 2017 Congressional Research Service report, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress.

Report -> https://news.usni.org/2017/03/24/document-report-congress-u-s-navy-destroyer-programs

 

No, the primary mission of the railgun was to provide a long range strike weapon that was immune to interception unlike cruise missiles.

5" guns aren't intended to sink warships. That's was anti-ship missiles are for. And no one needs naval gunfire support because we don't conduct Normandy/Iwo Jima style beach assaults and haven't for 60 years. The last time the Marines assaulted a beach, it was a feint, and they mostly went ashore in helicopters.

 

Any war with the Chi-com will not be fought on China's mainland but if the Pacific on the same islands that U.S. Marines landed on during WW ll.

The Marine Corps after 65 years is going back to it's roots. That's why Marines have been conducting amphibious training exercises on contested beach in the Mariana's during the past four years.

FYI: DD (X) is the Zumwalt DDG-1000.

 

And those islands will get the **** beaten out of them by cruise missiles to destroy their air defenses and then bunker buster bombs to destroy any fixed defenses they have and then Marines will use vertical envelopment and modern landing craft to land at areas of islands that lack defenses.

Contesting a beach is ****ing dumb when you have the technology to avoid doing so.

 

When you have to occupy an island that is only maybe 6 miles long and 3 miles wide it's very likely an amphibious assault will be contested.



If you been paying attention to the satellite images of the Chi-Coms militarizing those islands in the South China Sea the first thing you noticed is the concrete plants that were built.

Gee, don't you think the Chi-Coms have studied the war in the Pacific during WW ll ?

I'm sure they studied this. -> http://www.allworldwars.com/Iwo-Jima-Naval-Gunfire-Support.html

Ground artillery, aerial bombs, cruise missiles lack the kinetic energy of naval guns.

The above article is some what long but study the photos of the concrete bunkers and pill boxes. No 16" gun battleships were present during the Iwo Jima invasion, they went off the intercept the Japanese fleet. Just 14" gun battleships.

 

I honestly think the idea of Marines assaulting beaches against pillbox MGs is going to be far fetched. Any major pillbox defenses that could be spotted by drones and fighters is going to get a JDAM on it. The reason why D-Day invasion US Air power couldn't simply wipe out enemy defenses is 1) bad weather 2) Bombs were very inaccurate at this time.
Remember a huge chunk of dumb bombs in the Gulf War didn't even hit their target. A huge chunk of success rates were done by precision guided munitions which is the staple of modern forces.

Do you know we don't do bombing runs like this anymore? It wasn't because we are nicer guys to civilians. It's because those are dumb bombs who can't hit a broadside of a barn.(literally) Remember in Vietnam, 600 bombs couldn't destroy a single bridge.


The Chinese aren't going to fight Marines on Islands in the Pacific besides Taiwan. They don't have the capability and logistics for a massive island-hopping campaign. The idea of Chinese troops landing on islands and getting in a massive ground war is just laughable. The modern Pacific War would be decided by missiles, air forces and naval forces not by US Marines.(mainly)

 

Creating a stasis field, like in star craft, would be cool, huh? what if i told you this was possible, would you believe me? but, first, what use is a stasis field - what could it be used for? well, with tanks they will be hard to take out, so a stasis field would delay them while they are accounted for and preparations made for the slow resuscitation of the tanks, or soldiers, while planes would simply crash or something. but, i feel bored, and this technology might go to some better use, hopefully, so, let's begin...

Creating a non reactive field would be possible by slowing all the reactivity of the area to a 'crawl.' this would be where we would want to stop the outer areas, the air around the 'object,' from reacting with the area outside the field. this can be done by compressing the air around it, carefully, to a 'very dense field.' and, finally, that can be done by adding orbitals!

Basically, we would want to make the air so dense that it would form a protective cover for the area, around the object, by creating a sphere of orbital density. as you may notice, hydrogen having the least orbitals, and those funny looking metals at the bottom of the periodic table having the most orbitals, they get 'harder' the more electron cloud orbitals they have, or, protons... protons would be easier!

So, you use electromagnetism to send the 'wave' to the target, and, then you centre the field around the target, using a 'sphere radius changer' to increase or decrease area, of course. this will be cheaper than rockets or missiles, as investment comes, and is nearly possible today with the technologies about making gold out of sodium or something - bombarding it with 'some stuff.'

Then, you can get the protons - which supply the strong force of magnetism, you know the mass and gravity side or the atom? - and then creating a field, by polarising around the centre point with like particles, of course.

 

Those islands are bare sand and hardly are even above the level of the surrounding ocean. The Chinese can't dig/build bunkers a la Iwo Jima on islands made of dredged sand.

Any defenses they have will have to be above ground, which means they get visits from Mr Paveway and Mr JDAM.

Just curious, when has naval artillery ever killed a reinforced concrete bunker buried a dozen meters underground? Because aerial bombs have done that numerous times.

 

NO, THE AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT ISN’T DEAD

Ever hear od "Bold Alligator" ?

It takes place every summer.

Something must be on the radar screen because Bold Alligator 17 will be yuuge this summer. It's been decades since the Navy and Marine Corps has pulled off a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) size amphibious assault training exercise.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/articles/bold-alligator-16

 

It isn't. It just has evolved. What idiot commander is going to make MG pillboxes to get destroyed? The future of amphibious warfare is going to very linked to the overall theme of air-naval combat. Opponents are going to dig in likely in far more illusive hidden positions rather than form beachheads once the assault is about to happen. Surface to Air-Missiles along with anti-ship missiles are going to be important weapons the Chinese will employ. Assaulting the beach won't be the main issue. Gaining air and naval superiority will be.

That is why the F-35B will be crucial in the future of USMC's role in amphibious assault. Large battleships for fire support are obsolete.

 

In just one hour, one Iowa class battleship was capable of putting more tons of ordinance on target than an entire Nimitz class carrier air wing could in 24 hours.

The Navy's 155 mm Advance Gun System and the Rail Guns have only one mission, providing NSFS for the Marine Corps. If amphibious assaults ware obsolete Congress wouldn't be appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars developing these NSFS guns.

Since 1915/16 after the clusterfuck during the amphibious landings at Gallipoli the naysayers have been saying that amphibious assaults are obsolete and never again would an amphibious operations of putting troops on the beach will ever be tried again.

Sometimes you don't have any choice.


After WW ll it was being said that the amphibious assault on Okinawa was the last amphibious assault ever to be conducted. Until the Inchon landings during the Korean War.

During the Vietnam War 48 or 49 amphibious assaults were conducted by U.S. Marines. Most were battalion size.

BLT (Battalion Landing Teams) Comparable to todays Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU)


BLT during the Vietnam War:
1X Marine rifle battalion.
1X tank plt. 5 X M-48 tanks.
1X ONTOS plt. 5 X ONTOS
1X 105 mm howitzer battery 6 X tubes
1X engineer plt.
1X shore party plt.
1X service plt.
1X M.T. plt.
1X medical plt.
And of course you have to have the Navy Beach Master.

The grunts would usually come in from the sea on CH-46's landing a few miles inland from the beach while all of the support units landed in the beach using Navy LCM's (Mike Boats)

I was just a FNG at the time, a naval gunfire spotter (MOS 0849) but I participated in the last two amphibious assault conducted during the Vietnam War. Operation Defiance Stand and Operation Bold Pursuit. (BLT 1/26) It's when I earned my CAR. But I was still a cherry.

If I could get through the first 90 days without getting killed my chances of surviving during my tour of duty increased by 50%.

1/2 of all of the soldiers and Marines who were KIA during the Vietnam War were killed during the first 90 days being in-country.

My last six months in-country I served with Sub Unit One, 1st ANGLICO. My expertise is naval gunfire support and close air support. By November of 69 I had my own spot team.

When grunts need fire support the first choice is ground artillery, second is naval gunfire, the last choice is close air support.

CAS is very limited in what they can provide. Smart weapons like smart bombs and laser guided bombs and rockets don't work in bad weather, rain, fog, low cloud ceilings, etc.

Also no CAS missions can take place when artillery and naval gunfire support missions are being conducted for obvious reasons.

For 16 years America has been fighting low intensity wars against a bunch of *******s fanatic jihadist who don't have a real army, a navy or an air force.

In a real war against an enemy that has a real army, navy and air force the grunts on the ground will be needing fire support not to deal with one small target like a bunker but area targets, dealing with 200 or 1,000 enemy troops either out in the open or dug in occupying an area from a front a couple of hundred yards long to 1/4 or 1/2 mile long and 400 yards deep and only artillery and naval gunfire can accomplish that mission in a danger close situation.

FYI:
During an amphibious landing, there isn't any ground artillery support available for a few hours, only NSFS and CAS.



Ever hear of the term "Time on Target" ???

First developed by the U.S. Army during WW ll and quickly adopted by the U.S. Marine Corps. Very effective.

“Time On Target” (TOT) was a surprise tactic for devastating a particular target area almost instantaneously.

TOT missions involved timing the firing of multiple batteries so that all fire on the same location, with the firing times adjusted to cause the rounds to all impact at the same time. A typical TOT might involve 4 batteries (24 guns or howitzers) of different calibers; some firing rounds fused for ground burst, some for airburst. The effect is that a particular jungle clearing might be quiet and peaceful one second and in the next second be totally enveloped and saturated with explosions in the air and on the ground. Bombardment may cease after the initial volley or be maintained in Fire For Effect mode, creating a sustained saturation of the area with detonations.

The U.S, Navy use to be able to conduct TOT missions back when they had gun cruisers and Gearing class destroyers, Not today.

 

Er yes it can. Most bombs like JDAM have inertial guidance and GPS guidance so they can work in all weather. All it needs is a coordinate, and relative positioning and it can achieve meters of accuracy. For moving targets it can attach a seeker which of course only activates when close to the target. There are also bombs like the SBD II which can see specifically through bad weather. Even if there is a lack of them, troops with modern communications and designate coordinates with modern mapping systems which given a coordinate, the bombs can drop.

Now yes, you are totally right on guns being better than aircraft on station and the numbers it can provide. However, the main issue with guns is that accuracy. Again, most guns shells don't have guidance. Smart bombs will always be hundreds of times accurate than something that is dropping out of the middle of nowhere. There is also a problem, range. A battleship can only provide lets say a couple dozen meters of fire. What happens if the enemy doesn't bunker down near the shore?(which is likely it won't) Your battleship will then be useless. Yes there is an alternative to this, which as you mentioned the railgun which can provide better range than the guns on the Iowa guns can.

Bunkers near coasts? Easy target. Time to call in USAF to bring in the bombers and USN to throw in some Tomahawks. This isn't the 1960s anymore....

Here is a Chinese Island. No bunkers, no major fortifications. Just a major airfield. Probably going to put some J-20s, S-400, and Silkworm missiles there. So the F-35 is the best solution for the at job.

 

I want to make a further ranging sniper weapon, maybe it will get further? if we were to let some form of gunpowder keep burning for a longer time, it surely would go further, as, if you throw a stone, it will use up all the energy quickly, at a higher rate of combustion, and, therefore, propulsion.

To get this to work, maybe we could use a cylindrical spiralling round? this would burn for a full maybe two or three seconds, hopefully more, as the gunpowder gets slowly used up - maybe a minimally shaped spiral would keep it going for a while longer?

Or, we could use an oscillator? this would swing back and forth, hitting the bottom of the round every second to hammer the gunpowder into explosive firing sequences?

 

FYI:
Smokeless gun powder is not an explosive, it's a propellent.

Black gun powder is an explosive.

 

China’s man-made islands in the South China Sea
Cuarteron Reef is located in the London Reefs, on the Western side of the Spratly Islands. The area of the island built on the reef is 231,100 square meters. China began to build it up in the summer of 2014 and has since built an artificial island and is also building structures on the island. Currently, Cuarteron Reef is equipped with 125 meters wide access channel, breakwaters, multiple support buildings, three concrete plants, two helipads and reinforced seawalls. Drawing attention to the images, we can also assume that the reef also has five possible communication antennas, a radar facility, two radar towers under construction, five gun or missile emplacements, a preexisting large multi-level military facility, and a satellite communication antenna.


Cuarteron Reef on March 20, 2013. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Cuarteron Reef, January, 2016. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Cuarteron Reef, March 2016. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe

- See more at: https://southfront.org/chinas-artificial-islands-south-china-sea-review/#sthash.JxcI6ids.dpuf

 

Fiery Cross Reef is situated on the west side of the Spratly Islands. The area of the island built on the reef is 2,740,000 square meters. Reclamation on Fiery Cross Reef began in August 2014. The landmass spans the entire existing reef and is approximately 3,000 meters long and 200-300 meters wide. China is currently building an airstrip with an estimated final length of 3,110 meters and has also begun development of port facilities. Currently, Fiery Cross Reef is equipped with an airstrip (under construction), a harbor large enough to receive tankers and major surface combatants (630,000 square meters), multiple cement plants, multiple support buildings, nine temporary loading piers and one preexisting pier, preexisting air-defense guns, a possible radar tower under construction, eight possible gun emplacements, preexisting anti-frogmen defenses, preexisting communications equipment, a preexisting greenhouse, two helipads, a preexisting military facility, a preexisting pier, a new multi-level administrative facility adjacent to airstrip, two lighthouses, and ten possible satellite communication antennas.


Fiery Cross Reef in January, 2006. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Fiery Cross Reef on September 3, 2015. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe

- See more at: https://southfront.org/chinas-artificial-islands-south-china-sea-review/#sthash.JxcI6ids.dpuf

 

Gaven Reef is located in the Tizard Banks, near the center of the Spratly islands. The area of the island built on the reef is 136,000 square meters. Chinese construction at Gaven Reef in the Tizard Banks began sometime after March 30, 2014. The new, rectangular, artificial island is approximately 300 meters by 250 meters. Images show that a causeway now links the new island with a small facility that had long stood on the reef. Currently, Gaven Reef is equipped with an access channel 122 meters wide, a port area 66,402 square meters, anti-air guns, a possible large radio communication antenna (under construction), a construction support structure, eight possible gun emplacements, naval guns, a new military facility, two helipads, a preexisting military facility, reinforced seawalls, and a cement plant.


Gaven Reef, September 1, 2007. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Gaven Reef, March 17, 2015. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Gaven Reef, March 17, 2015. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe

- See more at: https://southfront.org/chinas-artificial-islands-south-china-sea-review/#sthash.JxcI6ids.dpuf

 

Hughes Reef is situated in the Union Banks, located in the northern Spratly Islands. The area of the island built on the reef is 76,000 square meters. Reclamation and building efforts on Hughes Reef appear to have begun in Summer 2014. There was significant development on the right side of the island between November 15 and December 12, 2014. Now the reef has an access channel 118 meters wide, coastal fortifications, four defensive towers, a harbor 292,000 square meters, a port 35,350 square meters, a multi-level military facility, five possible gun emplacements, a possible radar facility (under construction), a preexisting helipad, a preexisting light house, reinforced seawalls, and a cement plant.


Hughes Reef on March 12, 2008. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Hughes Reef on March 16, 2015. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Hughes Reef on March 16, 2015. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe

- See more at: https://southfront.org/chinas-artificial-islands-south-china-sea-review/#sthash.JxcI6ids.dpuf

 

Johnson South Reef is located in the Northwest of the Spratly Islands at Union Banks. The area of the island built on the reef is 109,000 square meters. Significant progress was made toward the construction of new buildings on Johnson South Reef between November 15 and December 12, 2014. Now we can see there 125 meters wide access channel, a concrete plant, defensive towers, desalination pumps, a fuel dump, a multi-level military facility, a possible radar facility, a small port with limited berth space and two loading stations, 3,000 square meter harbor area, four possible weapons towers, agricultural, a lighthouse, and a possible solar farm (44 panels), a preexisting communications facility, a preexisting garrison building, two helipads, a roll on roll off docks, a preexisting large multi-level military facility, a preexisting pier, reinforced Seawalls, three possible satellite communication antennas, two possible radar tower under construction, and two wind turbines.


Johnson South Reef on November 29, 2004. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe


Johnson South Reef on March 4, 2015. Photo: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Digital Globe




- See more at: https://southfront.org/chinas-artificial-islands-south-china-sea-review/#sthash.JxcI6ids.dpuf