| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Top 5 Bomb-Packing, Gun-Toting War Bots the U.S. DoesnÂ’t Have |
| 2008-02-13 |
| Some nice toys in here. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #11 "The US doesn't have" > YEEEEAAAAHHHH RIIIIGGHHTT, there's working Stuff = S*** at DARPA + Army-DOD Americans themselves may NOT see or believe yet for another 10-20 Cylon/Colonial Babe yarns. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-02-13 23:21 |
| #10 Also, great videos of some of our stuff on you-tube. Just look around. heh heh heh. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-02-13 22:08 |
| #9 Don't forget the Gundam either! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-02-13 22:05 |
| #8 The V1 was routinely shot down by fighters. The V2, on the other hand, was unstoppable. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-02-13 21:24 |
| #7 i thought the V-1 was like the mother of our cruise missiles? and thanks for the answers on the USV. |
| Posted by: sinse 2008-02-13 20:17 |
| #6 I'm a big proponent of a "self-deployed" JDAM, somewhat like the BLADE that was mentioned. Right now, a US bomber can drop enough JDAMs to wipe out an enemy armored brigade, or an enemy fleet of ships, simultaneously. However, there are two circumstances when that would not be optimal. When you just need a few JDAMs, or when you need a butt-load. The Germans had a very, very good idea with the V-1 Buzzbomb, with its 1800 pound warhead. Such weapons cannot be stopped except with a ground invasion. Only a position defended with something like a Phalanx weapon is safe from them. They are as quick and easy to set up as a Palestinian rocket. If we had a V-1 Company, they could set up in an hour and launch 20 such rockets at the same time. Best of all, other than their guidance system, they are extremely cheap. The Company would be leaving the area when they launched. Maybe a 10th of the cost of an MLRS, and with a warhead three times as big and much more range. A little simple math to determine the tallest object between launch site and target, then set altitude to be that +100 feet, and they are as hard to shoot down as a cruise missile. Rockets and launchers could be moved with an ordinary 5 ton truck, each of which could comfortably carry four missiles and launchers. The crew backs the truck up to each and slides launcher and the solid fuel fuselage down to the ground. Then they attach snap on wings, and insert a GPS guidance device. When all four are set, they drive off, and signal all four to launch. The launchers are expendable. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-02-13 19:03 |
| #5 There are unclassified research reports on unmanned surface and underwater vehicles, both, in US labs. FWIW |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-13 18:55 |
| #4 I think 3dc is making reference to today's sex-bot article. USV = Un(wo)manned Sex Vehicle? |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2008-02-13 18:45 |
| #3 3dc? we have USV or am I using the abbreviation wrong or what? explain please i think me and you are the only ones who have looked at the article so far |
| Posted by: sinse 2008-02-13 18:26 |
| #2 We have everything! For some reason, in the list, I didn't see UUVs mentioned. Some science bot list, heh! Oh, and USVs... em ah em ... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-02-13 15:50 |
| #1 the only one i can see the US not having is the USV. But do we really need an unmanned water borne vehicle in the US? Singapore maybe , also the Israelis umanned vehicle looks alot like our drones that we use the South Koreans haven't stated using the unmanned gueard tower that can shoot yet and i haven't heard anything about th EU using the neutron |
| Posted by: sinse 2008-02-13 14:58 |