Military's Multiple Kill Vehicle is Dead

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
It doesn't even look real to me.
It moves along on a perfect axis from left to right without much sign of lateral boost or change of height. Hence why the unlevel netting is convenient for this production. The vertical thruster is thrusting yet the level of the machine hardly moves.
Call me an idiot - but I don't trust this vid.
Looks like a video game production setting too. How better to make the smoke blend in with the background and hide details that can't me masked so easily. 2 cents.
 

B-Unit

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2006
72
0
18,580
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]I hate to be rude but to comment on Hellbounds post, grow up. You are scared of being vulnerable in a country that has created it's own enemies. I would be too, I guess. I am not though, I would lay down my weapons and take one for the team just to prove a point that violence is NOT the answer. Some people really just think that is just a "STATEMENT"... noooo.... it is REALITY! I am sure the earth created humans to destroy it. Yea, OK!!![/citation]

I hate to shoot down your hyper-inflated sense of worth, but your death would do nothing to prove violence isnt the answer.

Infact, it would likely do the opposite.
 

rembo666

Distinguished
Apr 6, 2009
5
0
18,510
I think this thing is pretty useless. If you want a UAV that can hover--go with a helicopter! This thing is way too visible and makes way too much noise. It might scare somebody at first, but in the end, it would just make an easy target to pick off.
 

Hellbound

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2004
184
0
18,630
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]I hate to be rude but to comment on Hellbounds post, grow up. You are scared of being vulnerable in a country that has created it's own enemies. I would be too, I guess. I am not though, I would lay down my weapons and take one for the team just to prove a point that violence is NOT the answer. Some people really just think that is just a "STATEMENT"... noooo.... it is REALITY! I am sure the earth created humans to destroy it. Yea, OK!!![/citation]

Wow...just wow. My guess is you dont get it, and probably never will. If you are an American (and I hope you are not), in some countries you would be killed just for being so... The United States of America has always stood on the principals of freedom for all, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from tyranny. And when you stand on such principals you will be hated by those who believe the opposite..and there are plenty of countries that do.

What I hate seeing is President Obama shaking the hands of these communist rulers that have no intention of giving in. Every time Obama gives these people attention, he smashes the hope of those people living there who want freedom. Trust me, I've served 25 years in the military and I've seen it.

So mlopinto2k1, you said "I would lay down my weapons and take one for the team".... Yes, go ahead and lay down your weapons. Become vulnerable. What will happen is you will die, and you will give the enemy a weapon to use.

I'm a proud American. I will never sacrifice my principals.
 

theangrygimp

Distinguished
May 10, 2009
21
0
18,560
That did look pretty pathetic. Seriously, if your just wanting to take out several hostiles in a given small area, then you would just use a frag grenade. They are small, pretty light, and can be chucked like a small potato with good accuracy, and an expected time of detonation. I thought they would have been working on an actual flying drone, not this piece of junk looking thing. Seriously, we have small remote controlled helicopters, why can't thy just take that further, and keep all remote machines controlled by people for ethnic and moral decisions in combat. Have it destroy itself after so many min without connection to certified host controller, or whatever, but this is just not worth the investment that we gave unwillingly by means of our tax dollars.
 

warezme

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2006
426
0
18,940
hmmm, seems you could do the same with multiple computer controlled miniature jet engines, like the ones used on model jet planes, they wouldn't be as dramatic and stay aloft longer than rockets, unless rockets were used on the proto type to test the computer controls with simple rockets.
 

nottheking

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2006
311
0
18,930
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]In a world where Islamic radicals seek to kill Americans simply for being American, cutting military funding is not a smart idea.[/citation]
However, one must recognize that of the vast array of tools at the military's disposal, hardly all of them are suitable for a given task; in fact, no tool is really suitable for all tasks, and there is no task where all tools are suitable for it.

Hence, it's logical to find which tools are not needed for any of the tasks that the military will be facing now or in the future. The vast majority of the current arsenal was designed for the task of deterring and/or halting a massive army and air force that would sweep into Europe from the East. Since the USSR collapsed in 1991, this is a task that the military won't have to face. Hence, the tools designed to fight the USSR lack a purpose; it is best to re-direct resources (including funds) from there to other tools best suited for the current and future tasks on hand; the USSR is by no means remotely similar an adversary to terrorist organizations.

Likewise, cutting of overall military spending could hence be done without impairing America's ability to fight terrorism whatsoever, provided all the cuts were done to programs that had no role in the War on Terrorism, like, say, the MKV or the F-22. It's like overall welfare; if social welfare payment programs are cut, that doesn't pose a threat to Social Security.

[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]So much about this president is wrong. Killing the MKV project while other countries seek to create nuclear weapons makes me wonder what his true goal is.[/citation]
From my guess, he's trying to make a half-hearted stab toward balancing the budget in the future, or at least, to attempt to curb these massive budget deficits. Whether Mr. President follows through with them in the future remains to be seen; I must say I wasn't pleased with his proposed budget projecting that deficits would stop shrinking after a few years, rather than keep on shrinking until vanishing and becoming budget surpluses like we had happen in the late 90s.

As for nuclear weapons, there's a huge difference between making a nuclear bomb, and making a nuclear missile. A government's initial nuclear weapons will be massive; "Little Boy" weighed almost 4.5 tons, and "Fat Man" weighed 5.1. These masses are simply too high to place on a missile, and too weak the be sure that, once the high error level of crude ballistic missiles is taken into account, that their blast radius will even graze the intended target, making such ideas highly useless.

Hence, for now, by and far the best way of preventing nuclear threats to America is to make sure no threatening entities get the technology to threaten American in the first place. While a suicide bomber safely some distance from you with you shooting at them isn't a huge threat, a suicide bomber without any bombs is no threat at all.

[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom] I dont trust him.Btw, I'm not a Bush fan. But I believe Bush wanted to protect this country..no matter what.[/citation]
Actually, you contradict yourself there. As you are a self-admitted military person, that would indicate that to you, protecting America is a very big priority, if not #1. Hence, if you truly believed in Bush, then yes, you were a fan of him.

[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]If you are an American (and I hope you are not)... I'm a proud American.[/citation]
Those two don't exactly go together too well. Americans (of which I'm one of the few who, through years of study, understands what it means, AND is actually proud of it, rather than a pseudo-American illusion like most are) are supposed to be very open to other people. One of the core principles is the idea that, in time, liberty can be brought to all people. It's a true aspect of American pride to see millions of people from all walks of life look at America, and wish to be Americans themselves, from the countless refugees of the world's conflicts, to those of Latin America, to even our more prominent immigrants; (like Arnold Schwartzenegger) they all have a desire to be Americans, too. And it is selfish, un-patriotic, and un-American to think anything other than that it is possible for everyone in the world to gain the same liberty, to think that there's not enough to share.

[citation][nom]theangrygimp[/nom]That did look pretty pathetic. Seriously, if your just wanting to take out several hostiles in a given small area, then you would just use a frag grenade.[/citation]
If you bothered to read up in the subject, you'd find that the MKV is NOT AN UAV. It is a type of anti-missile countermeasure. It is, proverbially, a "bullet designed to hit a bullet;" unlike cruise missiles, which travel at sub-mach speeds, nuclear ballistic missiles are among the fastest projectiles humankind has ever produced, as they are essentially spacecraft, just designed to strike a certain spot on the Earth, rather than to achieve orbit. At such speeds, taking out an incoming nuclear missile is a daunting task; you're talking about something zipping toward you at upwards of 10,000 MPH. It's not something you can take out with a cheap UAV or rockets; this is what the RIM-161 Standard Missle-3 is designed for, but it only has a single "kinetic warhead." (read: rocket-launched bullet) Meanwhile, most ICBMs carry multiple nuclear warheads, and often a lot of "penetration aids" (decoys, usually in the form of metallic balloons and chaff) packed in with it. These all reduce the odds of a single missile hitting the warhead, so the MKV was designed to counter that by being a multi-warhead missile, too.
 

theangrygimp

Distinguished
May 10, 2009
21
0
18,560
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]If you bothered to read up in the subject, you'd find that the MKV is NOT AN UAV. It is a type of anti-missile countermeasure.[/citation] Gee, I wonder where I could have gotten the idea that it was a hovering shooting vehicle when I was reading this article.

"The MKV is an unmanned drone that is able lift off and hover under its own propulsion, while remaining stationary in the air using it’s on board retro-rockets – something that we’ve seen before only in science-fiction movies." - This article

Now instead of being a dick and acting like the king of long posts, you could of just asked the author to fix the article so that others wouldn't be misinformed by just reading the article and not the comments. Instead of acting like it was my duty to investigate the sites journalism. I'm a disabled Veteran BTW. I have seen plenty of craptacular tech coming from military, and it wouldn't have surprised me one bit if this was an attempt at a terrible hovering/shooting vehicle. Hell, I was using radio tech that was 20yrs old at least.
 

belardo

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2008
1,143
0
19,230
The article really should have pointed out that the MKV is a manuvering module for a missle... from the name and the modern world or drones and remote controlled weapons its easy to be confused... when an article says "tank" or "bomber", we KNOW what it is.

MKV may also have been canceled because it has problems and or something better was made. We don't have all the facts other than "canceled".
 

Hellbound

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2004
184
0
18,630
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]However, one must recognize that of the vast array of tools at the military's disposal, hardly all of them are suitable for a given task; in fact, no tool is really suitable for all tasks, and there is no task where all tools are suitable for it.

Hence, it's logical to find which tools are not needed for any of the tasks that the military will be facing now or in the future. The vast majority of the current arsenal was designed for the task of deterring and/or halting a massive army and air force that would sweep into Europe from the East. Since the USSR collapsed in 1991, this is a task that the military won't have to face. Hence, the tools designed to fight the USSR lack a purpose; it is best to re-direct resources (including funds) from there to other tools best suited for the current and future tasks on hand; the USSR is by no means remotely similar an adversary to terrorist organizations.

Likewise, cutting of overall military spending could hence be done without impairing America's ability to fight terrorism whatsoever, provided all the cuts were done to programs that had no role in the War on Terrorism, like, say, the MKV or the F-22. It's like overall welfare; if social welfare payment programs are cut, that doesn't pose a threat to Social Security.[/citation]

I don't totally disagree with you. But in knowing what I know, the MKV was a project with defense in mind. It was designed to counter multiple ballistic missile threats..which is always a good thing.

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]From my guess, he's trying to make a half-hearted stab toward balancing the budget in the future, or at least, to attempt to curb these massive budget deficits. Whether Mr. President follows through with them in the future remains to be seen; I must say I wasn't pleased with his proposed budget projecting that deficits would stop shrinking after a few years, rather than keep on shrinking until vanishing and becoming budget surpluses like we had happen in the late 90s

As for nuclear weapons, there's a huge difference between making a nuclear bomb, and making a nuclear missile. A government's initial nuclear weapons will be massive; "Little Boy" weighed almost 4.5 tons, and "Fat Man" weighed 5.1. These masses are simply too high to place on a missile, and too weak the be sure that, once the high error level of crude ballistic missiles is taken into account, that their blast radius will even graze the intended target, making such ideas highly useless.

Hence, for now, by and far the best way of preventing nuclear threats to America is to make sure no threatening entities get the technology to threaten American in the first place. While a suicide bomber safely some distance from you with you shooting at them isn't a huge threat, a suicide bomber without any bombs is no threat at all.[/citation]

Yes, it is difficult to create a nuclear missile. The biggest hurtle in doing so lays with creating the nuclear device itself. Once you have that, the rest isn't to far behind. So yes, the key is prevention. But you cant prevent without some sort of action, be it diplomatic or military.

Lets not count out the use of dirty bombs.

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Actually, you contradict yourself there. As you are a self-admitted military person, that would indicate that to you, protecting America is a very big priority, if not #1. Hence, if you truly believed in Bush, then yes, you were a fan of him. [/citation]

Actually no, I don't. I'm having a big issue with trusting President Obama. I see many socialist tendencies in him. Many of those have failed in other countries.

Lets not confuse duty over personal beliefs. My duty is to protect the United States of America and its citizens. My duty is to follow the Presidents orders. But that doesn't mean I have to believe the President will always do the right thing. And no, I wasn't a fan of Bush, just like today I'm not a fan of Obama. But I still have my duties.

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom] Those two don't exactly go together too well. Americans (of which I'm one of the few who, through years of study, understands what it means, AND is actually proud of it, rather than a pseudo-American illusion like most are) are supposed to be very open to other people. One of the core principles is the idea that, in time, liberty can be brought to all people. It's a true aspect of American pride to see millions of people from all walks of life look at America, and wish to be Americans themselves, from the countless refugees of the world's conflicts, to those of Latin America, to even our more prominent immigrants; (like Arnold Schwartzenegger) they all have a desire to be Americans, too. And it is selfish, un-patriotic, and un-American to think anything other than that it is possible for everyone in the world to gain the same liberty, to think that there's not enough to share.[/citation]

Anyone can cut/paste words you have said and make them look like they contradict. I could have done that with you on many occasions here. But since you put my comment out of context, I have to put it back into context. Simply put "If you are an American (and I hope you are not)..." was in response to someone who would put American lives at risk to prove a point that they would, as he said "take one for the team". My hope was that he wasn't an American. To think you would put your countryman at risk by lowering your defenses is un-American.

The United States of America is the most diverse country I know.. And I'm very proud to be a part of that. My family moved here from African and became citizens over 70 years ago. My grandfather spent his whole life trying to get his family out of Africa. He spent his remaining years teaching us the differences. Needless to say, the United States of America isn't perfect, but its the best country on this planet.

 

belardo

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2008
1,143
0
19,230
[citation][nom][citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]If you are an American (and I hope you are not), in some countries you would be killed just for being so... The United States of America has always stood on the principals of freedom for all, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from tyranny. I'm a proud American. I will never sacrifice my principals.[/citation]

Your quote about "being an American" is not directed at me. But your statement sure isn't "American". The USA is supposed to be about freedom. But people like you tell such people to LEAVE or if a Black man is president, threaten to leave the Union. The principals to talk about are not Team Bush.

"There ought to be limits to freedom" (refering to free speech) - George W. Bush. Before he was handed the presidency in 2000.

Freedom for all: As long as you're not gay, not a liberal and you're a Christian. - this applies to you. Remeber the stupid "we are not red hats or blue hats" from the RNC? God that was stupid.

freedom of religion : This means the Seperation of church and state. Theres a reson for this. Nothing wrong with being religious - but when you force your will on others (Christian, Islamic, whatever) then its against the law and not freefom. This includes religious views against abortion and stem cells, birth control, etc.

freedom from tyranny You just described bush. Spying on Americans, lying to the American people to get what they want, outing out CIA agent because her husband was saying the "intel was false", attacking another country because "he wanted to kill my daddy" so now we have over 4000 dead AMERICAN DADDYS.

As an American, you're allowed your view as I am myself. The debate is healthy. But ignoring facts because you want "to believe" doesn't help you or anyone. Seriously - at this moment, think about it for 1 minute. What if everything that FOX and Team Bush has said was lies? That perhaps what others are saying are true. Or is that too painful? Like some woman on a cable new show saying she doesn't want to know about the torture. "Its too horrible" - uh yea it is, but she wants to put her head in the sand.

[citation][nom][citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]Just wasnt very Obama friendly. I guess you guys support that tyrant. I'm not a Bush fan. But I believe Bush wanted to protect this country..no matter what.[/citation]

You watch Beck too much. There has been no actions to show he's a tyrant. The issue guys like you seem to have is his name, color and democrate - the shame. He's already made the govt. more transparent which is WHAT the USA is about. Bush, your king - made the govt. bigger and has done a lot of things behind our back, illegally. Ordering torture is American values? LOL - but thats not funny.

Bush and his friends made a lot of money with Iraq... he has made the world more dangerous. The Taliban and other terrorist groups have grown... how is that better? Look at the mess we have now. We have plenty of proof of Team bushes stupidy and greed. I am a Texan, bush will never be considered a Texan and many Texans knows he's an idiot.

 

belardo

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2008
1,143
0
19,230
Hellbound quotes
President Obama. I see many socialist tendencies in him.
I doubt it. Just repeating talking heads. Whats your list of proof? Our medical system is in shambles - its made for profit before medical health. The govt does spend billions, but it goes to insuance companies. Thank Nixon for that. Your "socialism" includes libraries, police, fire-dept. the roads we drive on, EPA, etc. So what are you talking about?

And I'm very proud to be a part of that(USA). My family moved here from African and became citizens over 70 years ago. Needless to say, the United States of America isn't perfect, but its the best country on this planet.

I'm part American Indian, Texan. So I have a much deeper history here. :) Welcome to the USA. The USA isn't pefect and it WAS the best country on the planet. I don't know what is, but theres a lot of problems here. And to be an "American" is to admit problems. Not blindly waving the flag like a moron.

The issue we have here, we DON'T know exactly why the MKV was canceled. And yet we have red-necks screaming "Obama". Doing tea-bagging parties and screaming about taxes when they're getting a tax break. It took team bush 8 years to screw things up this badly, its not possible for anyone to fix things overnight. The consitution was used as toilet paper by bush / cheny / rove and that is an insult to every American.
 

bin1127

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2008
380
0
18,930
they aren't letting this go. it's too useful. pretty much a modified drone with a hellfire missile. the main problem might be the technology can be adapted by taliban and reverse ass-kick the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.