It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raygun and Electromagnetic projectile weapon replaces Conventional firearms

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
What's happen if People abandons Conventional Firearms in favor of Rayguns and Electromagnetic projectile weapons? (Air dropped Bombs, Missiles, and Rockets are still used but all the large guns are also replaced by Rayguns and Electromagnetic projectile weapons too)

[edit on 18-10-2009 by masonicon]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by masonicon]




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
probably disclosure.

Mod Edit - typing "2nd Line" or "3rd Line" adds nothing to a conversation anymore than a pointless one line post.

[edit on 18/10/09 by neformore]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Perhaps This is mostly happens in Some cartoons Like The Batman.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


You question can't be answered in its current form. Tactical and / or strategic impact of new types of weapons will depend on the exact nature of the weapon.

If the 'ray gun' in question is some form of laser, then you'll see more and more defensive use of obscuring devices and aerosol agents to disperse the beams. Other than that, things wouldn't change a great deal

If the 'ray gun' were some sort of particle accelerator weapon, it would probably force the development of some form of magnetic shielding. There would probably be a slight drop in the range at which battles take place, since both lasers and particle streams travel line-of-sght, and both degrade over distance due to interaction with the atmosphere.

If you're going to posit the use of some undefined, 'Star Trek / Star Wars' energy weapon with no known properties other than special effects, it's going to be hard to speculate on how it would change the battlefield.

As for electromagnetic projectile weapons, you'd see guns get smaller (at least in bore size), and open up the possibility of some truly outrageous indirect fire ranges. Whether those ranges could be used would depend on your ability to spot targets and register fire...it would come down to the skill of your forward observer, rather than the technology of your gun. Face it...the E-M projectile weapons are just projectile weapons, albeit with very high muzzle velocity. All you're really going to change is the outer limiit of extreme range.

Perhaps the biggest change that either type of weapon would bring is in the mass of the vehicle carrying it...directed-energy weapons and E-M projectile weapons are real power-hogs, and carrying the generators and fuel for same means a very heavy rig.

In short, with any technology we can currently understand (note that I didn't limit that statement to what we can build), a switch to directed energy or EM weapons will have surprisingly little impact, and carry a substantial penalty in weight, power requirement, and (by implication) cost...that's why the chemical powered projectile thrower and the rocket are still the mainstays of weapon design, even though they represent technologies that, at their heart, are centuries old.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
They'll have to carry lots more batteries.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
reply to post by masonicon
 

If you're going to posit the use of some undefined, 'Star Trek / Star Wars' energy weapon with no known properties other than special effects, it's going to be hard to speculate on how it would change the battlefield.


Clearly it would lead to the development of light sabres as a defensive measure


I can see the Jedi's lining up for training now...



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
With the technology currently available, it really wouldn't work out. Solid state lasers are approaching the power needed for weaponization, but aren't quite there yet, and can't at all match the power of something like a tank's gun. Currently, they're set to replace the kind of ~20mm gun used for shooting at aircraft.

Railguns and coilguns still have unsolved problems that prevent them from being used in service; mostly with rail erosion for railguns, and stresses for the coilguns. Additionally, they require rather a lot of power. I doubt that any railgun we could build that would fit in a tank could match the performance and fire rate of the tank's normal cannon.

No electrically powered weapon we could currently make could come anywhere close to the performance of a simple rifle today. The cooling and power issues, among others, are too great for us to currently overcome. Additionally, there would surely be reliability issues.

We're almost to the point of fielding deadly EM weaponry, but not quite. First will be naval artillery, and anti-missile weaponry. Later we might see tank-scale weapons.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Is in The Batman TV Series as well in some other cartoons have all the Conventional Firearms have Replaced by Rayguns and Electromagnetic projectile Weapons?

[edit on 2-11-2009 by masonicon]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


Showing actual guns in American children's cartoons is at least strongly frowned upon, and has been since at least the late 1980s. Apparently showing blasty laser type weapons in shows is somehow less violent.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
reply to post by masonicon
 


Showing actual guns in American children's cartoons is at least strongly frowned upon, and has been since at least the late 1980s. Apparently showing blasty laser type weapons in shows is somehow less violent.

How about Railguns and Coilguns?



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
With the technology currently available, it really wouldn't work out. Solid state lasers are approaching the power needed for weaponization, but aren't quite there yet, and can't at all match the power of something like a tank's gun. Currently, they're set to replace the kind of ~20mm gun used for shooting at aircraft.

Railguns and coilguns still have unsolved problems that prevent them from being used in service; mostly with rail erosion for railguns, and stresses for the coilguns. Additionally, they require rather a lot of power. I doubt that any railgun we could build that would fit in a tank could match the performance and fire rate of the tank's normal cannon.

No electrically powered weapon we could currently make could come anywhere close to the performance of a simple rifle today. The cooling and power issues, among others, are too great for us to currently overcome. Additionally, there would surely be reliability issues.

We're almost to the point of fielding deadly EM weaponry, but not quite. First will be naval artillery, and anti-missile weaponry. Later we might see tank-scale weapons.

This is Different story if we have Free Energy like Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by mdiinican
With the technology currently available, it really wouldn't work out. Solid state lasers are approaching the power needed for weaponization, but aren't quite there yet, and can't at all match the power of something like a tank's gun. Currently, they're set to replace the kind of ~20mm gun used for shooting at aircraft.

Railguns and coilguns still have unsolved problems that prevent them from being used in service; mostly with rail erosion for railguns, and stresses for the coilguns. Additionally, they require rather a lot of power. I doubt that any railgun we could build that would fit in a tank could match the performance and fire rate of the tank's normal cannon.

No electrically powered weapon we could currently make could come anywhere close to the performance of a simple rifle today. The cooling and power issues, among others, are too great for us to currently overcome. Additionally, there would surely be reliability issues.

We're almost to the point of fielding deadly EM weaponry, but not quite. First will be naval artillery, and anti-missile weaponry. Later we might see tank-scale weapons.

This is Different story if we have Free Energy like Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy


Not necessarily. As noted, power is only part of the issue. Assuming that we could make cold fusion or zero point energy work at all doesn't mean the power issue for rail guns or directed-energy weapons is solved. The cold fusion technology / zero-point energy / pressurized handwavium power plant needs to not only work, but be physically compact enough, inexpensive enough, and safe enough to be used on the battlefield. (Note that even though we've had nuclear fission power for sixty years. nuclear tanks and aircraft are, shall we say, somewhat scarce. This is why). Once you have an exotic power source that meets all those requirements, you have to make sure that there's an increase in weapon performance that's commensurate with the increase in complexity and/or price it brings. If there isn't, the new weapon probably won't see wide use.

Even if the power issue goes away, most rail guns, coil guns, and energy weapons still have other problems...physical stress, limited life, and cooling spring to mind as near-universal ones.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by mdiinican
With the technology currently available, it really wouldn't work out. Solid state lasers are approaching the power needed for weaponization, but aren't quite there yet, and can't at all match the power of something like a tank's gun. Currently, they're set to replace the kind of ~20mm gun used for shooting at aircraft.

Railguns and coilguns still have unsolved problems that prevent them from being used in service; mostly with rail erosion for railguns, and stresses for the coilguns. Additionally, they require rather a lot of power. I doubt that any railgun we could build that would fit in a tank could match the performance and fire rate of the tank's normal cannon.

No electrically powered weapon we could currently make could come anywhere close to the performance of a simple rifle today. The cooling and power issues, among others, are too great for us to currently overcome. Additionally, there would surely be reliability issues.

We're almost to the point of fielding deadly EM weaponry, but not quite. First will be naval artillery, and anti-missile weaponry. Later we might see tank-scale weapons.

This is Different story if we have Free Energy like Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy


Not necessarily. As noted, power is only part of the issue. Assuming that we could make cold fusion or zero point energy work at all doesn't mean the power issue for rail guns or directed-energy weapons is solved. The cold fusion technology / zero-point energy / pressurized handwavium power plant needs to not only work, but be physically compact enough, inexpensive enough, and safe enough to be used on the battlefield. (Note that even though we've had nuclear fission power for sixty years. nuclear tanks and aircraft are, shall we say, somewhat scarce. This is why). Once you have an exotic power source that meets all those requirements, you have to make sure that there's an increase in weapon performance that's commensurate with the increase in complexity and/or price it brings. If there isn't, the new weapon probably won't see wide use.

Even if the power issue goes away, most rail guns, coil guns, and energy weapons still have other problems...physical stress, limited life, and cooling spring to mind as near-universal ones.

Just because Profit Hungry Capitalists finds Petroleum the most profitable source of energy, they keeps all kind of source of energy other than fossil fuels from being inexpensive.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon
Just because Profit Hungry Capitalists finds Petroleum the most profitable source of energy, they keeps all kind of source of energy other than fossil fuels from being inexpensive.


If those "Profit Hungry Capitalists" found a way to beat fossil fuels to make that profit that they are hungry for, they would do it in a New York minute. The least expensive fuel on the planet is coal and that is tough to beat in terms of cost per BTU. Nothing can touch it from that standpoint.

[edit on 11/11/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by mdiinican
With the technology currently available, it really wouldn't work out. Solid state lasers are approaching the power needed for weaponization, but aren't quite there yet, and can't at all match the power of something like a tank's gun. Currently, they're set to replace the kind of ~20mm gun used for shooting at aircraft.

Railguns and coilguns still have unsolved problems that prevent them from being used in service; mostly with rail erosion for railguns, and stresses for the coilguns. Additionally, they require rather a lot of power. I doubt that any railgun we could build that would fit in a tank could match the performance and fire rate of the tank's normal cannon.

No electrically powered weapon we could currently make could come anywhere close to the performance of a simple rifle today. The cooling and power issues, among others, are too great for us to currently overcome. Additionally, there would surely be reliability issues.

We're almost to the point of fielding deadly EM weaponry, but not quite. First will be naval artillery, and anti-missile weaponry. Later we might see tank-scale weapons.

This is Different story if we have Free Energy like Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy


Not necessarily. As noted, power is only part of the issue. Assuming that we could make cold fusion or zero point energy work at all doesn't mean the power issue for rail guns or directed-energy weapons is solved. The cold fusion technology / zero-point energy / pressurized handwavium power plant needs to not only work, but be physically compact enough, inexpensive enough, and safe enough to be used on the battlefield. (Note that even though we've had nuclear fission power for sixty years. nuclear tanks and aircraft are, shall we say, somewhat scarce. This is why). Once you have an exotic power source that meets all those requirements, you have to make sure that there's an increase in weapon performance that's commensurate with the increase in complexity and/or price it brings. If there isn't, the new weapon probably won't see wide use.

Even if the power issue goes away, most rail guns, coil guns, and energy weapons still have other problems...physical stress, limited life, and cooling spring to mind as near-universal ones.

What's happen if we added Water fuel cell to the list of power source for Rail guns or Directed-Energy Weapons?

[edit on 11-11-2009 by masonicon]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


Water Fuel Cell? Fuel cells using hydrogen and oxygen make water. Running them "backwards" by adding power electrolyzes water to hydrogen and oxygen. If you want fuel cells, you need hydrogen fuel and a hydrogen storage system or hydrocarbons and a reformer. Fuel cells are more efficient in producing power if you don't count making the hydrogen in the efficiency calculation. Onboard reforming of hydrocarbons to fuel a PEM cell is slightly less efficient than a turbo-diesel. The diesel is also less expensive by at least an order of magnitude.
The problem being referred to in previous posts has to do with supply of power in a transportable module. Land bases can use what they wish and only need a source of fuel for the secure power plant. Ships are big enough to carry power modules. Everything else is a bit small, given the power needed. Consider that while a 30mW reactor is not very big, when shielding, controls, cooling, electrical power generation, and capacitor banks are added, the size increases greatly. LENR's [cold fusion] still would need some shielding plus all the rest, so even saving the weight of shielding wouldn't help much.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
reply to post by masonicon
 


Showing actual guns in American children's cartoons is at least strongly frowned upon, and has been since at least the late 1980s. Apparently showing blasty laser type weapons in shows is somehow less violent.

Why Showing Muzzle-loading Cannons in American Children Cartoons is different story than Showing other guns?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by mdiinican
With the technology currently available, it really wouldn't work out. Solid state lasers are approaching the power needed for weaponization, but aren't quite there yet, and can't at all match the power of something like a tank's gun. Currently, they're set to replace the kind of ~20mm gun used for shooting at aircraft.

Railguns and coilguns still have unsolved problems that prevent them from being used in service; mostly with rail erosion for railguns, and stresses for the coilguns. Additionally, they require rather a lot of power. I doubt that any railgun we could build that would fit in a tank could match the performance and fire rate of the tank's normal cannon.

No electrically powered weapon we could currently make could come anywhere close to the performance of a simple rifle today. The cooling and power issues, among others, are too great for us to currently overcome. Additionally, there would surely be reliability issues.

We're almost to the point of fielding deadly EM weaponry, but not quite. First will be naval artillery, and anti-missile weaponry. Later we might see tank-scale weapons.

This is Different story if we have Free Energy like Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy


Not necessarily. As noted, power is only part of the issue. Assuming that we could make cold fusion or zero point energy work at all doesn't mean the power issue for rail guns or directed-energy weapons is solved. The cold fusion technology / zero-point energy / pressurized handwavium power plant needs to not only work, but be physically compact enough, inexpensive enough, and safe enough to be used on the battlefield. (Note that even though we've had nuclear fission power for sixty years. nuclear tanks and aircraft are, shall we say, somewhat scarce. This is why). Once you have an exotic power source that meets all those requirements, you have to make sure that there's an increase in weapon performance that's commensurate with the increase in complexity and/or price it brings. If there isn't, the new weapon probably won't see wide use.

Even if the power issue goes away, most rail guns, coil guns, and energy weapons still have other problems...physical stress, limited life, and cooling spring to mind as near-universal ones.

What's happen if We add Ultracapacitor to Raygun or Electromagnetic Projectile Weapons?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
what's happens to the Culture of the Society that abandons Conventional Firearms regardless it's size in Favor of Rayguns and Electromagnetic Projectile Weapons? (Air-dropped bombs, rocket, and missiles are still used by that society but the larger Conventional guns Like Artillery guns and tank Guns like any other Conventional Firearms are also Replaced by Rayguns and Electromagnetic Projectile Weapons and I'm Mostly talking about Fictional Society in this Question)

[edit on 20-12-2009 by masonicon]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
what's Happens if Advent of emerging Technologies are allows rail guns, coil guns, and Directed energy weapons Completely Replaces any Conventional Firearms(Rockets, Missiles, and Air-dropped Bombs also help Obsoletes Conventional Firearms alongside rail guns, coil guns, and Directed energy weapons)?

[edit on 30-12-2009 by masonicon]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join