Much like most of modern bogus revelations, it was developed, tested and proven ineffective compared to conventional technology long before the absolute majority of 4chan demographics has been even conceived. Kinetic projectiles, internal combustion engine and fertile human female will stay the best available means to serve their purposes for many decades to come.
>Now, a research team from Peking University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences led by professor Huang Fuqiang has reported a breakthrough in capacitor technology. In a paper published in the latest issue of the journal Science, they describe how the power density of their supercapacitor can reach 26 kilowatts per kilogram, or 130 times that of lithium-ion batteries.
>The Yal-1 laser cannon required a power output of one megawatt. A capacitor required to meet that power demand, using conventional technology, would weigh more than 10 tonnes. Huang’s team’s new supercapacitor, in theory, would weigh 40kg.
>“A significant weight loss in the power unit can reduce the overall mass of a laser system. It can extend the application of laser weapon to fighter jets or even spacecraft,” said professor Zhu Heyuan, an expert of laser technology at Fudan University in Shanghai, who was not involved in the research.
>“If the new technology really works and wins a nod from military, a Star Wars weapon may not be very far from us.”
>>28450034 It doesn't mattet how strong or lightweight your capacitor is. Lasers are fucking terrible for penetration and are not thermally efficient at roughly 50% transfer and conservatively at 40%. They'll never be any more than Less-Lethal ranged tasers and interruptive weapons for detonating ordnance.
They have nothing over conventional ballistics, especially not the supposed inherent accuracy.
The only circumstance where I see handheld lasers being feasible in the next 100 years is if you need on board security on the space station, a future spaceship with Bruce Willis on it, or that proposed Mars colony that will play out like a reality TV show - with the only advantage being hypothetical future rechargeable batteries.
>>28450298 Handheld binding systems could be very effective. There are already portable and vehicle mounted automated systems that scan for optic sights and suppress them with laser. With progress and miniaturisation of electronics its not difficult to image future system that can be mounted on soldiers gear (Predator canon style) and automatically blinds everyone who tries to look at him.
>>28449656 chemical laser rifles are possible, but useless for the same amount of highly-volatile chemicals, you can propel a bullet which will deliver way much more energy to the target current lasers hover around 5% efficiency a normal rifle can ~40%
Mounted lasers is one thing that exists today. Handheld (killer) lasers like pistols and rifles however just don't have enough feasibility to replace ballistics in the near future unless you want someone disintegrated.
>>28450581 turns out it can cook your eyes out and is illegal to use against civilians OR military, under the Geneva convention expect to see it equipping your local police station's surplus MRAP sometime in the next five years.
I'm more excited about the prospect that lasers could be replacing missiles for 6th Generation fighters. There are already plans to develop laser pods for the F-35 powered by the aircraft's internal power-plant.
>>28450572 The COIL used in the airborne laser program, when tested, showed efficiency above 20%. I only mentioned FELs because I thought the 5% value looked awfully low compared to laser being developed.
>>28450580 Did you also apply atmospheric loss into your 40% rifle efficiency?
>>28450841 > ausairpower kek. what next, an article in Daily Mail? > Adding atmospheric losses into weapon efficiency is ridiculous HURF DURF SANDSTORM .50 BMG kills just fine in a sandstorm sure, calculating windage might be a bit of a bitch...
WHy can't you understand. It is not correct in adding external factors on weapon efficiency. If you applied atmospheric conditions to the efficiency of a gun, your "efficiency" won't remain at a constant 40%. It'll vary with distance.
And look at this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_firearms#Firearm_energy_efficiency Where are the external factors?
Several vendors have claimed to break the 100kw mark that was postulated by USAF to be the minimum needed for combat back in the late '90s. This is with deployable systems, not lab-only ones.
So, for laser cannons, we're close.
For handheld weapons, lasers just aren't worth the effort, and probably won't be for the rest of the century. Lasers require a "dwell" time that is best-served by a stabilized platform, not a pair of arms. Small arms are more about suppressing targets, hitting targets that are moving or taking cover, and delivering debilitating injuries in fractions of a second, all of which lasers are poor at compared to kinetic weapons. The miniaturization needed would be a few decades away at the very least, and it's not really worth it to invest in that in the first place.
That said, a laser cannon on every major combat vehicle is entirely possible in a generation or two of vehicles. It will start with dedicated air defense/CRAM vehicles, and evolve from there based on what the other side is doing.
>>28452803 Lasers are still fucking worthless, they're at most only going to transfer 1/5th of their energy and the rest will dissipate as heat that you have to cool. On top of that they're easily defeated by any kind of hard protection like modern vehicle/personnel armor and unlike boolits they don't significantly damage the structure of armor enough to let them "crack" materiel. On top of that you have the logistic nightmare of even conceptually replacing/servicing electronic weaponry for millions of soldiers, and that's assuming laser systems could even hold together in adverse conditions like deserts.
At most lasers are going to be deployed as preventative ordnance detonation systems.
>>28452864 In what way was I unclear? I agreed that lasers make no sense for handheld weapons, and your arguments regarding heat dissipation and "millions of soldiers" make no sense in the context of vehicle-grade laser cannons.
I do see lasers having more of an anti-material role than perhaps you do; imagine a sub with a mast-mounted laser cannon for helo defense or making *really* sneaky holes in boats, or an aircraft or drone burning through the engine deck of a tank for a mobility kill.
But, yes, I'm in complete agreement that the biggest initial uses will be for CIWS/CRAM, including for use by aircraft against missiles.
Well, that, and burning through Hilux hoods to disable technicals in the GWoT.
Kinda. As a squad heavy weapon, some kind of laser cannon might be a thing. But not as a main weapon, in 50 years we'll either be using caseless or telescopic polymer cased ammo. Think of it as a long range focused flamethrower.
>burn sensors on heavy vehicles >pop tires on wheeled ones >melt barrels >heat up cover to the point the enemy has to surrender or come into the open/retreat >anti air role against low flying objects and obviously >set people on fire
All of this, 99% silent. Why not, in 50 years if battery technology is advanced enough, and we can build a powerful laser gun small enough for infantry use, it'd be really versatile and cost effective.
>>28452803 >The miniaturization needed would be a few decades away at the very least nah worst problem is the power supply, everything else would easily worked around. energy density of batteries is just way too shit for energy or even magnetic weapons.
>>28453038 >Think of it as a long range focused flamethrower Yes a flanethrower that loses about 80% of it's energy to heat output like one of those old giant industrial lights. Great. >set people on fire Holy shit I live in Alabama and this makes me say >Anerican Education System at work
>>28453120 Hey mr future man, how's life in 50 years from now? I'm talking about lasers 50 years in the future you dipshit. If today a vehicle mounted laser can set fire to a mortar round and blow it up, I'd say that in 50 fucking years we could have something powerful enough to set people on fire quickly enough.
50 years from today was 1966, you understand how far away in the future is "50 years" at this rate of technological advancements, right?
Remember the research in the '80s into putting Stingers on masts? They weren't for going helo hunting, they were for self-defense when the sub was at periscope depth to ID ships immediately prior to an attack, and a helo spotted the periscope.
The Russians did eventually put some MANPADs on a mast or two, I believe, but never made them general issue.
The Silent Service stuff would be the real benefit to a laser cannon, though.
>>28453013 >imagine a sub with a mast-mounted laser cannon for helo defense Missiles pound for pound will have greater range and with radar guidance will work in bad weather (pretty common thing above sea you know). More funny things is underwater cannon able to shoot torpedoes in underwater or helicopters without surfacing (check DSG ammo).
>>28453230 If a helo spots you, fucking submerge and go deep. That's about it. If you're spotted by a helo of a ship you're looking at, shooting it down isn't going to stop the ship from doing something about you.
The silent service side of it is useful though, I guess if you wanted to silently disable vehicles from a distance it would be a good idea.
>fudd season >mcfudd grabs his pappy's Thermo Lance Starburst from the safe >trecks into the woods with his trusty high density fusion battery backpack >Spots his prey, a Designer Enginered Enhanced Ruminate on the lord Monsanto's game sanctuary. >takes aim with the Nimrod 3000 aim assisted autoscope >D.E.E.R.™ burst Into flames as the sun's fury vaporizes the air around the target and cauterizes the wound for a prime BBQ.
Yup lasers are the future. No need to waste manpower on kenetic weapons.
>>28450346 The advantage of handheld railguns is specifically *because* of weight.
They aren't viable as primary small arms, but they're a potentially superior solution for launching grenades. It essentially means that you can have a lighter grenade with the same payload than you could with standard 40mm loads.
>>28454896 >but they're a potentially superior solution for launching grenades. In what way? Batteries will never have greater energy density than gunpowder/explosives. Grenade launchers are only limited by weight/recoil anyways.
Using a focused light weapon is certainly attractive but the mobility of said weapon system is limited.
Armored vehicles would be very difficult to destroy with said weapons, because all you need is heat dispersing materials in the composite armor
but it would wreck unarmored infantry, even if it doesn't go straight through them the heat will cause steam to build up and for flesh to quite possibly explode, creating a human steam grenade disorienting enemy infantry units.
>>28455412 Except it fucking doesn't. This fantasy of human flesh being seared in half instantaneously by lasers is fucking moronic. Lasers are ineffective at heat transferral, can be easily avoided by sitting behind waist-high wall, and require focused aim unlike a conventional "fire and forget" ballistic weapon.
Outfitting a vehicle with a laser weapon that needs specialized maintenance, needs to survive and work innadesert, and is just gonna be blown up by I.E.D.s anyway is extra retarded
>>28456257 >Also, who here expects NG to include a space (or a removable fuel tank like the F-35's) for a future ventral laser cannon in the B-3? It will be like that. Rotary launchers swaping for another containerised load.
>>28456142 >Boeing and Raytheon competed for the contract to design the 100 kW FEL. In September 2010, ONR announced that it had selected Boeing. The award makes Boeing the Navy’s current primary contractor for FEL development.
>>28450067 >Lasers are fucking terrible for penetration and are not thermally efficient This. Lasers are utter shit at turning energy input into actual destruction. Projectile weapons, as "crude" as they are, are actually extremely destructive and devastating by comparison.
The only applications where lasers will find favor over projectile weapons are situations where the simplified fire control/gunlaying is a top priority; i.e. missile defense.
>>28449656 the technology already exists, you can build a rifle that'll light people on fire from 100 yards at home. I dont think it will ever see use in wartime since they have the potential to blind without killing, a big no no in most war conventions.
>>28458524 it was more of a problem with it being impractical to spin up and down the turbines, say in city traffic. a modern hybrid implementation with a electric engine could address the problem very well.
>>28460646 oh yeah almost forgot it would also be pretty useless against ships cause it's practically the only thing you can attack a ship with that magnetic shields can deflect. lasers missiles or even throwing rocks at a ship magnets will do little good against but plasma? hell...
>>28450618 I agree with not for BVR, but they'll definitely be effective against other jets at WVR; have avionics automatically target the right place, like an air intake or the cockpit and you can cause a catastrophic failure, killing the pilot or sending molten debris through their engine.
I'll never understand this fad with powder weaponry. Much like other bog modern "revelations" like the position of the earth, it has been developed and tested to be ineffective compared to the conventional technology of the pike and spear. It's an incredibly inefficient way to kill compared to the good old spear that has lasted us for hundreds of years despite how crude it may seem to you plebeians.
Spears, wind power and a good goat sanctioned by the divine will remain the best available means to serve their purposes for the next few centuries. Try and prove me wrong, pro tip: [spoiler]you can't[/spoiler]
""""""Holy""""" """""Roman""""" cucks need not apply.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.