# FutureWeapons



## Jacqueline (5 Jan 2007)

Interesting videos on the new show "FutureWeapons" starting January 15.
Previews on the Predator, Sniper Rifle, Airborne Laser, MLRS, Metal Storm, EMP Bomb. Very good.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/future-weapons/weapons/zone2/weapon-zone-2.html#


----------



## Staff Weenie (30 Jan 2007)

History is full of 'looks cool but failed' weapons. The Discovery presents these things in a light that glosses over many of the impracticalities. For example, Metal Storm has an incredible rate of fire - it can empty itself in a couple of seconds tops. So.....how easy is it to reload? Do all soldiers carry prefab rods of ammo around? What about reloading the larger version? Sometimes, rate of fire can work against you, especially for reload/resupply.

Aerial or ground-based lasers - I really won't argue that lasers, and other directed energy weapons may well be the future, but any physics student can tell you of the weaknesses of light, especially coherent light - it can be diffracted and refracted - does it work during a rainstorm, when each water droplet could split or bend part of the beam? Recharge rates for chemical lasers are also a problem, and the power pack for other systems is currently bulky. The Israeli's have had some success with their Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) system, but I'm not sure how far away from fielding it is. There is something to be said though, for being able to drill a hole into somebody's skull from a long distance.

Rail guns - they create an immense transfer of kinetic energy to their projectile, but the wear and tear on the barrels so far has limited them to experimental status.

MLRS - can be very precise, good range, lots of submunition types available - tried and accepted system. I would wonder though, whether pound for pound of warhead delivery, is a conventional arty round, the howitzer, and crew, a cheaper alternative? The M777 can be very accurate, has a good range for anything we're involved in, and is probably a lot cheaper to operate in terms of delivering the same amount of high explosive onto a target.

EMP Blast - now that's damage without killing folk off. But, I think it was General Giap (?) of the NVA is famous for saying 'the Americans threatened to bomb us back to the stone age, but we were already there" (or close to it - might be wrong on the attribution). A low tech force won't be overwhelmed by such a device (i.e. the Taliban - though it'd screw up their use of cell phones for comms).

If you want to scare the crap out of yourself with a weapon - think enhanced weaponized Smallpox. Most males of military age in CA and the USA haven't had the shots, or their vaccination was for a specific strain no longer in existence.....


----------



## 18-and-ready (30 Jan 2007)

Those are some mighty good points you raised about the lazers and such
I dont think lazers are where its going to be at in the future its gonna be robotics ( not the robo cop type lol )
They have alot being developed and tested right now un maned armed viechles
But question is.. is that what we really want? wouldnt that force alot of infantry who love their jobs
to take a back seat and let these "robots" do the job for them


----------



## brihard (1 Feb 2007)

18-and-ready said:
			
		

> Those are some mighty good points you raised about the lazers and such
> I dont think lazers are where its going to be at in the future its gonna be robotics ( not the robo cop type lol )
> They have alot being developed and tested right now un maned armed viechles
> But question is.. is that what we really want? wouldnt that force alot of infantry who love their jobs
> to take a back seat and let these "robots" do the job for them



You do the job in whatever method accomplishes it best, and in the most economical way possible once that accomplishment is achieved. That's the long and the short of it.


----------



## Gunnerlove (1 Feb 2007)

R&D is a good thing. 
If you stop you get left behind, and that goes for every field, not just warfare.
People confuse and compare MLRS to Tube Artillery far to often. MLRS can put a large amount of ordinance onto a target very quickly. Then nothing for 15 minutes while it is being reloaded. If you want to compare SP MLRS to a comparable SP Gun you could look more towards the Pzh 2000 for tracked or Bofors archer for wheeled. Quality artillery requires fire power, accuracy and endurance which can only be provided at this time by Tube Artillery. Not to bash MLRS, as if it is employed properly it complements conventional artillery,with its longer range and initial punch but will never replace it. 

As for EM weapons, the current focus on electronic and autonomous weapon systems is making EM weapons a priority.  

Take a step back and look around. Just because we are fighting to prop up a dusty failed state at the moment does not mean we (the West) can afford to fall behind the rest of the big boys.


----------



## warspite (2 Feb 2007)

Personally I have always thought that EMP could have major implications in neutralizing ICBMs and other long range missiles.  You knock out the computer guidance all you have left is a big chunk of metal that's about to fall on someones head....


----------



## Staff Weenie (2 Feb 2007)

GL - you're quite right about the risks of comparing tube and rocket arty. Each has its place, though at the risk of going outside my lane too far - I'd suggest that for a medium power like Canada, we can really only afford one system. We also know darn well that we aren't going anywhere without a coalition - and that almost always involves our good friends to the south. In that case, I'd suggest that the logistical tail for MLRS is too much. If our country's intent is to deploy only Battle Group to a Brigade max, then our integral arty should match our force, and we could stick with the 155s.

You're also right that R&D, even if the initial product is nothing more that a glorified paperweight, is essential. Many research projects fail, but lead to tangential discoveries that pay off dramatically. That's why I'm glad Canada paid $130M or so for the JSF project - it allows Canadian aerospace industries to have access to some of the technologies, which could boost our economy by millions to billions.

As I've noted - directed energy weapons will be the next wave, but they're not yet overly practical (THEL did swat some small rockets out of the sky, so it's close to reality). 

As for EMP - I see it as more of a strategic weapon. You wouldn't want it to go off too close to your own forces. What scares me, is that it's probably fairly easy to build, and deploy, and setting one off in New York, or Toronto, could seriously damage our economy over the short term.


----------



## LakeSup (17 Feb 2007)

This may be the wrong thread but here is a new unknown wpn found in Iraq: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252409,00.html

You DS can move this to a better thread if you want.


----------



## Armymedic (17 Feb 2007)

Some of the weapons on the site are not so much future weapons but new weapons just fielded.


----------



## Bobby Rico (13 Mar 2007)

I think it's a pretty cool show actually.  Some of the technology that they show on it is pretty sweet (dragon skin armor instantly comes to mind).  The host though leaves something to be desired.  He seems a little....quirky in the way he speaks---as if he's performing a magic show or something.  

(edit- To make this post fit with the fact that this is a pre-existing thread)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Mar 2007)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55514.0.html

You mean as discussed above?


----------



## Bobby Rico (13 Mar 2007)

Bah, I should have known there was a topic on this already.  i really need to start making friends with the search function.


----------



## Mike Baker (13 Mar 2007)

It is a good show, but the host freaks me out with the way he talks


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Mar 2007)

Some people may balk at the concept of new weapons but remember this.

Tanks, machine guns and airplanes influenced the first world war.
Nuclear bomb influenced the second world war.
helicopters influenced the viet nam war.
MLRS had an impact during the first gulf war.


----------



## Jacqueline (31 Mar 2007)

I was skimming through photos. and wondered if this is an actual weapon. ???Or is it a future weapon?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (31 Mar 2007)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> I was skimming through photos. and wondered if this is an actual weapon. ???Or is it a future weapon?



This is an actual weapon.. but it was canceled along with the XM-8 in late 05.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2007)

The episodes with the M32 and H&K 416 were good...hopefully both perform well in the field for those that actually use both.


----------



## sober_ruski (5 Apr 2007)

But does... he have to...talk like... this all... the time...? :


----------



## 28402 engineers (5 Apr 2007)

william shatner did it, and hell, everybody loved him  :


----------



## sober_ruski (5 Apr 2007)

Stridsvagn_122 said:
			
		

> william shatner did it, and hell, everybody loved him  :



Future Weapons... going where...no weapon has...gone before...  ;D


----------



## Mike Baker (6 Apr 2007)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> But does... he have to...talk like... this all... the time...? :


In his contract


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Apr 2007)

The eyebrow raisings are fun, if distracting, to watch, especially if timed to his pauses. Watch the episode with the CornerShot when he's demonstrating the 40mm GL...

"Forty *Raise* .... Milimeter*Raise* ... Grenade Launcher!"


----------



## ProPatria031 (19 Aug 2007)

They have showed some pretty cool stuff that is being used, like gatecrasher, HK MP7A1, and the all to famouse Dragn skin armour.

 :cheers:


----------



## FullMetalParka (1 Sep 2007)

Love the weapons... hate Baldo McWunderSeal.


----------



## LordOsborne (2 Sep 2007)

Yeah, the more I watch the show, the more tired I become of his unecessary whispering and hyperbole.


----------



## GAP (2 Sep 2007)

fullmetalparka said:
			
		

> Love the weapons... hate Baldo McWunderSeal.



+1


----------



## DirtyDog (8 Sep 2007)

Yep, a lot of over the top hyperbole.   Too many episodes seem like infomercials for that particular weapon.  And I could of swore on episode they were dubbing the weapon sounds while comparing two particular rifles (forget which now).


----------



## Kilroy (3 Feb 2008)

I catch the show everynow and then too. Some of the "futuristic" weapons just coming out still have to work the kinks out of them obviously, but it is still neat to watch. My favourite of the new weapons was the directional sound one. I wonder, if you had a frequency, JUST above human hearing limits coming out of that, would it cause massive headaches to the targetted person? Could it cause things like ears to bleed and such, or would it just really tick off all the dogs??

One other weapon maybe they should research on that show is the supposed "gay" weapon that was rumoured to be dropped on the Al Quida and Taliban soldiers, literally convincing them to make love not war!!   ;D


----------

