Spiffy. But how's polywell doing? =/

OMFG FINALLY ^ THANK YOU

Arkbird for those who don't know; In a series of games with the initials AC

The Arkbird was a project between the two opposing nations within AC5 for those who want
to know look it.

It was designed to be a orbital laser defense system that could knock any missile out of
the sky and damage surface/air targets.

It started out as a peaceful project to start a space station off of but when was broke it
out it was mounted with a massive laser.

The Arkbirds counter part SOLG was a nuclear railgun literally. It fired nukes at the
earth basically making it a strategic mega weapon.

arkbird anyone ? (prays that this doesn't just stay as a waste of tax money) DEVELOP DAM U! id love
my low orbit space craft to swoop in to the atmosphere and lazier mah enemy.

A closer comparison would probably be to crossbows.

And guns were not easier to create than crossbows. And finding someone who knew how to
use a gun was much harder than finding someone who knew how to use a crossbow.

And the sniping I'm talking about is infantry snipers. Sorry for not being specific
enough ( as, after all, we're talking about lasers on ships).

And as you said so yourself, if it becomes tank sized then it'll be useful. Well give it
time and money and we'll probably get it tank sized.

The idea that a computer could fit in the size of someone's hand would probably have
seemed crazy 80 years ago.

The advantages firearms had over bows was not its combat effectivness. It actually took
several hundred years till rifling and breach loading till firearms became better than bows.
The advantage was the ease of use and that they were easy to manufacture.
Using a bow required a lot of practice. A gun, not so much.


As for the laser, you do not snipe on ships. For naval combat you have missiles and
torpedos which outrange lasers by a large amount. And that will not change because the
curvation of the earth puts a hard limit on the range of lasers.
In a naval environment, lasers would be good for missile and drone defense, but not for
offense.
Now if they get it down to tank size it could be a good offensive weapon (if it can be
manufactured cheaply).

The first firearms were significantly worse than their stringed contemporaries.

The weapons were dangerous, often exploding without reason. Plus the weapons couldn't be
used when it was wet. To make things worse, one of the critical chemicals needed for
gunpower could not be found in abundance naturally in Europe. I think they had to resort
to gathering people's urine and boiling it.

And they had less range and penetrating power than a crossbow. And they were much slower
to load and fire.

Plus the difficulties of creating the firearms themselves. What metals to use, how to
cast them, getting something close to a uniform shape to fit the somewhat uniform ammo.
It was a hassle.

Unlike the well-established processes of creating bows and crossbows (and in all sorts of
varieties to fit a particular person's needs or situation).

I'm not military expert, but I'd imagine having a weapon that not only be not affected by
wind or atmospheric situations (well, I suppose it may have issues with fog or
dust...maybe? Does a high enough powered laser just ignore them?) that also reaches its
target virtually instantly. Sniping would become a joke. No need to worry about
deflection when shooting at fast moving targets.

If you could jam enough power into a pack, you could save oodles of room and weight on
ammo. Maybe make some sort of universal plug in. All weapons could technically use any
ammo. Sounds easier on logistics.

Is this all possible now? Hell no. In the next 20 years? Very unlikely. In 200?
Probably. Unless we kill ourselves first.

In 1986, the US Air Force had the technology to the point where it can destroy an
object such as a missile or aircraft when moving at supersonic speeds. The physics
is neat. A half second pulse of energy (50kW) melts a small hole in the fuselage,
and the properties of the object moving through the atmosphere at supersonic
speed literally melts a hole all the way back to the tail of the object with no more
interaction from the laser. The object then breaks up in flight.

At that point, the technical difficulty to overcome was beam focussing. Getting 50kW
of energy onto a target a few meters away in a wind tunnel is easy. But delivering
that much energy to the target from 50 miles away through an atmosphere that
absorbs energy and refracts the light... that they could not do.

To anyone's knowledge, the US Military has not yet resolved these issues and
developed a practical laser for shooting missiles and aircraft. However, the fellow
that invented Adaptive Optics as used in astronomy today... worked on that project.
I suspect they are farther along than anyone is willing to announce, but whether
they have a practical weapon... no clue.

With firearms the advantage they have was pretty clear from the beginning. Ease of use and
logistics.

But what advantages could lasers have over balistic weapons, even when mature.
No need for ammunition? Handy in very long engagements, but its imo not worth it. After
all there are many other things a ship has to restock so having unlimited ammunition isn't
that big of a deal, especially for "the big guns".
Instantly hitting the target is nice, but considering the low range of lasers compared to
missiles and torpedos (and nothing will change that) its not that vital. You would be
destroyed anyway before you can engage with them.

In space that are all very good advantages. On the surface, not so much.

And how much damage can lasers actually do? Lets say you have a massive laser with a 3 ft
diameter. How much damage does a , lets be generous, 6ft hole really do to a warship?
Unless you fire contineously and slice the ship in half its unlikely that this will
destroy the ship. Enough time for it to fire back (as lasers won't outrange missiles it can).

As I said, I see many uses for it for intercepting missiles, but not as offensive weapon.
Well, maybe when they get it down to being tank sized...

Lasers are a relatively immature technology (as opposed to the mature ballistic
technology). Yeah, they suck now, but they'll probably turn around and become viable.

The first firearms were no better--if not worse--than their stringed counterparts.

To those who say "tax money well spent", think again.

Lasers are not very good offensive weapons*
They are not balistic, meaning that they are blocked by the curvation of the earth or
obstacles in the path of firing and while missiles exist they will always outrange lasers
as they outrange balistic weapons.

Also the damage potential of lasers are very low. Unless you hit a sensitive spot a hole
in the hull will not disable a warship and it can happily fire back. Missiles and balistic
weapons have a much more devastating effect.
As offensive weapon they are useable in space, but not on a planet.

*As a defensive weapon they are great though if they can fire fast enough. Better missile
defense than what ships currently have. Now if they would focus on hitting and destroying
missiles instead of setting boats on fire...