Is there a reason why laser-based weapons aren't mainstream

>>33090372
Do you mean in media and stuff? Lasers aren't as flashy, sexy, or intimidating as a real rifle. If you'll notice, a lot of the operator types in near-future and far-future movies use slugthrowers for that exact reason. Slugthrowers strike as "serious" with test crowds.

If you're talking about real life, and why they're not in production, then you're stupid. They dont do anything better and are exponentially more expensive then kinetic based weaponry.

Side note : can we have a days since "why hasnt X futuretech been adopted" counter on /k/?

>>33090372

They had the technology for Breech loading weapons in the 14th century, why did it take them until the 19th and 20th centuries for it to become mainstream?

We don't have the infrastructure and production capabilities to mitigate the costs and use of such weapons. We can't make batteries with enough storage, be portable and viable in a combat environment, why do this when a rifle still does what you want and much more effectively?

Lasers will never replace firearms as the mainline weapon, We'll see magnetically accelerated projectiles, maybe plasma throwers, shit like this before Lasers, if ever, come out on top.

2/10 you made me reply

>>33090372
in short , cost of replacing standing armies issue weapons , cost of manufacture , heavy batteries , lack of power at range of laser etc.

We just are not there yet.

>>33090399
Graphine batteries soon, early-morning /k/omrade. Also, cant fucking wait for railgun tech to advance in our lifetimes.

>>33090372
Fun fact: shot glass of boiling hot water is 3000 joules of thermal energy. Same as kinetic energy of .308 Winchester. One tickles another blows heads to pieces.

>>33090410
Graphene, not graphine
Sorry I'm being pedantic

I think fuel cells are more viable
Graphene hype seems lot like fusion power hype, theoretically possible and would solve everything, but it's nearly impossible

>>33090372
No. 1 is answer is Why? What makes them better then anything we have at the moment, the answer really is probably: Long range, more humane and silent.
All these things can be done with a slightly modified AR, there isn't a need for all the extra costs and complexity. That's the same reason why armies still use mechanical triggers and springs over electrics.

>>33090431
Its cool man, gotta call it like you see it. I agree that fuel cells are probably where we're gonna wind up heading to on the power front.

Its kinda crazy that we're on the technical precipice of theoretically infinite energy and our largest problem is how the fuck we're going to store all this shit.

>>33090414
I wanna see you down a shot of boiling water.

Bullets are much more efficient and practical in 99.9999% of situations.

The only times when laser weapons will be useful is when in the distant future we are fighting wars with hundreds of thousands of miles inbetween space ships, and we need the fastest possible weapon to engage at such extreme distances.

cost and ease of manufacture.

also, they would be forbidden under several conventions. LRAP is already in a grey area.

>>33090460

still would extremely ineffective. see: inverse square law. even lasers attenuate over distance.

kinetic weapons would still be king. or some weird hybrid weapon. a self propelled directed energy weapon. one that gets its self within range or a target and they releases its energy....

....almost like a torpedo of sorts.

>>33090450
I wanna see you insert rifle barrel into someone mouth to do damage.

>I mean we already have the technology to have them
No we don't. Not even close. Diodes, the type of laser compact enough to carry, have piss poor efficiency. Like 10-20% efficiency. That's 80-90% of your electricity being turned into heat in the gun. Now carry all the batteries. Then you have dust in the air, foliage, thermal blooming etc messing with your shot. Mud hut wall? Concrete blocks? Hope you brought some conventional weapons because dirt and concrete don't burn. Oops there were some civilians in the area, now they're blind because a fraction of the laser energy reflected off the target and burned out their retinas. Oops your safety goggles got damaged and now you're blind too. Lasers are shitty weapons, that's why they're relegated to experimental anti-air weapons.

>>33090595
I almost forgot about fog and rain. Hope you like disco because that's what your lasers will do in the rain.

>>33090372
whats with all the 12 year olds posting kiddie threads today? is this some sort of autistic raid?

>>33090372
The Navy already uses lasers.

File: 30KW Laser Zaps Truck From Over a Mile Away.jpg (344KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 2048x1536px

Laser weapons do exist. They either are handheld and just powerful enough to temporary or permanently blind at several kilometers but this is banned by international conventions on warfare, or they are capable of burning through a car's hood but these have to be embarked.

>>33090372
>Is there a reason why laser-based weapons aren't mainstream yet?
Nuclear fusion is not mastered yet so until that happens lasers aren't that usable
on the other hand graphene batteries can make railguns effective so look forward to that.

>>33090625
>thinking /k/ is not composed of idiots
get used to it newfag.

>>33090598
lasers wouldn't be a beam but a pulse so the only problem would be the power source and efficiency.

>>33090849
>lasers wouldn't be a beam but a pulse
True, but does it change anything ?

>>33090855
yes.

>>33090866
How so ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_energy_projectile

this is in development lads, more then capable of killing a person.

in the non lethal versions it basically causes the equivalent of a stun grenade going off at whatever you shoot at that also shorts out any electronics and activates the pain nerves of a body.
the lethal version upgrades it to a concussion grenade.

File: src_1327926837495.jpg (55KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x450px

>>33090372
The limit to our technological advancement is really just power sources.

We have the technology to build nearly anything at this point. But are limited by fuckhuge batteries.

Pretty much any of these "why hasn't X been adopted yet" questions can be answered with "don't have compact enough power source for it to be conventional"

>>33090383
Wouldn't they be effective as sniper weapons? They shoot pretty much completely straight, and they reach the target instantly.

>>33090872
>No we don't. Not even close. Diodes, the type of laser compact enough to carry, have piss poor efficiency. Like 10-20% efficiency. That's 80-90% of your electricity being turned into heat in the gun.
This you got correct.
>Then you have dust in the air, foliage, thermal blooming etc messing with your shot
pulse lasers have enough energy to cut through particles in the air.
>Mud hut wall? Concrete blocks? Hope you brought some conventional weapons because dirt and concrete don't burn.
The immence energy from the pulse would create a direct explosion blowing up the concrete wall.
>Oops there were some civilians in the area, now they're blind because a fraction of the laser energy reflected off the target and burned out their retinas. Oops your safety goggles got damaged and now you're blind too. Lasers are shitty weapons, that's why they're relegated to experimental anti-air weapons.
lasers like these would either be UV of IR depending if it's close or long range so no eye damage would be inflicted.

>>33090506
Primarily because its purpose is to blind you. Not kill you.

>>33090895
As long as your goal is to give the target some superficial burns, sure.

If you want someone dead then lasers are horrifically inefficient. They take high grade energy (electricity) which is a bugger to get, and then convert that into heat, and hope that heat will kill you. A warm cup of coffee will dump more heat into your guts than the energy of a pair of .50BMG rounds, that's how good heat is at doing damage, and the laser doesn't have the flamethrowrer's luxury of simply vomiting forth a deluge of extremely energy-dense fuel and letting that just burn.

>>33090920
UV and IR laser do damage the eye, that's why they require specific UV/IR wavelength eye protection.

>>33090920
So, you don't think that we could develop a smoke grenade/aerosol that heavily attenuates a laser beam? You are wrong.

>>33090995
>So, you don't think that we could develop a smoke grenade/aerosol that heavily attenuates a laser beam?
You could.Just depends how powerful the laser is.