I wouldn't hold my breath on railguns. Those have been in work for the past 40 years, but they still seem unable to overcome problems of barrel erosion. (Also muzzle blast overpressure and downstream velocity degradation.) The unmanned fighter wingman seems to be on the threshold of production (YFQ-42 and YFQ-44, recently revealed). The robots have been long overdue, but the trick is how to control them.
Their was an episode on Stargate, one of the scientists was demonstrating a laser. The laser broke and smoke came pouring out of it. Everyone in the University auditorium got up and left. The scientist sighed and sat down dejected. The main character asked him why it broke. Their starships fire these lasers all the time. The scientist said nonchalantly. Oh, yeah it was supposed to break down. The other character asks why? In order to prepare society for the future you have to let them see glimpses of it.
So much for fiction. I've dealt with lasers in real life. A failed demonstration is never on the plan. Weapon-level lasers were a known fact in development by the mid-1970s. The Stargate TV series didn't begin until 1997, twenty years later. Why get people ready for a failed technology---when it was already 20 years in the making?
Don't draw real-life inferences about weapons from works of fiction. Everybody has seen people shot by various weapons in films, and the results are all fiction. Especially, the "blow-them-away" effects of shotguns. When a movie takes pains to be realistic, then it could be good, but not otherwise.
A poor bet. It doesn't make sense for ground attack. When is the satellite going to be in position when you need it? Believe, me, I've worked on these problems. Against fixed or moving targets? Below or above clouds? What terminal effects? It makes for a great scene in a movie, but that's all it would be.
Railguns, Ai pilots, and bipedal and quad-legged robots. Source: trust me bro
We got way cooler stuff. And unless I teach them how to do an AI pilot, those aircraft will be trucks and decoys. The current capability is a joke.
Yup.
https://archive.org/details/beardenferdelance2ndednscalaremweapons8602www.cheniere.org_202001/BEARDEN-20190928T233900Z-001/BEARDEN/Bearden%20-%20Fer%20de%20lance%202nd%20Edn%20%28scalar%20EM%20weapons%2C%20_86-_02%2C%20www.cheniere.org%29/
I wouldn't hold my breath on railguns. Those have been in work for the past 40 years, but they still seem unable to overcome problems of barrel erosion. (Also muzzle blast overpressure and downstream velocity degradation.) The unmanned fighter wingman seems to be on the threshold of production (YFQ-42 and YFQ-44, recently revealed). The robots have been long overdue, but the trick is how to control them.
Their was an episode on Stargate, one of the scientists was demonstrating a laser. The laser broke and smoke came pouring out of it. Everyone in the University auditorium got up and left. The scientist sighed and sat down dejected. The main character asked him why it broke. Their starships fire these lasers all the time. The scientist said nonchalantly. Oh, yeah it was supposed to break down. The other character asks why? In order to prepare society for the future you have to let them see glimpses of it.
I wish I could updoot you forever because of the SG1 reference…. Complete soft disclosure. Haha
Including the Aschen and their vaccine
So much for fiction. I've dealt with lasers in real life. A failed demonstration is never on the plan. Weapon-level lasers were a known fact in development by the mid-1970s. The Stargate TV series didn't begin until 1997, twenty years later. Why get people ready for a failed technology---when it was already 20 years in the making?
Don't draw real-life inferences about weapons from works of fiction. Everybody has seen people shot by various weapons in films, and the results are all fiction. Especially, the "blow-them-away" effects of shotguns. When a movie takes pains to be realistic, then it could be good, but not otherwise.
If I had to take a gas I would probably bet on satellite mounted weaponry.
A poor bet. It doesn't make sense for ground attack. When is the satellite going to be in position when you need it? Believe, me, I've worked on these problems. Against fixed or moving targets? Below or above clouds? What terminal effects? It makes for a great scene in a movie, but that's all it would be.
What does make sense for a ground attack? Tanks? When is a tank going to be in exactly the right position when you need it?
Hmm, they could prob solve both problems by making more than one🤔 We've already been able to see through clouds for at least 20 years.