Holy shit.

[GoingDHfast]

Why do americans keep inventing new ways of killing eachother?

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=526

[notb4dinner]

Imagine a gun with no recoil...
Clearly they know something Newton doesn't.

[GoingDHfast]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Check out this fucking video!! (http://defensereview.com/dad/dread.mov) :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[johnny]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Check out this fucking video!! (http://defensereview.com/dad/dread.mov) :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Why? It's crap, there's no actual footage of the weapon in action and it only tells you the stuff that's available to be read anyway. That was a waste of 14meg and 5mins.

[Pete J]

I wish they would hurry up and start making laser weapons already!!
Star Wars (and similar movies) have been out for years so i can't see whats taking them so long! The idea is there, they just have to get it happening!!! ;)

[Rik]

And the inventor is an Australian.

I wonder how many of the worlds problems could've been addressed with the budget for that weapons devlopment.

[S.]

That would kick so much arse at the duck open.

In other news, I find this pic http://defensereview.com/dad/DREAD%20Brochure_Page1_Trinamic%20Technologies,%20 LLC.jpg coupled with the claim of "360 degree field of fire" hilarious.

[naz]

Screw it! lets just nuke the whole planet and let evolution start again. Hopefully for the better this time around.

[S.]

Clearly they know something Newton doesn't.

Clearly you didn't read the article, because it explains how they utilise Newton's laws to do it.

[scottmeister]

Clearly you didn't read the article, because it explains how they utilise Newton's laws to do it.

Clearly you didn't read the Comments, because the article writer explains: "I understand the laws of physics, including this one: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When I wrote no recoil, I meant no felt-recoil. In other words, recoil force is not transfered to the shooter. So, the shooter doesn't feel it."

[S.]

Clearly you didn't read the Comments, because the article writer explains: "I understand the laws of physics, including this one: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When I wrote no recoil, I meant no felt-recoil. In other words, recoil force is not transfered to the shooter. So, the shooter doesn't feel it."

Yes, and the reaction forces are kept INTERNAL TO THE DEVICE thus there is no external, "output" force known as "recoil". The only things that could induce anything but smooth, consistent, inert motion (ie no acceleration and thus no net force) would be the imbalances caused by the centre of mass of the mechanism changing as projectiles leave the device, but that would be relatively easy to counter by simply balancing the feed/firing rates. Not only that, the mass of ANY mechanised device compared to the projectile is obviously going to be huge, making the effect of movement of a projectile negligible. So, as mentioned in your post "...recoil force is not transferred to the shooter", thus making your post pointless (oh, and sorry to break it to you, but I did read the comments). Surprise surprise.

[scottmeister]

But the article says that recoil is a cause of inaccuracy. If the recoil is there, but not felt by the shooter, then how does this help the cause of accuracy? The shooter may as well just feel the recoil so he has a better "feel" for the weapon he's using. Just because the recoil effect is negligible, doesnt mean it's not there.

Yeah, and maybe the guy you had a go at before had read the article.

[GoingDHfast]

Why? It's crap, there's no actual footage of the weapon in action and it only tells you the stuff that's available to be read anyway. That was a waste of 14meg and 5mins.

I was just "blown away" by the Americans and their glorification of death causing machines. Plus I've got broadband with unlimited download, doesnt everyone in 2005? :D

I wonder how much money the US defence force has put into that project, possibly secretly. They certainly want the "war" over, and this could get them there mighty quickly. Historically, its amazing how much effort Superpowers are prepared to put into devolping weapons to win wars.. (eg; The A bomb and Teleportation ww2)

Yeah, I might have a bit of conspiracy theorist in me :o

[S.]

But the article says that recoil is a cause of inaccuracy. If the recoil is there, but not felt by the shooter, then how does this help the cause of accuracy? The shooter may as well just feel the recoil so he has a better "feel" for the weapon he's using. Just because the recoil effect is negligible, doesnt mean it's not there.

Yeah, and maybe the guy you had a go at before had read the article.

The recoil is only there against the surface of the material that's actually pushing against the projectile - there is (presumably) an equal and opposite force being provided by another projectile being introduced to the centrifuge, and as such the net force on the centrifuge is zero, there's no "recoil" against whatever is holding it. As such, accuracy can be maintained.

As for the "feel" for the weapon thing, that doesn't look like something personnel would carry around as a personal weapon, I wouldn't be manually firing something with a 360 degree field of fire personally... so one might assume that it's controlled somewhat remotely, and that as such, "feel" for the weapon is irrelevant.

Maybe he did. Maybe you have some childish vendetta against me because of your brake rotors. Who knows, eh?

[scottmeister]

Just 'cause my rotors are ever so bling :(

Childish comment- Teehee I'd use DREAD on you! Teeheehee.

[johnny]

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "a feel for the weapon", but a recoiless rifle (of which there are, the Carl Gustave 80mm recoiless rifle) would be very welcome to those who use them. I don't need to feel a kick to know I've pulled a trigger and I'd prefer it if my aim didn't jump off the target with each shot too.

[ajay]

I wonder how many of the worlds problems could've been addressed with the budget for that weapons devlopment.

yeah, that is a quetion that never ceases to intrege me - i'd hate to know how much the U.S spends on weapons R & D every year :eek:
*awaits johnny's swift answer*

[johnny]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html

Since 2001, the Administration has:
Fought the War on Terror on the offensive;
Removed threats to our security in Afghanistan and Iraq liberating nearly 50 million people in these countries;
Provided pay raises to our servicemen and women of more than 21 percent and expanded the use of targeted pays and bonuses;
Begun to transform our Nation’s defenses and increased spending by 26 percent, the largest increase in the Defense budget since the Reagan Administration;
Launched a transformational and joint training program improving readiness rates;
Increased research and development funding by 56 percent;
Improved the quality of housing for military personnel and their families through privatization and new construction; and
Doubled investments in missile defense systems, deploying the first ever land and sea-based system.

The President’s Budget:
Advances our ongoing efforts in the Global War on Terror;
Provides $401.7 billion for the Department's base budget, an annual increase of seven percent, for a total increase in defense spending of 35 percent since 2001;
Makes measurable strides in transforming the Department to meet new threats; and
Continues improvements in the quality of life for our military personnel and their families.





The Defense Budget Is Bigger Than You Think
January 18, 2004
Robert Higgs
The San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1253



When President Bush signed the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2004 on November 24, 2003, the event received considerable attention in the news media. At $401.3 billion, the public's visible cost of funding the nation's defense seemed to be reaching astronomical heights, and the president took pains to justify that enormous cost by linking it to the horrors of 9/11 and to the “war on terror.” He pledged that “we will do whatever it takes to keep our nation strong, to keep the peace, and to keep the American people secure,” clearly implying that such payoffs would accrue from the expenditures and other measures that the act authorizes.

Although the public may appreciate that $401.3 billion is a great deal of money, few citizens realize that it is only part of the total bill for defense. Lodged elsewhere in the budget, other lines identify funding that serves defense purposes just as surely as—sometimes even more surely than—the money allocated to the Department of Defense (DoD). On occasion, commentators take note of some of these additional defense-related budget items, such as the nuclear-weapons activities of the Department of Energy (DoE), but many such items, including some extremely large ones, remain generally unrecognized..............and so on.





Hear the sound of the falling rain
Coming down like an Armageddon flame (Hey!)
The shame
The ones who died without a name

Hear the dogs howling out of key
To a hymn called "Faith and Misery" (Hey!)
And bleed, the company lost the war today

I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
On holiday

Hear the drum pounding out of time
Another protestor has crossed the line (Hey!)
To find, the money's on the other side

Can I get another Amen? (Amen!)
There's a flag wrapped around a score of men (Hey!)
A gag, A plastic bag on a monument

I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
On holiday

"The representative from California has the floor"

Zieg Heil to the president gasman
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel towers
Who criticize your government
Bang bang goes the broken glass and
Kill all the fags that don't agree
Trials by fire, setting fire
Is not a way that's meant for me
Just cause, just cause, because we're outlaws yeah!

I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives

This is our lives on holiday

Green Day.

[notb4dinner]

The recoil is only there against the surface of the material that's actually pushing against the projectile - there is (presumably) an equal and opposite force being provided by another projectile being introduced to the centrifuge, and as such the net force on the centrifuge is zero, there's no "recoil" against whatever is holding it.
Hmmm that's interesting, although I think you would have to assume that the projectile being fed in is travelling at the same velocity as the one exiting (maybe...) which then introduces the probelem of how you get it up to that speed without recoil. The problem I see is that your accellerating something so there has to be a 'recoil' of some sort.

I have to admit though, I only read the first few lines of the article, found the hype laughable and gave up.

[wtr]

And speaking of "holy shit", this is what us 'gundam' fans have dreamt about ever since we were little. Now that you've dug up some futuristic weaponary thingo, check these out..;)

http://65.66.244.26:8080/mvnforum/mvnforum/viewthread?thread=613

http://www.sakakibara-kikai.co.jp/products/other/LW.htm

And now, imagine mountining the Dread (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=526) onto it...hoowoo, it's Mech 1 in the making.:D