SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Win Smith who wrote (37669)8/13/2002 5:41:59 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
an unimpeachable source

I'll say. When I was a kid, "Popular Mechanics" and "Mechanic's Illustrated" were monthly bibles to me. I kept reading "Mechanic's Illustrated" until their car reviewer,Tom McCahill, finally died.

As the article points out, none of these devices do anything to wires or cables. But knocking out the boxes these systems all have to have does the job.



To: Win Smith who wrote (37669)8/13/2002 5:42:05 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Ultimately, the Army hopes to use E-bomb technology to explode artillery shells in midflight. The Navy wants to use the E-bomb's high-power microwave pulses to neutralize antiship missiles.

Now THAT'S ingenious (and I should have thought of the such a usage during previous reading on the subject)!!

Artillery shells, and bombs for that matter, become armed in flight, but they are detonated by their piezo-electric actuators making contact with the ground, either on contact, or with a delay). But if you can trigger the P-E actuator prematurely with HERF counter-measures, you theoretically could cause anti-aircraft shells and missiles to explode harmlessly (at least to our folks) well before they reach their intended target.

And being able to focus and direct such energy would render many current weapons systems nearly obsolete.

Now the problem is that our enemies can build it just as easily as we can. But we're more dependent on such technology...

Hmmmm......

Hawk



To: Win Smith who wrote (37669)8/13/2002 7:36:25 PM
From: Andy Thomas  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
you just had to post that didn't you?