I can see a couple of problems with that bird PhantomWolf. I know you didn't invent the aircraft but I'm commenting on those that did

One, with all those horrific chemicals onboard, Hydrogen Peroxide and Potassium Hydroxide (high-lighter and Liquid Plumber indeed!) being part of its aircrew is going to be as popular as being the "flame-thrower guy" in a warzone. (You want me to carry 50 pounds of gellied WHAT on my back?)

Look up the German rocket plane the Me 163 Komet for the joys of working with pure H2O2 in a warplane. You know, something that is expected to take damage once in a while. Even a hard landing in that bird would seriously suck. And a broken one coming in to land isn't going to be popular with the airfield either.

I spilled a couple drops of 30% Hydrogen Peroxide on myself once. As it hit I thought I would have a few moments until I needed to wash it off. Boy, was I wrong! Saw another guy do the same thing who thought the same way. He was even farther from the sink. Homey was screaming like a little girl by the time he got there. We decided not to play with it anymore. Serious non-fun.

Anybody as least as sophisticated enough to warrent the use of said aircraft is going to have something that can ride the beam back home to mama. (He who radiates, dies) And even a "sub-lethal" hit on a flying chemical warehouse like that is going to be very bad. See above.

And while the laser may have a range of a hundred miles its sensors and detection equipment sure as hell don't. An ultra high powered rifle with iron sights still only has the effective range of a .30-30.

Okay, I think I'm done pointing out that its a suicide machine.

BD

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

Tricky chemicals are a tricky issue, sure. That doesn't make it impossible, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the bigger issues.

So why don't AWACS planes get shot down all the time?

Hundreds of miles range, and it doesn't work alone. It's the weapon. It doesn't have to have the sensors. This isn't meant to be at the front lines, but to take out theater ballistic missiles.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Howdy Van, (I wanted to ask, is that your first name or part of your last name?)

Because we've never used them against anybody with a real airforce in a shooting war.Because each one has at least half a squadron defending it anytime its even close to hostile territory. And lastly a measurable portion of its electronics suite is defensive in nature.

I actually thought of that myself, I used to be in NAVAIR so I know about layered defense. I was commenting on the article insinuating its stand alone features. It would just be something else that would suck up fighter assets that could be, well, killing enemy missile crews or their defenders.

And a so so weapons idea that has the potential to horribly kill its crew on the chance of an even moderate failure is never going to be popular. Gee whiz factor or not. Then there is the knucklehead groundcrew men who would be dissolving themselves or others every other week.

I think a hyper velocity missile would be a much better use of research dollars. You don't have to invent a whole new technology and logistics infrastruture. I've seen some amazing footage of same back when they were considered for ballistic missile defense.

(Oh by the way, Van, I'm not hostile or nothing. I have the next three days off so I've been sipping whisky a little bit )

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

As for chemicals and danger, why isa plane full of fuel and conventional munitions any less deadly if it goes bang? I do'n suppose there will be big tanks of the stuff, I imagine it would be held in some kind of 'one shot' cartridges. Plus the 'Komet' was deliberately mixing two chemicals designed to go 'bang' when mixed.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Here is my idea for multi-use of taxpayer funds--the Powership.

An LNG carrier with multiple reactors to crack seawater into hydrogen and oxygen. In an emergency--the cryogenics help cool reactors that have multiple redundancy. The hydrogen and oxygen can be burned in turbines and add their power to that of the reactors for a large energy weapon.

So you actually have US Naval assets (and our nuclear navy) give us new ways to both power and protect our cities (not to mention fuel Sea Dragon very quickly ).


Or you can waste billions on a handful of carriers, with a handful of planes, dropping a handful of bombs on a handful of terrorists--do your Top Gun thing, and return to port with very little actually done--seeing that oil money that we send overseas goes to arm terrorists for all we know--with more tax money going to defense contractors.

We are paying for both sides of this war.

Wouldn't it be better to pay for a truly futuristic future free of this nonsense?


Back on topic--we have flash-bang type EMP weapons being considered--that's the only reason I find any of Vlads threats credible. The claim about sonics may also be true.

When we think of sonic weapons, we think about some little thing that we saw on Sci-Fi or cartoons emitting little waves that quietly go "Eeee." All you need for true sonic weapons is to be really LOUD.

Here is a thought:

USA gives money to oil states with some terror background.
Oil states give that money to Russia for missiles (and keep arms in production)
USA taxes us to fight for weapons we paid for.

Better:
USA buys oil only from Russia while drilling for our own. (and one or two friendlier nations)
Oil states dry up.
Scuds dry up.

Problem solved.

Boy, this is getting off-topic (and perhaps a tadge political), but will not buying oil from the Middle East really put the kibosh on terrorism? Somehow I doubt that, since the roots of this problem seem to go deeper.

- Maha Vailo

__________________
When you get down to it, Science answers how. Religion answers why. - hippietrekx

The point is that--if we devoted energy from weapons to something more constructive--we'd all be better off. That's not political--that's just a fact.

I do hope for more non-lethal weapons to deal with nuts with guns.

Capt. Swoop, you can get drenched in JP and you have about 8 to 12 hours to wash it off before dermatitis begins to develope. Been there, done that. Get half a gallon 100% hydrogen peroxide on you and in seconds it will reduce a 200lb man down to his femur heads and lumbar vertibra, its that reactive.

Plus most of the hideous accidents with it weren't a result of engine malfunctions. Either hard landings or ground crew mishaps. Incidents you don't need a war to have happen. Things that don't even make the plane go boom. Ever meet an airplane that didn't leak? They are dynamic, they flex and they leak. First time some crewchief rubbed the wrong spot of liquid on the belly of the bird with his hand he's going to cripple himself.

(Pub, no offense but I'm with Maha thinking any reply is going to delve too deep into politics)

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

Sorry, missed this earlier. Actually, neither really, it's my pseudonym, based on Nicholas van Rijn, though I don't look, sound or act like this character. Anyway, "Van," "VR" and "Van Rijn" are all fine.

As for the laser plane, I think we'll just need to wait and see how it turns out. I can see places where lasers would have serious advantages over counter missiles, but will it be practical? I don't know.

Well, I didn't think there was hostility, so I think you managed okay, but be careful about posting while drunk!

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I was actually wondering if old Nick was an influence. I recall reading a Van Rijn novel or two in my early teens. I recall liking him because he was the opposite of Conan or John Carter of Mars and still a good guy (who ever heard of a fat hero?), though I can't recall a plot line to save my life. Going to half to re-read them now. Thanks!

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

They are good reads.