Are kinetic weapons completely useless in a sci-fi combat setting?

Lasers don't have penetration and take ungodly amounts of power

You don't fire that may missiles
How many enemies do you really think a single ship has to take on?

90% of the time its 1 launch 1 hit 1 kill

>>32864252
Kinetic weapons sure kick ass in all the Halo books ive read.
Also if a ship needs to use a missile, with today's guidance systems it usually takes one and yes the fight is usually over in 5 minutes.

File: future_war_by_steve_burg-d2y3q9p.jpg (494KB, 2400x1200px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 2400x1200px

this is a future war art thread now

>>32864252

Lasers are trash for most purposes.

They only heat their target, they don't actually apply any sort of kinetic force to it. It's easier to defend against a laser than a kinetic weapon. They use lots of power. They are line-of-sight only. Etc, etc.

Kinetic weapons are not going anywhere. Hitting something really fast with something very hard is always going to work.

File: war_art_2-wallpaper-1920x1200.jpg (739KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 1920x1200px

>>32865410

File: inka-shu-gladiator.jpg (356KB, 1414x2000px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1414x2000px

>>32865410
>future
>mechs
choose one

>>32864252
>how the hell do ships carry enough missiles to sustain a fight for longer than 5 minutes?

I assume you're asking about real ships?

Well firstly, they carry a LOT of missiles, typically around 100, and there are many ships in a particular strike group, so that's hundreds and hundreds of missiles. Yes, for an all-out pitched battle that might not be much, but for most engagements that's a pretty decent number of missiles.

>Do they reload the missile like submarines where they have to wait to "flood the tubes", open hatches and shit?

Well, I don't know about every ship that exists, but the US Navy's destroyers actually have to return to port to be reloaded. You cannot reload them at sea.

And the submarine thing you're thinking of are called torpedoes. Subs carry a lot of them. Virginia class carries 38 torps, and can fire them out of 4 tubes.

Subs that carry ballistic missiles must also return to port to be reloaded. But those are nukes, so if you fire them off you'd be lucky just to have a port to return to.

File: To Victory.jpg (1MB, 1600x1191px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1191px

>>32865410

>>32865502
Mechs are only unrealistic with our shitty tech, if good reflexes, sensors, weapon platforms and such could be implemented they'd be feasible

>>32864252
Lasers are more useful in space combat, where their lack of ammunition and higher speed make them useful. Kinetic weapons can deliver specialty payloads and fire indirectly. I personally favor the electrolaser, which is more useful if you face technologically inclined enemies.

>>32866821
No they wouldn't, both because of square-cube law and the fact that mechs have significantly more vulnerabilities compared to basically any other weapons platform.

No amount of magic theoretical technology would make them possible outside of load-bearing.

>>32865457
Earth 2150 was great with this

> first to develop lasers
> kicks ass
> someone develops shields
> switch back to kenitic because shields

>>32867538
would be useful for riots (etc)

> some cunt parked a car
Step on it
> some cunt at the back throwing shit
Adjust height and eliminate trouble maker

Mech make sense in asymmetrical conflict

>>32867552
>> some cunt parked a car
>Step on it
Can't just drive over it with a tank?
> some cunt at the back throwing shit
>Adjust height and eliminate trouble maker
That's what teargas launchers are for

File: 975281289204.jpg (11KB, 252x167px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 252x167px

>>32864252
Aren't guns kinetic weapons since they use the kinetic energy of the bullets they shoot to neutralize the target?

File: P_20170203_222548.jpg (2MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x2304px

>>32867546
Haven't played that in ages, I still have the disk

>>32867683
yes retard

>>32867552
>> some cunt parked a car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DXUjoDjPWk

>>32867519
Lasers are relatively short range weapons in space though. Most useful for point defense.

File: DSM-5-Autism-Spectrum-Disorder-1.png (23KB, 1066x214px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1066x214px

>>32867683

File: Macstationcairolarge1ki.jpg (72KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x720px

>Are kinetic weapons completely useless in a sci-fi combat setting?
depends on how big they are

So long as the laws of physics must be obeyed they will remain viable.

File: Luigi real.jpg (31KB, 600x575px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x575px

>>32865457
>Lasers
>they don't actually apply any sort of kinetic force to it.
Of course they don't.

File: 7.jpg (17KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 852x480px

>>32865327
>Lasers don't have penetration and take ungodly amounts of power

This.

Also, multi-spectrum smoke screen could stop lasers.

>>32867546

Fuck yeah, dramatic combat music and lasers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gOr-zf1dek

>>32866821

Except that we'd just put that stuff on other existing platforms, which would then be *even better*.

Putting legs on a tank and removing its main gun does not improve it.

I think particle weapons would be best in space. Irradiated crew and free shipping!