(Real) weapons of the Future

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
4,968
Canary Islands-Spain
#1
I watched a docu on TV about weapons currently being developed by armies through the world. Among many of them, one catch my attention:

The Electromagnetic Gun


I wonder how long will take this weapon to enter the battlefield

What other case of incoming real weapons can be found?
 
Jul 2016
8,391
USA
#3
Fixed wing drones that project electro magnetic pulses (EMP) downwards as they overfly areas at low altitudes, damaging machines, to include anti-aircraft radars and anything else with a microchip in it. These are now in operational use by the United States.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,507
#4
The Electromagnetic Gun

I wonder how long will take this weapon to enter the battlefield
Already operational. The main factor you do not see it on current battlefields is the cost vs the target. In the current warfare engagements, it is a weapon not necessary to be used as other options that cost less make more sense.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) weapons designed vs people and livestock are the stuff that frightens me as most of those have already existed or can be built by most nations relatively easily if they decide it is necessary.

Probably the next main issue will be autonomous weapons with human decision making on offensive target selection, not in the decision loop. Defensive weapons systems already exist without humans as electronic sensors and algorithms can react much faster than humans and it is only a matter of time that some nations are convinced that such systems make sense for offensive operations not just for defensive measures.
 
Jul 2016
8,391
USA
#5
Already operational. The main factor you do not see it on current battlefields is the cost vs the target. In the current warfare engagements, it is a weapon not necessary to be used as other options that cost less make more sense.
Rail guns don't seem to be especially valuable military weapons. They are very high velocity, making them essentially flat trajectory direct fire, line of sight weapons. Over the last 40 years or so, navies have largely abandoned guns for guided cruise missiles, anti-air, anti-ship missiles, etc, as the preferred methods of attacking an enemy aircraft, naval vessel and land target, as they can be fired and accurately track well beyond line of sight and are far more destructive, with massive warheads even capable of piercing heavy armor or bunkers, versus an inert projectile generally used in a rail gun.

Besides that, another major problem with the rail gun is energy, it requires a ton of power to use, so its likely, unless tanks start using fusion engines, that only navy ships or coastal batteries would even be able to use them in any real role.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,507
#6
Besides that, another major problem with the rail gun is energy, it requires a ton of power to use, so its likely, unless tanks start using fusion engines, that only navy ships or coastal batteries would even be able to use them in any real role.
Mostly true- naval ships and air to land are the only feasible uses given the power requirements and regular munitions are already better in most scenarios as they have over the horizon targeting and can be used in far more scenarios. The ability to evade most countermeasures (other than requiring LoS) is the main reason they exist other than giving something for defence contractors to get money for.
 
Likes: Kotromanic
May 2018
98
Houston, TX
#7
Probably the next main issue will be autonomous weapons with human decision making on offensive target selection, not in the decision loop. Defensive weapons systems already exist without humans as electronic sensors and algorithms can react much faster than humans and it is only a matter of time that some nations are convinced that such systems make sense for offensive operations not just for defensive measures.
As long as they do not name it 'Skynet'.... :)
 
Oct 2015
890
Norway
#8
Laser guns seems to have a future. it requires a lot of electrical power and it's still a very expensive weapons, but the Us Navy already a laser weapon system on one of their ships. The waepon can be used against drones, helicopters, smal boats an missiles. While the missiles that are normally used against those kind of targets are very expensive to use against relatively inexpensive targets, the laser costs only 59 cents to fire. I won't be surprised if large naval vessels and military bases will hav elasers for area defence in the future.
 
Jul 2016
8,391
USA
#9
Laser guns seems to have a future. it requires a lot of electrical power and it's still a very expensive weapons, but the Us Navy already a laser weapon system on one of their ships. The waepon can be used against drones, helicopters, smal boats an missiles. While the missiles that are normally used against those kind of targets are very expensive to use against relatively inexpensive targets, the laser costs only 59 cents to fire. I won't be surprised if large naval vessels and military bases will hav elasers for area defence in the future.
Problem with lasers are they need time to burn, its not instantaneous, so it requires holding the laser beam on the exact place being targeted for some length of time. Which means a very very effective tracking system. They want to use them for missile defense because firing missiles at missiles is chancy, while using lasers has a few benefits.
 
May 2013
1,720
The abode of the lord of the north
#10
Biological weapons are clearly the most dreadful. Sinister, and easy to get out of control.

It seems WHO still has 'reference' section of smallpox virus. In a couple of decades, the generation of those who are vaccinated is going to die out. Imagine if it is to be unleashed on a population with virtually 'zero' resistance.
 

Similar History Discussions