Eh, what about what happens when the ship is surrounded by fog? Or it rains?Spade Lead said:
It'd look good, but probably, as they say, from a distance.
Poll: Railguns or Lasers: which do you prefer
- Thread starter Nerdstar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It'd look good, but probably, as they say, from a distance.
If I had a naval ship I'd mount it with railguns. The amount of energy those things have is unbelievable. The only problem is heating of the barrel, but I guess with that thing you won't have to fire that much 
Imagine this...
I have a dozen ships with railguns and someone else has a dozen ships mounted with lasers. All I would have to do is find a nice shiny paint for my ships and I'd be fine for long enough to use the unstoppable brute power that are railguns.
And lasers don't have unlimited range. If you don't focus it right it's useless
And you need to be able to keep the laser on the same spot until it melts whatever you're aimig at. So any kind of movement is bad for you.
P.S.
Stargate is awesome
Imagine this...
I have a dozen ships with railguns and someone else has a dozen ships mounted with lasers. All I would have to do is find a nice shiny paint for my ships and I'd be fine for long enough to use the unstoppable brute power that are railguns.
And lasers don't have unlimited range. If you don't focus it right it's useless
And you need to be able to keep the laser on the same spot until it melts whatever you're aimig at. So any kind of movement is bad for you.
P.S.
Stargate is awesome
err...it's a warship right? like if it's a destroyer/ cruiser class i dont see why we cant add both? anyways, my breakdown will be something like this. Large rail gun for anti-surface strikes such as bombarding coastal areas or other ships that get too close. Lasers for Anti-aircraft/CIWS since they can respond faster to intercept fast movers such as anti-ship missiles.
But torpedoes are still a must for anti-submarine operations, and Missiles will always have the advantage of range so not surprisingly with Advanced SAMS and Surface attack missiles.
So essentially, much of what you see nowadays on aegis ships except replace theDP gun with a rail gun and replace the CIWS with lasers.
But torpedoes are still a must for anti-submarine operations, and Missiles will always have the advantage of range so not surprisingly with Advanced SAMS and Surface attack missiles.
So essentially, much of what you see nowadays on aegis ships except replace theDP gun with a rail gun and replace the CIWS with lasers.
I'm keen on lasers personally, but both have their applications.
Lasers are coming along nicely though.
[link]www.youtube.com/watch?v=awsQs4ct0c4[/link]
Lasers are coming along nicely though.
[link]www.youtube.com/watch?v=awsQs4ct0c4[/link]
...Spade Lead said:
Well. I don't think I need to say anything else, this guy already said everything I wanted to. ^_^
Each have their own merits and drawbacks, so there's a time and a place for both.
Both are being researched for the US Navy as a replacement to our current loaded munitions.
The advantages of a railgun over current cannons is that the ammunition is much safer to transport, as the old problem it provides is that if you drop it, you might dent it up a bit, as opposed to risking explosions. It's also going to be heavy, so you might hurt yourself a bit.
The laser on the other hand removes those problems, but suffers with issues mentioned before, diffusion, refraction, and other long range issues. At shorter ranges the laser becomes the safer option.
Both are being researched for the US Navy as a replacement to our current loaded munitions.
The advantages of a railgun over current cannons is that the ammunition is much safer to transport, as the old problem it provides is that if you drop it, you might dent it up a bit, as opposed to risking explosions. It's also going to be heavy, so you might hurt yourself a bit.
The laser on the other hand removes those problems, but suffers with issues mentioned before, diffusion, refraction, and other long range issues. At shorter ranges the laser becomes the safer option.
It helps that I intend to be a Science Fiction author who is majoring in Astronomy in college...TriGGeR_HaPPy said:
Agree for effectively all the same reasons. Anyway, LASER (or rather light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) can only operate well with narrow beams, so they'd never be powerful enough to cause 'real' damage (they'd kill a man, sure, but blow up half a city block? nah, don't think so).Nerdstar said:
Except without the need for explosives, that's the awesome thing.Hader said:
And just how's that going to work, genius?!WolfEdge said:
They actually require quite a high energy input, and contrary to popular belief, the unlimited range can't really be applied due to the need for beam coherence. They're actually best used at short range.Rex Dark said:
And this guy's basically beaten me to the punch.Spade Lead said:
OK, originaly comment then: railguns are conceptually much cheaper to design and produce that laser-tech weaponry. The only real expense is the fuck off massive generator required to power it.
What about laser railguns?
Nah, railguns. The idea of something sending an iron bar (for example) through six targets, a wall, and and twelve more targets is so awesome.
Nah, railguns. The idea of something sending an iron bar (for example) through six targets, a wall, and and twelve more targets is so awesome.
I love the lasers in RECOIL. The standard red one is a reflecting laser that'll bounce off any surface (so it's suicide in a contained room), and it slowly melts up the enemy with pure heat. The secondary yellow one, which is hard as fuck to find ammo for, does the same thing but it does no damage for about 3 seconds then instantly destroys whatever it's touching. But you have to keep the laser on the enemy for that amount of time.
Long story short, RECOIL's awesome and you should play it now. It's freeware and only like 300MB, there's no real reason not to.
Long story short, RECOIL's awesome and you should play it now. It's freeware and only like 300MB, there's no real reason not to.
/facepalmion496 said:
The energy IS ammo.
And you're assuming that said lasers would be only energy (Electrical) driven, which would be false. Military grade lasers are chemically and electrically driven. And the chemicals used are typically very, very dangerous.