Poll: Railguns or Lasers: which do you prefer

[Nerdstar]

OK, so i was watching Stargate SG-1( as I'm opt to do every now and again) a few hours ago and they were doing the whole ship to ship combat thing (it was the episode Lost City ). so this and the whole patriotic overflow from aceing osama got me speculating about a hypothetical U.S Navy of the future.suppose you were the president in the near future which would you prefer to arm your ships with, Railguns or Lasers?(NOTE: the time frame for this is anywhere from tomorrow to a hundred years from now)

me personally, while i can see the merits of lasers(they would make awesome defensive weapons for shooting down in coming projectiles and for repelling borders or ships that get to close into the comfort zone) i prefer the idea of mounting Railguns on my ships for an offensive punch. they fire at extremely high velocities: 3,500 m/s (11,500 ft/s, approximately Mach 10 at sea level) or more (for comparison, the M16 rifle has a muzzle speed of 930 m/s, or 3,050 ft/s), which would make their kinetic energy equal or superior to the energy yield of an explosive-filled shell of greater mass( and that's just the current test modles. im talking about stronger battleship operational models which could possibly be double that). This would allow more ammunition to be carried and eliminate the hazards of carrying explosives on the ship. Also, by firing at greater velocities railguns have greater range, less bullet drop and less wind drift then conventional missiles or battle cannons(note also that lasers lose focus the farther they travel)GPS targeting can also be used to target an enemy ships munitions dump and ignite it with pin point accuracy effectively using the enemy's own munitions against him with no risk to you your ship or your crew

 

[Loop Stricken]

Kinetic is just better. The only limit to its power is the speed you can throw projectiles at.

 

[Dags90]

Lasers, I like the "pew pew" sounds they make in movies.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

It depends on the laser.If it gets wet and shocks me then I am going for the rail gun.
However,if it can melt through the hull of an oncoming space vessel or cruiser,hand me the mini death star.

 

[Hader]

Railguns are just badass. Lasers are for show, railguns get shit done. With big explosions.

 

[philosophicalbastard]

Railguns are awesome just for being next-gen cannons. Missiles and lasers are boring because of how overly complicated they are, where as railguns still use the classic "chuck a hunk metal" approach.

 

[SloshedUberman]

Railguns scale up easier, its harder to have a giant laser than a giant railgun.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Railguns are much more potent that lasers.

 

[Xenetethrae]

Railguns don't do enough damage and Projectiles have a better alpha strike than Lasers, so...

Missles!

This is a trick question, so I gave a trick answer

But if I had to choose, than Railguns

 

[Daniel Segal]

While railguns certainly have their merits, I would have to go with lasers. Mainly due to the fact that lasers are much more of a stealthy, longer ranged weapon. True lasers are invisible in the UV spectrum, and the hum of a generator is far quieter than the noise of a railgun. This i just my opinion, though.

 

[Spartan448]

Well, let's see: Railguns have the offensive punch, Lasers have defensive capability, why not arm my ships with both?

Ya know what? Just nuke it all from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[theheroofaction]

kinetic weapons are better [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KineticWeaponsAreJustBetter]

So obviously railguns.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Warfare lasers use extremely dangerous, toxic gases as ammunition. Even with such a dangerous fuel source, they are large, complicated, prone to failure, and have limited damage potential.

This is opposed to rail guns, which are powered by electricity (In other words, they're powered by the same thing the rest of a vessel would be powered by, making them claim the title of 'Safest Ammo' in existence). And they're power is easily scaled up, simply by adding more capacitors (The most dangerous part of the weapon) and lengthening the barrel.

There are issues with both though. Neither really replaces the current cannon. Rail guns are incapable of delivering a payload of anything other then SABOTs or solid shot. Lasers can only fire... well, lasers. Neither have the capacity for explosive rounds, incendiary rounds, or other special rounds that require excessive bore size.

Of course, the future of Rail Guns could include large bore cannons. Eventually.

As it stands though, missiles out class both. Despite the size of such devices, they have a more potent payload, greater guidance and range, and far more numerous functions.

Besides... The future or warfare is in tungsten telephone poles from space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Lasers.

Without lasers, we wouldn't have laser cats. That's a depressing thought, isn't it?

 

[Easton Dark]

Railguns sound cooler.

I'd be more inclind to surrender if I heard that the enemy had a railgun aimed at my general position than I would be with a laser.

I'd probably surrender either way, but dang, the railgun sounds intimidating.

 

[guru7892]

Rail-guns

Coriolis-Effect FTW!

kinetic energy just has a visceral quality that I enjoy. Lasers burn and there are effective counter measures against that. you could also foreseeably push the refraction-index of a target to make it immune to laser weapons. Slug throwing also lets you generate hydro-static shock, essentially shredding your targets. for instance the wound cavity of a .50 cal BMG round is larger than the human body and can literally sever the targets torso if hit. Lasers can't generate that kind of force (and although they could achieve the severed torso effect though other means if would be incredibly painful for the target and immoral to use).

 

[TimeLord]

Railguns have more impact than lasers.
Lasers don't have the same punch as a 'boom, punch, smash, explosion' of a railgun shot.
A railgun is only limited by how fast the projectile can be fired. Lasers require a stable power source that is difficult to replicate with current tech.
Also, railguns just look so much cooler when they fire than lasers.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Railguns.

Because Priss was the coolest member of the Knight Sabers.

 

[pliusmannn]

Lasers, uses as much power as railguns do, but the impact velocity is way different, also railgun technilogy is just born, laser technology is at next step of advancement. As for damage lasers is mainly for niping far-away targets, which are crucial, railguns is for overall damage depending on what type of ammo you will use. Railguns are better for destroying large fleets in one shot with shrapnell ammo, lasers dispersed won't have the power needed. But I still prefer lasers as if you aim well, you can do a lot more damage than railguns, with the same amount of power needed to charge your weapon.