How viable are energy weapons /sci/?

Energy weapons are a meme

Kinetic weapons are superior in almost every way

>>7847047
>Energy weapons
>Kinetic weapons

>>7847040
i suppose it would depend on the application.
also the energy density of batteries of hypothetical future weapons.
a focused beam of plasma would require a metric fuckton of energy to produce, however if it could be sustained some advantages include:
>sustained fire reduces operator error, you don't shoot at a target so much as a general region

>faster "projectile" speed means no need to compensate for effects such as gravity and wind resistance for long range shots

>depending on efficency of hypothetical energy source could be lighter to carry than convential weapon + ammo

>again depending on battery could last longer between reloads allowing for longer sustained fire

the future of weaponry is with self guided munitions and rail cannons though tbqhwyfam

>>7847040
It depends. Directed Energy weapons can make sense in some cases. For example, a laser is absolutely great for shooting down mortar rounds and drones. Unlike a projectile weapon, you don't have to worry about projectiles landing on friendlies, you can quickly aim it and shoot things down at the speed of light, plus you get a huge number of shots from a regular ol' tank of gasoline.

But, lasers only fire in straight lines. You can't fire over a hill using a laser.

>>7847086
yes but plasma is much less dense than air meaning its gonna fly up in the air once it comes out.

File: scotty.jpg (19KB, 450x340px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x340px

>>7847040
Not sure about energy swords, but I can share some thoughts on space-based weaponry.

Laser-looking space weapons are favoured by almost every popular sci-fi in existence. Doesn't mean they're practical, though.

If you think about shooting a laser beam at a target, no matter how hot the laser is, what you get will be a hole in the bad guy's spaceship no larger in diameter to the laser you fired.

Now let's consider kinetic weapons. They actually become even more practical in space than they are on a planet's surface, because there is little to no gravity or air resistance. Consider meteors that impact earth- firing a rock no larger than 5 or so meters wide can result in a huge release of energy upon contact with another physical object.

To put it simply; since in space you can throw both a bullet or a dumpster at the speed of sound, the dumpster becomes much more effective than a bullet. 'Cause it's bigger.

Picture fairly unrelated.

>>7847109
not necesarily, while you are correct that plasma is less dense than air, because of the fact that it is comprised of isolated charged particles it's behavior largely regulated by the presence of E&M fields, and much less so by gravity.

this is how particle accelerators and fusion plants contain plasma, is with uniform magnetic fields.(close approximations)

the hard part would really be creating such a magnetic field that it would prevent the plasma from dissipating before reaching a desired target

>>7847120
this

futuristic space battles would probably be really really boring to watch, with both sides ussing passing meteoroids as ammo, flinging them at each other at hypersonic speeds using gravitational slingshot effects .
in all likelihood any spacecraft firing projectiles at each other would probably be on opposite sides of planets from one another

it would be more like artillery combat than anything

>>7847120
>>If you think about shooting a laser beam at a target, no matter how hot the laser is, what you get will be a hole in the bad guy's spaceship no larger in diameter to the laser you fired.
nope, if you fire a huge laser pulse it's like detonating a bomb on the surface of said spacecraft:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Laser_Cannon

>>7847177
>> with both sides ussing passing meteoroids as ammo
wut
>>hypersonic speeds
THERE IS NO SPEED OF SOUND IN A VACUUM.

>>spacecraft firing projectiles at each other would probably be on opposite sides of planets from one another
that gives each space ship a lot of time to dodge.

>>7847120
"Captain, they are now locking lasers on us."
"Lasers!?"
"Yes, sir."
"Lasers can't even penetrate our navigation shields. Don't they know that?"
"Regulations do call for yellow alert."
"Hmm, a very old regulation. Well, make it so Number One. And, reduce speed... drop main shields, as well."
"May I ask why, sir?"
"In case we decide to surrender to them, Number One... "

>>7847120
nah m8. its drones. shitloads of drones armed with one-shot casaba howitzers or something.

putting real people in harms way is so 20th century.

File: 1266722696908.png (120KB, 351x285px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 351x285px

>>7847339
>dilithium crystals