The Turn Away from Energy Weapons in SF Movies

[jordan179]

I've noticed that science fiction movies have tended to turn away from depicting their future combatants with energy weapons, and towards equipment which looks as if it came out of the wars of the mid- to late-20th century. This is first noticable in Aliens, and has become increasingly prevealent since then.

Comments

[jordan179]

Realistic lasers can exist for a variety of spectra, with appropriate advantages and disadvantages. The military lasers we currently use include masers (the "burner" non-lethal crowd-control systems), infra-red (ZEUS 25-kw anti-mine) and optical (the megawatt-class Air Borne Laser carried aboard the YAL-1). Higher-frequency lasers offer faster effect and greater penetration.

A powerful laser, even outside of optical frequencies, would be visible in atmosphere because the beam would ionize the air through which it passed. You would see a flash of light and a crack of thunder, much like a very straight lighting bolt. In vacuum, of course, the beam itself would be invisible, though its impact on target would certainly shift some of the energy down into the visible and infra-red spectra, producing a flash of light and a thermal explosion.

[lather2002]

Phasers, not lasers, are a weapon that delivers a beam that can stun can stun or annihilate.

[mrmeval]

There was something about cycle rate on the staff weapon. In a few hours I would have had enough of them either in a circle or cone and activated the buttons either mechanically or electronically. I figure I could get 400rpm out of them. Given a few months and some help disassembling them and reassembling them I'd have that in a near man portable compact setup.

[pathia]

What about rail guns? They're extremely high-tech, yet they're using the same core concept as a modern gun. Make a thing go from point A to B, very, very fast and splat anything in its path.

[korgmeister]

Big, heavy, fragile, serious heating problems. Practical for battleships, but not really for tanks or other smaller vehicles.

[pathia]

Um...thought we're talking about 400-500years from now...

[mrmeval]

With the energy densities the storage systems of a staff weapon displayed you could have a nice coil gun that mitigates the problems rail guns have.

I did see a paper about a plasma rail gun that accelerates a plasma arc to near relativistic velocities which then slams into a projectile. Not something a human should be near but it looked to solve problems with some rail damage. The rails would last longer than contact projectiles and damage would be more even.

[korgmeister]

To be honest I'm really not terribly confident that energy weapons are ever likely to be more effective than kinetic weapons, especially in man-portable variants.

One of the really big issues is the matter of power supplies. And I'm not terribly confident that's going to be overcome with future technology. Electrical power supplies are something that's been worked on for a long time (over 100 years) and can be considered a mature technology. There aren't any easy gains to make that have been overlooked.

Chemical explosives have a greater power density than any electrical storage medium we have, it's the same reason why electric cars are a dumb idea.

[mrmeval]

Right now chemical lasers are battlefield ready and reasonably effective though I do not consider them economically effective.

Octanitrocubane is the most powerful non-nuclear explosive the military could have manufactured but they declined due to it's poor manufacturing efficiency and thus cost so I doubt chemical lasers and the like will go too far.

There is one very economical energy weapon that's driven by explosives. The electromagnetic pulse bomb which is believed to have been used in Iraq.

As you say until better energy storage that can drive energy weapons they will not be viable. It will have to be higher than gasoline to be of use in man portable weapons.

[korgmeister]

Yeah and to be honest if they can create an energy storage medium that dense which is effective it'll be possible to make all sorts of things which make lasers look crap by comparison.

Maneuverability seems to be the main advantage on the modern battlefield. I'm way more interested in powered exoskeletons than lasers.

[mrmeval]

Agreed. I think you will see the 'mules' used ubiquitously before you see the suits. I know they've been using them recently. If they can get the speed up to a follow a running man they will be a fundamental change. I expect to see suits in elite units by 2012.

[sianmink]

Projectile slugthrowers are just so *good* at their intended purpose, killing folks. It's not unreasonable to think that the benefits of a pure-energy based system won't outweigh the accurate, reliable ruggedness of a good rifle. Laser weapons are inherently more complicated, even if the supply situation is simplified.

This is a situation where even if it *does* work a bit better, there's not much impulse to change it, because shooting someone with a laser won't make them *more* dead than putting a supersonic chunk of metal through them.

[jordan179]

It's not unreasonable to think that the benefits of a pure-energy based system won't outweigh the accurate, reliable ruggedness of a good rifle. Laser weapons are inherently more complicated, even if the supply situation is simplified.

Note though that lasers are bound to become more "reliable" and "rugged." (They are already more accurate than CPR guns).

This is a situation where even if it *does* work a bit better, there's not much impulse to change it, because shooting someone with a laser won't make them *more* dead than putting a supersonic chunk of metal through them.

Lasers have one major advantage, though. Speed of delivery. If you shoot at an unpredictably moving target with a CPR (chemically-proplled rifle) rifle at a range of more than a mile, the chances are that you're going to miss, no matter how good your rifle or how skilled you are, because the projectile takes half a second or more to close the distance. This is significant because popping out, firing, and then getting back under cover is a standard infantry

[sianmink]

Pressures that could just as easily make infantry obsolete on the battlefield, with remote drones able to put a 5-kilowatt laser through the eyes of a dozen simultaneous combatants and boil their brains in an instant. If you have to encase your soldiers eyes to tonails in armor, Looking at a screen to see what's right in front of them, it's probably better to just go remote at that point. When you have good portable laser weaponry, why rely on fallible, analog soldiers to aim them? The precision of a laser is wasted when aimed by people. Also when you have the energy storage capability for good man-portable energy weapons, you also have the energy storage for combat drones that can operate for days on a charge.

the future battlefield could *easily* be too deadly an environment for people to even set foot in.

And then the machines will take over.

[jordan179]

Oh, that's exactly what will happen. Human soldiers will increasingly become "HQ units" or "drone carriers" operating swarms of drones against each other. This development is in its infancy today: I expect it to take 100-250 years to complete itself.

By the time "the machines ... take over," though, if we play our cards right "the machines" will include Man. Or something that is memetically descended from Man, in any case.

[banner]

I think anyone who knows science (and hopefully most scifi writers do) know about the limitations of energy weapons, and the advantages of slug throwers in the small arms department (each round has its own self contained energy source, etc). I've messed around with some ideas, my favorite is adapting the new liquid propellant fueled howitzers to rifles. An idea which I think has a lot of merit.

[jordan179]

I think anyone who knows science (and hopefully most scifi writers do) know about the limitations of energy weapons, and the advantages of slug throwers in the small arms department (each round has its own self contained energy source, etc).

IMO chemically-propelled slugthrowers will reign supreme in infantry combat for the next 100-200 years, to be replaced by gauss guns (aka "railguns") for another 200-300 years, and finally by relativistic projectile throwers which may use electromagnetic or other acceleration principles.

Energy weapons will probably replace CPR slugthrowers on the battlefiled in the sniper and AAA role, and rocket launchers in the anti-tank role. They may or may not outcompete gauss guns and their descendants as the primary small arms. I think that both kinetic and energy small arms will be common on the battlefields of 100-200 years hence, however.

I've messed around with some ideas, my favorite is adapting the new liquid propellant fueled howitzers to rifles. An idea which I think has a lot of merit.

That

[lather2002]

In the future humans will be able to use the power of their minds as weapons. Wonder how the government(s) are going to deal with that fact ? Everyone's mind will have to be registered and felons will not be allowed a mind I guess. haha