No offence to Ernest W. Adams but spy satellites are old news. Also they're not really weapons in the true sense of the word. No cheating Ernest!You want advanced stuff? I'll give you advanced stuff. I'll give you… sci-fi stuff.How about this?That, my friend, is NOT a telescope.That is in fact one of the latest, most modern weapons to be deployed on a Navy vessel.It's called, rather boringly, AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System or LaWS for short.I call it; a frickin’ laser cannon.But the professionals have less imagination and instead of calling it a “laser cannon” or even “space laser cannon” like normal people, they call it a “directed energy weapon” when they want to be fancy.The weapon in the picture (and the only one in existence yet) has been installed aboard USS Ponce for field testing and according to the Navy, performed perfectly and the commander of the Ponce was given full authority to use it as a defensive weapon.Being a test model it's not that powerful (33kw) yet, only being able to take down small targets like UAVs. However the Air Force had been successfully testing a Mw class laser weapon mounted on a modified B747 called YAL-1 until it's funding was cut in February 2012. The lessons learned from that project is being applied to current and future developments.YAL-1.The other advanced weapon currently undergoing testing is a railgun.This one.Railguns use solid projectiles propelled by a very strong magnetic field to insane speeds to deliver destructive force through sheer kinetic energy, rather than mass. Navy’s testing with railguns have proved that they are much more destructive than conventional projectiles at a given mass, they have a lot longer range, they have shorter flight times, they are safer because there're no explosive propellants or warheads, they are cheaper and more ammunition can be stored aboard ships because they are smaller. They can also be guided apparently (to be released with the next expansion pack exclusively for pre-orderers).No, that's not the explosion from the propellant.
Do you have a military nickname?
Andy...from my last name. Also, on my last ship (long story why) I got the nick name POPPA SMURF. The civilian person who serviced our pier fork lifts only knew me by that nick name. She had to get in touch with me while I was up on the ship (USS Nimitz) and she went to the quarter deck. They passed the word for SK1 POPPA SMURF. I heard it and went down to the quarter deck to meet her. My division kidded me about that for a long time. Several years later I was working for a civilian company and this same person (female) came to service one of our fork lifts. She saw me, and let out a yell POPPA SMURF! and grabbed me an hugged me. On one ship with women on board, I also had the nick name DAD. I had 11 women working for me at one time and they gave me the name. Most were young and away from home for the first time. I got a call a several years ago and when I answered the phone, a female voice said, "HI Dad!" I recognized her voice. She had been stationed on the west coast and had gotten married and come back to the east coast. She and her hubby(and 2 children) were guests at my home many times while they were still in the Navy. I still hear from her at Christmas and my birthday. We email from time to time and I've gotten phone calls from her several times over the past years. Some of the ones I was stationed with were Stoney (after an old time cowboy), Digger (after the undertaker in the movie THE LIFE OF RILEY), Chief (he was part Black Foot Indian), Sparks (radioman), Big John (stood 6'2", about 250lbs), Big and Little George (CO and XO in Antarctica), Stew (a cook), Ski (anyone with a Polish name was Ski), Momma Boats (female Bosn's mate), Root Beer (from his name Rubio and he liked root beer), Abadoodoo (from his Filipino name). So many I can't remember them all. (USN retired 1965 -85)
Intermediate Algebra, word problem!?
Okay so here it is. I completed a but still need b. The United states has the world's only large deck aircraft carriers which can hold up to 72 aircraft. The Enterprise class carrier is longest in leght while the Nimitz class carrier is the 2nd longest. The total lengt of these two carrier is 2193 feet while the difference of their lenghts is 9 feet. a. Find the length of each class carrier b. If a football field has a lenght of 100 yards, determine the length of the Enterprise class carrier in terms of numbdf of football carrier... I already got a. The length for Enterprise is 1101 Nimitz is 1092 I need you to explain me how to get b... not the answer! Just the process.. Thank you
Do you call the room to "At Ease" when a senior NCO walks in and you are the only soldier in there?
You only call At Ease when: 1. In a training environment (Basic/AIT) if any NCO comes up. 2. When the CSM arrives in the morning and leaves in the afternoon. 3. When the 1SG arrives in the morning and leaves in the afternoon, as long as they do not work in the same building as a CSM...if the CSM is in the same building, you only do it for them 4. When a group of Soldiers (E-4 and Below) are in a room and ANY NCO walks in, unless there is another NCO already in the room (But if that NCO outranks the NCO in the room, the NCO should call At Ease)...that is the way it is suppose to be, but it usually does not happen... I think she was just F'in with you...or she is a hard a55 trying to look good in front of the Soldiers...there is a lot of that going around
Nazi Germany's military vs Modern day U.S. military?
As good as nazi germany military was ( I'm not a nazi fan or nothing, but it was good. it took you yanks and us (I'm brittish,)a lot to stop them. at the time they were more advanced than us, their guns were better, their tanks were better, they terrorised us on/in the Atlantic Ocean with their uboats, so i can see why you ask this question, ) however it's a military force of nearly seventy years ago and could not win against an army with today's modern weaponry and training. But I don't think it would be as easy as what some answers are suggesting, just remember it took the soviet replubic, USA, uk, china, France, Poland, Canada and plenty of others that people might not realise, such as brazil, Greece eg. Well over 8 years (even though USA only fought in ww2 for 4 years they still helped out with supplies before that) to beat pretty much just nazi germany and Japan ( then Italy joined in for a bit but left early) and it was mostly USA who fought the Japanese in places like the solomon isladns, in europe it was basicly all of us verses nazi germany. 8 years to stop them... Certainly a force to be reckoned with.... @fill lvey, you'd just obliterate them with your jet fighters? I think your missing the point a little. It wouldn't be that easy,you have no allies remember! where do you think most of you planes take off from, or stop off at? you don't have air bases over here because we have the free space and we like you. That's why the nazis bombed the absolute **** out of my country back then ( oh yeah @nikola, thanks for giving the uk a shout out for its part in ww2, I know we didn't do much ) it wasn't to prevent our planes from being able to take off, it was yours too. Now I know your going to say aircraft carrier, but nazi germany ain't gonna just roll with that are they? Remember the uboats? ok no match for todays but they are still going to cause problems. I think it would be harder for you to bet nazi germany now than the Taliban, (germany where certainly better equipped, lol ) witch to be honest isn't proving as easy as every one thought.
Why are bridges constructed in a curved fashion?
Um, consider the alternative to constructing a curved bridge in the case of the Brooklyn Bridge. When you build a bridge over a river you usually want boats to be able to pass underneath the bridge. Some boats are tall, so your bridge now has to be tall. But if the deck of the bridge is way up in the air then cars need a way to get to the deck. Since our hypothetical alt-Brooklyn Bridge is now straight instead of curved, we'll have to build a ramp to get to the deck. Now, just imagine having to drive a car up a very steep ramp before the ramp abruptly ends at the terminal point of a flat bridge deck. This is virtually absurd and certainly impractical: it would be like forcing your car to go mountain climbing to cross a river, to say nothing of how excessive speeds on the opposite ramp would become a problem as people descend a steep ramp away from the bridge. Not only that, but considering the fact that the approach ramps for the real, curved Brooklyn Bridge already begin relatively far from the shore line in order to allow the bridge to be as high as it is, a flat Brooklyn Bridge with steep ramps would have to either extend further inland (in which case there'd be no room for City Hall in Manhattan) or the ramps would have to be super-steep. The simple solution to these problems? Just build a curved bridge.