Post Your Futuristic Weapon - Got an Awesome Picture?

[Kalrag]

Hey everybody! Do have a picture or drawing of a really awesome futuristic gun, vehicle, missle or any other weapon? Then post it right here! Show everyone what yourve got and share it and tell us about it!

Please! NO INAPROPRIATE PICTURES OR DRAWINGS!

 

[Gokul43201]

According to Einstein, these might be the weapons of the future:

[PLAIN]http://distractible.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/river-stone.jpg

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah, stop being such a loser Gokul.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was going to post something about the latest in robotic weapon design, but ran across this news article from 2007

The National Defence Force is probing whether a software glitch led to an antiaircraft cannon malfunction that killed nine soldiers and seriously injured 14 others during a shooting exercise on Friday.

SA National Defence Force spokesman brigadier general Kwena Mangope says the cause of the malfunction is not yet known and will be determined by a Board of Inquiry. The police are conducting a separate investigation into the incident.

Media reports say the shooting exercise, using live ammunition, took place at the SA Army's Combat Training Centre, at Lohatlha, in the Northern Cape, as part of an annual force preparation endeavour.

Mangope told The Star that it “is assumed that there was a mechanical problem, which led to the accident. The gun, which was fully loaded, did not fire as it normally should have," he said. "It appears as though the gun, which is computerised, jammed before there was some sort of explosion, and then it opened fire uncontrollably, killing and injuring the soldiers." ...

http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?op...157&catid=96:defence-and-aerospace-technology

Wow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah, stop being such a loser Gokul.

He was talking to God.

 

[Cyrus]

There was a post before mine that vanished, now the context of my post is ruined.

 

[Evo]

There was a post before mine that vanished, now the context of my post is ruined.

They were a crackpot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was a post before mine that vanished, now the context of my post is ruined.

Yeah, and my joke. And I thought it was a good joke.

I live in a world where I have to dance around liability concerns constantly. When I hear about a system like this going bezerk it makes my teeth curl. But it seems to be unavoidably true that robot weapons [the stuff of sci-fi, not that long ago] are quickly coming of age.

When I was in high school, I gave a speech about how one day we could reach a point where war need not involve humans: When our robots defeat their robots, they will surrender as there is no hope of survival otherwise. There would be no hope of defeating an army of robots. More specifically perhaps, when technological defensive systems are defeated, some form of overwhelming force, perhaps nuclear, is the game ender. Resistance is futile. War in the conventional sense, a thing of the past. I still wonder sometimes if that day will come.

Or is this already the state of affairs with China. Anti-satellite weapons have come of age. And how many cyber attacks does the NSA fend off every day?

 

[Blenton]

When our robots defeat their robots, they will surrender as there is no hope of survival otherwise. There would be no hope of defeating an army of robots.

"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots." - Simpsons.

 

[Gokul43201]

There was a post before mine that vanished, now the context of my post is ruined.

Yeah, and my joke. And I thought it was a good joke.

I missed all the fun?

 

[GTOM]

I have doubts, that on the ground, robots are all superior to humans.
For example, one futuristic weapon is EMP, that destroys delicate electronics. And it is already under testing.
Also there can be quite difficult environments on the surface, the robots have to be expensive. In future, i think, we will mostly have to deal with terrorism and urban warfare, and many cases, immediate human level decision making should be needed.

Other futuristic weapons are lasers, rail or coilguns, particle cannons.

Lasers are still weak, they can serve anti-missile purposes by blinding or overheating them. A railgun was quite powerful, but erodes quickly. I don't know any details of particle weapons.

 

[Pythagorean]

Pointing press and web pages are good weapons.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I have doubts, that on the ground, robots are all superior to humans.

Clearly at the moment they are not though robotic warfare is developing at a rapid pace.

For example, one futuristic weapon is EMP, that destroys delicate electronics. And it is already under testing.

We can already do this with nuclear devices and whilst there has been extensive research into non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) weapons none have ever been developed to the point where they can be usefully deployed. Either way however shielding from EMP has been around for decades, I'm given to understand your average off-the-shelf military equipment is shielded to a certain extent. If it began to be a problem e.g. if country's did start manufacturing useful NNEMPs then I'm sure shielding, redesign and tactics would be developed to compensate.

Also there can be quite difficult environments on the surface, the robots have to be expensive.

Yesterday's high-tech is tomorrow's cracker toy. Regarding difficulty on the surface I recall reading an article a few years back on the advance in collaboration and swarm intelligence in robots. It detailed examples of a UGV that had to navigate across a field full of ditches, mounds, bushes, fences etc. It did so by deploying a mini-UAV from it's roof that flew around and mapped the area, helping the UGV create a route.

In future, i think, we will mostly have to deal with terrorism and urban warfare, and many cases, immediate human level decision making should be needed.

Both of those could be supplemented by robotics and infact already are;
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/engineering/18825.aspx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250177/Police-make-arrest-using-unmanned-drone.html

And in terms of fighting in buildings it's not that difficult to envision something like this supported by a team of drones like this? In terms of immediate decision making you can approach that by improving the software running it, including humans in the loop and mitigating the cost of mistakes. An example of the latter could be to fit the drones with non/less-lethal weapons in case they target innocents.

Other futuristic weapons are lasers, rail or coilguns, particle cannons.

Lasers are still weak, they can serve anti-missile purposes by blinding or overheating them. A railgun was quite powerful, but erodes quickly. I don't know any details of particle weapons.

Whilst there has been development in laser weaponry examples like the Boeing YAL-1 project show that the technology has a way to go yet until it's viable. Having said that there are various continuing projects such as the US navy FEL. Along similar lines railgun's are also under development for ships.

Particle beams I also don't know much about other than the fact that there doesn't seem to be much development there.

 

[GTOM]

The video of quadrocopters was pretty impressive, just to shade it a bit, we don't know, the exact succes to fail ratio, and how much help did they got from their operators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M5D21FJM90&feature=endscreen&NR=1

But of course, with enough refinement and practice, they will be fine, especially for exploration purposes.


About microwave weapons :

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm

"The problem with Faraday cages is that most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world. This contact point can allow the electromagentic field to enter the cage, which ultimately renders the enclosure useless. There are ways to protect against these Faraday cage flaws, but the fact remains that this is a dangerous weakpoint."

Future terrorists may easily convert their microwave owen into EMP weapons.

 

[Pythagorean]

drones are an interesting concept. NOW YOU CAN KILL PEOPLE WITH 20% LESS GUILT! BUY NOW!

 

[GTOM]

NOW YOU CAN KILL PEOPLE WITH 20% LESS GUILT! BUY NOW!

OFF : Well yeah, that is my main problem with robotic armies. I don't want that my sons die a "heroic" death, but they can still die in a bombing, because politicans start to believe war is a computer game.

ON : images, videos



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLEtVlU15Q&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkkWya-oun0&feature=related

About the last one, well i guess they can't contain waste heat for much time... but if they can contain it till an IR missile misses that is good.
Of course there will be more advanced sensors.

 

[Pythagorean]

OFF : Well yeah, that is my main problem with robotic armies. I don't want that my sons die a "heroic" death, but they can still die in a bombing, because politicans start to believe war is a computer game.

ON : images, videos



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLEtVlU15Q&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkkWya-oun0&feature=related

About the last one, well i guess they can't contain waste heat that much... but if they can contain it till an IR missile misses that is good.
Of course there will be more advanced sensors.

Well, politicians are probably already pretty dissociated from the actual killing. Drones allow your soldiers more emotional stamina so you don't go through them so quickly. PTSD is probably expensive to treat and give up a trained unit for.

 

[Pythagorean]

err... not to mention losing a unit to non-coward warfare.

 

[sru2]

The real problem with drones is that they can be used against you and won't complain.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

drones are an interesting concept. NOW YOU CAN KILL PEOPLE WITH 20% LESS GUILT! BUY NOW!

True. As much as I'm a pacifist I acknowledge that conflict sometime's is inevitable. I'm hoping that future weapons technology (of which drones are an obvious part) will be sophisticated enough to massively reduce death tolls. Aside from increasingly precise bombs/missiles that have allowed us to move on from 1940s era carpet bombing I'm hoping that in the future taking out a tyrant or terrorist group is as easy as sending a MAV that can fly into their base and remove just them. I'm also hoping that increasing developments in non-lethal weapons and UGVs along with a shift in public and political opinion will see conflicts where most combatants are temporarily incapacitated rather than killed. If you have a drone in a conflict situation it's "death" means less than a real human and it could be more resistant to damage, this means that there is less importance in being able to quickly kill your opponent. Public and political opinion may be forced to change if we continue to see reports of drones that target schools and innocents. Of course on top of that we have what Ivan mentions above about drone-on-drone conflict and how it might change the nature of warfare.

I use the word hope a lot there because in no way do I make this is a prediction, even though I think the individual developments are likely I'm not so sure of my optimistic outcome.

 

[lompocus]

Ryan, what will you do when someone welcomes precision orbital bombardment as a humane and cost-efficient way of getting rid of baddies' "equipment" (heh... I fear no one gets the joke)? (I mean using many cheap guided shaped bolts slowly deorbited from low orbit and similar stuff, all in exchange for expensive missiles.) This sounds strange, so search your imagination for ways to make this sort of rhetoric mesh with nonlethal weapons. (I suggest this is a possible conclusion of war with the human element removed to some extent, like you suggest.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ryan, what will you do when someone welcomes precision orbital bombardment as a humane and cost-efficient way of getting rid of baddies' "equipment" (heh... I fear no one gets the joke)? (I mean using many cheap guided shaped bolts slowly deorbited from low orbit and similar stuff, all in exchange for expensive missiles.) This sounds strange, so search your imagination for ways to make this sort of rhetoric mesh with nonlethal weapons. (I suggest this is a possible conclusion of war with the human element removed to some extent, like you suggest.)

That doesn't sound very cost efficient, plus there are huge political problems with previous proposed projects of a similar nature.

However the idea of taking out enemy infrastructure rather than people is a good one if it is applicable.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Hey everybody! Do have a picture or drawing of a really awesome futuristic gun, vehicle, missle or any other weapon? Then post it right here! Show everyone what yourve got and share it and tell us about it!

Sure

It's called a phaser. It fires in two flavours: stun and kill.

Stun: Knocks people out, used when lethal force is not required.
Kill: Kills people. This mode is commonly used when coming in peace.

In extreme circumstances phasers can be set to overload, which can either cause a puff of smoke or destroy half a ship, depending on how much drama is required.

 

[GTOM]

Well, researching non-lethal weapons is a noble cause.
Microwave weapons can be also used to incapacitate humans if used in continuous stream instead of short pulse.
I had the following idea : russians tryed to take out terrorists by gassing the entire area, but many hostages also died.
But maybe we could fill the air with nanocapsules instead of gas, then we target the terrorists with some pulse, that explodes those capsules, so only they will be incapacitated or dead.

 

[GTOM]

Videos :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o02d0dgSvDA&feature=g-vrec

Well, my basic opinion, that these talking dolls are good toys, but they will never reach human level, it would be too expensive and useless.
Also autonomous decision making isn't such a good idea i think. Even if it is worth developing, it is too much ethical questions, feel regret, or inobediance over wrong decisions and orders can be important thing IMHO.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Girl bombs.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Machine gun jubblies you say?

 

[ThomasT]

Does this qualify?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjGbOyd2ek&feature=related

 

[Danger]

It's called a phaser. It fires in two flavours: stun and kill.

I design weapons as a hobby, but I don't want to go into any details. One is a suppressor that can be turned on or off to allow either subsonic or supersonic fire with the same ammunition (the sonic boom accounts for about half of the sound of a gunshot).
Why I quoted this particular post is that I came up with one about 25 years ago that has three flavours: stun, kill, and Jell-O. My friend nicknamed the thing "The Egg Cooker". That's because he ran all of the numbers through the IBM 3033 where he worked (that was a major computer in those days). It told him that if he was to stand on his balcony, which was 5 metres away and behind a wall, he could hard-boil an egg inside his closed refrigerator in one minute with my little gun.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, researching non-lethal weapons is a noble cause.
Microwave weapons can be also used to incapacitate humans if used in continuous stream instead of short pulse.
I had the following idea : russians tryed to take out terrorists by gassing the entire area, but many hostages also died.
But maybe we could fill the air with nanocapsules instead of gas, then we target the terrorists with some pulse, that explodes those capsules, so only they will be incapacitated or dead.

IIRC the Russian example was due to sloppy tactics and a harmful nerve gas that doctors couldn't treat. What you suggest here sounds too SF for my liking. Whilst nanoparticle drug delivery systems that release a payload under certain circumstances are a massive area of nanomedical research I can see huge problems with a weaponised version: how do you control dose, how do you control who takes it, how does a signal from far away set it off? The latter is a big problem.

In examples like this perhaps the development of MAVs like these insect ones that could act lethally or non lethally would help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5YkQ9w3PJ4

 

[edward]

I have been working on a futuristic weapon using old tech. I call it the collapsing overhead canopy.

It appears to be a harmless patio umbrella until it suddenly collapes and enfolds an enemy while at the same time releasing laughing gas.

My first prototype called Storm Damage I can be seen below.

http://i49.tinypic.com/241qjpt.jpg

Don't laugh I am not done yet.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Don't laugh I am not done yet.

Sorry, it just sort of slipped out.

 

[edward]

Sorry, it just sort of slipped out.

Oh yea, well I'll have you know that I am leaving to pick up my second prototype and more laughing gas.

http://www.target.com/p/Cantilever-Offset-Patio-Umbrella-Champagne-10/-/A-13660011?ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001&AFID=Google_PLA_df&LNM=%7C13660011&CPNG=patio%20garden&ci_sku=13660011&ci_gpa=pla&ci_kw=

 

[Danger]

One of my old public school friends, who I hadn't seen in 10 years, decided to write an SF story and wrote to me (we're on opposite sides of the country now) about possible technologies. A weapon that I proposed for that book, for use as an inter-ship tactical device, is a missile that spews acid in a magnetic fluid matrix. (I'm thinking along the lines of the magnetic ink that used to be used for computer printers. That was cutting-edge technology at the time, but it seems kind of crappy now.) The idea is that it will stick to an opponent's hull long enough to chew through it.

 

[GTOM]

Ryan : i thought about small capsules levitating like spores, terrorists inhale them, and they would have a magnetit core. It would explode when it get a directed microwave current.


An idea for a futuristic weapon : create a mini black hole, and fire it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ryan : i thought about small capsules levitating like spores, terrorists inhale them, and they would have a magnetit core. It would explode when it get a directed microwave current.

Just assuming that would work for the moment (and I'm skeptical that it would: how would you ensure enough was inhaled, absorbed and wasn't noticeable via side effects) what are the advantages of such a system? You still have to get line of site on a target and pull a trigger. Why not just swap our the directed microwave with a gun...

An idea for a futuristic weapon : create a mini black hole, and fire it.

Assuming you did create one you would A: need a massive particle accelerator ala LHC, B: need to somehow stabilise the hole before it evaporated, C: be very unpopular with everyone since you just consigned the planet to a slow death.

 

[GTOM]

They have been calming people that even if a mini black hole would appear in LHC, that wouldn't consume the planet, as it would evaporate quickly.
What it depends, that it evaporates, or stay stabil?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They have been calming people that even if a mini black hole would appear in LHC, that wouldn't consume the planet, as it would evaporate quickly.
What it depends, that it evaporates, or stay stabil?

I'm aware, I didn't mean literally you needed and LHC but something more powerful. The black hole will be stable if it is massive enough to reach the wall of the collider and start consuming. As it will fall into the Earth it will then just sit there and slowly grow.

 

[GTOM]

So you say, if we would raise energy levels in LHC, it could REALLY mean destroying Earth?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So you say, if we would raise energy levels in LHC, it could REALLY mean destroying Earth?

AFAIK raising energy levels is a horrendous understatement, though it's not really fully understood at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole#Can_we_produce_micro_black_holes.3F

 

[GTOM]

About lasers :
What is the best efficiency of lasers today?
Can they be effective against reflective surfaces? While all mirrors swallow some percent of the light, but it isn't the same whether they can reflect 90%, or 30% if they don't know the exact wavelength of the beam.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think you mean to ask what is the best efficiency of reflective surfaces and how much heat can they take before they loose this. I'm unfamiliar with this field but I've read that any weaponised laser would be able to warp a mirror to the extent that it is no longer reflective and thus useless as a defence, all in a short period of time. Regarding wavelength I'm pretty sure that reflective surfaces only reflect certain wavelengths with others being reflected at differing efficiencies.

The best defence against a laser is likely to be a lot of mass or to not be in the way.

 

[Superposed_Cat]

teleportation would be the worst thing for war because you could tp bombs anywhere, right past any security system, any army.

with that you could also teleport a place hole for a microsecond behind enemy lines, just suck them up then disappear.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

teleportation would be the worst thing for war because you could tp bombs anywhere, right past any security system, any army.

with that you could also teleport a place hole for a microsecond behind enemy lines, just suck them up then disappear.

Good job it isn't possible then. We should keep this to some semblance of realism please or the thread will have to be locked.

 

[MathJakob]

Currently being developed by the United States military apparently.