So, a more expensive version of that thing the French did where they were dropping training bombs?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/04/france-dropping-non-explosive-bombs-libya/350160/
In essence, yes, but its to be more accurate.
Comparatively speaking a tank is much easier to hit than a car, and significantly easier to hit than a lone person. In order for this munition to actually be effective it would have to be incredibly precise, as you only have 3 +/- meters or so of fudge room to hit a man sized target.
This is a whole new definition of "fuck you in particular."
Also, jeez, 6 subsonic super sharp blades? That'll make for a hell if a red-rain shower....
I imagine the aftermath of this thing hitting a person is messy.
As morbid as a knife-bomb seems, this is actually really good. Modern high-tech guidance systems has made smaller weapons practical, as a more accurate weapon can destroy a given target with a smaller payload.
Yeah, I agree, and the life-cost benefit outwieghs how much it actually costs. Taking out one particular guy with just this missile, is better than sending in a squad of soldiers, or using a regular bomb and fucking up everything around it. It's morbid, it's awful, but it's better.
I just wish we didn't need it to begin with.
The fun feeling of mixed emotions between the horror of the idea and enthusiastic awe at the ingenuity of it.
so does it have a terrorist identification chip to prevent accidental non-terrorist hits?
What happens when someone salvages the rockets and makes a working rocket that IS a bomb?
Goddamn.
I imagine there won't be much left of the missile after crashing through a person/car/whatever and then crashing into the ground.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/2304/662286bc-747c-4003-9656-73e20546cb4d/image.png
Why even deploy blades? One of those from the sky at Mach something is going to kill or at least hideously maim anyone it hits unless you just flat out miss the target and put a giant hole in the wall beside them.
We've basically reinvented shooting cannon balls at sailors and cutting them physically in half as the ball rips through their torso, but the delivery's (hopefully) more precise and capable of being launched from more than ~100 yards away.
Probably to increase the chance of hitting the thing like you said. Or because it's metal as fuck/some general wanted it to have swords
To shreds you say.
This is why I didn't get my Bio Chip upgrade at LIMB. The government is trying to kill people. Wake up shepele. /s
You can actually see the blade cuts on the roof of the car and it's really amazing how perfectly line up the cuts are with the car.
So now we finally have knife bombs, can we start working on rocket propelled chainsaws?
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/168411/e2e29fa1-fe1c-49b5-afc9-6d84d78fe590/image.png
A bomb that eviscertates by throwing thousands of sharp pointy things at you... That's pretty fucking metal.
Is the bombs code name "Agincourt" by chance?
Gee, I wonder if a bigger projectile has a better chance of hitting something over a smaller one.
"or at least hideously maim"
you answered your own question. A weapon that has a high probability of not killing someone isn't really humane. Blades probably also make it a bit easier to aim.
If a non-target is in the way, the blade actually maneuvers past the person using magnetism, it taps into the Earth's magnetic field in order to achieve this, don't ask how you won't understand the advanced technology at play, how is it able to scan a target so fast though? Microscopic camera's that can scan a target within mere Picoseconds.
Not sure who started it first, but the US has done something similar in Iraq in the late 90s
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/world/us-wields-defter-weapon-against-iraq-concrete-bomb.html
And the UK during the Invasion in 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2919249.stm
I don't understand how a projectile the size of a human being, dropped from the sky, covered in fucking swords has a "high probability" of not killing someone. It either hits you and permanently scars anyone that sees it happen, or you fuckin' gun it for the nearest hole to hide in once you feel the ground shake right beside you.
The blades are almost certainly neither particularly sharp (because all that would do is make handling/assembling it more difficult, not more effective at those speeds), and are the simplest way to expand the "footprint" of the bomb with the lowest rate of failure.
Well it could pretty easily strike a non-critical area of your body if anything in the aiming process was less than perfect, or rip a big chunk out of you, leaving you do die over the course of hours.
There's no reason to not increase the lethality in a humane way
That sounds very futuristic grim.
When are we getting desintegrating grenades?
I expected something like a really tiny shaped charge with DIME explosives and a plastic casing to minimize collateral damage, not a man sized version of that fucking Guillotine arrow tip turkey hunters use to decapitate their prey, jesus christ. I like it. I have to say though, why not just send a tube of ball bearings at them? Then you could fine tune how wide of a death cone you get just by timing how early or late the dispersal charge pops, sorta like the canister shells for the M1A1 Abrams.
So it's essentially a long ranged giant throwing knife?
neat
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
