Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Krieg" data-source="post: 2804329" data-attributes="member: 5282">The key factor is exactly WHERE the battlefields of the future are located.All of the argument thus far has centered around a terrestrial battlefield, while much of speculative science fiction moves said engagements out of the gravity well and into space.The arguments for/against each family of armaments change greatly when you change the assumptions to include vehicle born power sources, a vacuum environment, engagement ranges increased by several orders of magnitude, and vehicles maneuvering with extreme delta-v.Recoil also becomes a far more important consideration while atmospheric effects become correspondingly less so (and indirect fire becomes a non-factor)...Changing the subject a bit but just to put things into perspective a bit regarding power requirements &amp; capabilities...current goals are about 10% efficiency for weaponized laser systems. That means producing a 100 Kilowatt beam will require about 1 Megawatt of source energy (a 100KW beam is the magic number right now for a multi-purpose weaponized system).So in order for man portable (which for some reason the majority of the discussion seems to revolve around) laser weapons to become feasible two things must occur...there must be radical improvements in both energy generation/storage AND in the efficiency of laser devices themselves.Back to the issue of &quot;man portable&quot; weapons. It's obvious that most military planners want to eliminate the average grunt from the equation. There is a lot of energy being spent on battlefield ROVs in the short term and truly autonomous combat vehicle in the long term. A hypothetical armed robot replacing the foot soldier also helps alleviate at least some of the power/weight issues revolving around lasers (and other energy weapons) at the squad/fire team level.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Krieg, post: 2804329, member: 5282"] The key factor is exactly WHERE the battlefields of the future are located. All of the argument thus far has centered around a terrestrial battlefield, while much of speculative science fiction moves said engagements out of the gravity well and into space. The arguments for/against each family of armaments change [b]greatly[/b] when you change the assumptions to include vehicle born power sources, a vacuum environment, engagement ranges increased by several orders of magnitude, and vehicles maneuvering with extreme delta-v. Recoil also becomes a far more important consideration while atmospheric effects become correspondingly less so (and indirect fire becomes a non-factor)... Changing the subject a bit but just to put things into perspective a bit regarding power requirements & capabilities...current goals are about 10% efficiency for weaponized laser systems. That means producing a 100 Kilowatt beam will require about 1 Megawatt of source energy (a 100KW beam is the magic number right now for a multi-purpose weaponized system). So in order for man portable (which for some reason the majority of the discussion seems to revolve around) laser weapons to become feasible two things must occur...there must be radical improvements in both energy generation/storage AND in the efficiency of laser devices themselves. Back to the issue of "man portable" weapons. It's obvious that most military planners want to eliminate the average grunt from the equation. There is a lot of energy being spent on battlefield ROVs in the short term and truly autonomous combat vehicle in the long term. A hypothetical armed robot replacing the foot soldier also helps alleviate at least some of the power/weight issues revolving around lasers (and other energy weapons) at the squad/fire team level. [/QUOTE]

Verification