Drone Carrier

  • Tuesday, June 14, 2011
  • Archimedes
  • Labels: , , ,
  • This ideas seems to obvious and natural that I am amazed that i have found little mention of anything like it, either its being developed as some top secret project, or its being completely overlooked.

    WWII has proved that aircraft rule the seas, period. The Iraq war has proved that drone aircraft are fully capable of delivering ordnance to a target and excel at reconnaissance and surveillance. These two instruments are virtually made for each other, lets put them to good use, together.

    A naval vessel consisting of nothing but extensive machine shops and control centers for drone aircraft would be bulky, but smaller I'd think, than an actual aircraft carrier. Drones takeoff from vertical launch rails assisted by booster rockets, allowing for an extremely fast takeoff that would kill the pilot of a manned aircraft. Multiple such rails would take little deck space, and an entire wing of drones could be launched at once.

    A drone is much lighter than an actual jet, so the landing strip could be shorter. Computerized landing and refitting allows a drone to quickly re-fuel and re-arm and get back in the sky. Drones once developed to be fast and maneuverable enough will serve as the carriers missile defense, specialized defense drones constantly surround the carrier and places themselves between any incoming projectiles and their host carrier.

    At the current drone technology, the only fesitable combat role for a vessel "armed" with these drones would be similar to that of a missile cruiser, area defense and support. But once the next generation of possibly jet powered drones come operational, a large nuclear carrier refitted to carry hundreds of these drones could very well replace a super-carrier.

    Infantry Mobility Suite

  • Saturday, June 11, 2011
  • Archimedes
  • Labels: , , , ,
  • Despite modern combat becoming more and more mechanized, infantry is still a vital element in securing and fortifying a position taken by machines. The offensive potential of infantry has nevertheless decreased drastically. Personally I don't think this is due to a lack of infantry weaponry, as man portable weapons can still take down the most advanced war machines, and I also don't think the fragility of infantry has much to do with their demise. I believe the only reason that a man with a rifle is no longer an offensive battlefield threat is due to his lack of mobility, and as such he is usually transported by machines.

    There are already several existing methods that seek to remedy this issue, the Armored Personnel Transport for one proves that infantry still has potential on the front lines, but the death of one loaded transport is the loss of quite an asset, and by itself the transport is of little use compared to other vehicles. I'd say that right now, the average marine needs a way to move himself from place to place fast and without the help of other machines.

    The perfect solution would be a man portable jet pack or some jet powered device that will enable a man to fly, but I'd say that its painfully obvious that a jet used continuously would burn off a man's legs and most of the lower torso. At the time i don't believe there is any material that can dissipate the heat fast enough for such a device to be remotely possible.

    But how much does it actually take to lift a man? Your average marine weighs about 200 pounds with all equipment attached, your average jet weighs a few tonnes with all its weapons and fuel. Why use something used to lift tonnes to lift 200 pounds? Using a jet to lift something as light as a single man seems like overkill.

    My solution, a small but powerful air compressor, a propellent tank, an enhancement tank filled with water or loose dirt, and some very heavy protective pants. The amount of thrust generated is closely related to the amount of propellent expelled, and by adding water or dirt into the compressed air stream we increase the mass of the propellent and ensure that the temperature of said propellent dosent reach harmful levels. Such a device is not meant for sustained flight, but should hold enough charge for two bursts, one takeoff burst to blast the user into the air, and another landing burst to soften the impact of landing. In combat the device can be used to jump from cover to cover, making the user extremely hard to engage, and "parachuting" with this device would require no parachute.
    Copyright 2010 ArchimedesRealm