Rail guns or Lasers

[Davesg-43]

which wepon would better suit the Deadalus

[freyr's mother]

which wepon would better suit the Deadalus

Both

But for clarification there are many types of weapons that are considered laser weapons. There are the energy pulse weapons like the asgard and goa'uld have and then there are the powerful directed energy laser weapons that the Ori and Ancients use. Which were you referring to?

[Davesg-43]

Both

But for clarification there are many types of weapons that are considered laser weapons. There are the energy pulse weapons like the asgard and goa'uld have and then there are the powerful directed energy laser weapons that the Ori and Ancients use. Which were you referring to?

no i mean like the Missile interseptor lasers The US military is developing

[freyr's mother]

no i mean like the Missile interseptor lasers The US military is developing

Directed energy laser then. I guess they both have their advantages and disadvantages. But they both belong on our ships. But THEL and SOFIA don't have the nice pretty colors because the light they omit is not in the visible spectrum. Colors are pretty. The railguns are good at pocketing fighters and taking them out because of their high ROF. Directed energy lasers currently under development by the US military are not sufficiently powered to take down shields. But they will make more of a dent then the railguns IMHO.

[Davesg-43]

Directed energy laser then. I guess they both have their advantages and disadvantages. But they both belong on our ships. But THEL and SOFIA don't have the nice pretty colors because the light they omit is not in the visible spectrum. Colors are pretty. The railguns are good at pocketing fighters and taking them out because of their high ROF. Directed energy lasers currently under development by the US military are not sufficiently powered to take down shields. But they will make more of a dent then the railguns IMHO.

ur right there

[Zatnikitelman]

And the point is? Who the heck other than us uses missile or projectile based weaponry for their ships? The Genii maybe if/when they have ships, but not now.

[Davesg-43]

And the point is? Who the heck other than us uses missile or projectile based weaponry for their ships? The Genii maybe if/when they have ships, but not now.

the laser can target aircraft too

[Zatnikitelman]

the laser can target aircraft too

SO WHAT? Railguns work just fine, the point defense cannons mentioned on Prometheus probably worked better for close defense.

[mburrows]

hmmm...the anti-missile laser defense systems are actually complete and there are several placed on and above(in space) the U.S...



anywho, i beleive it'd be nice to have high powered, but slow energy weapons for vs other capital ships, then low-powered(but still powerful enough), but fast energy weapons vs fighters...

[Davesg-43]

SO WHAT? Railguns work just fine, the point defense cannons mentioned on Prometheus probably worked better for close defense.

air craft cant avoid lasers very well

[Atlantean Engineer]

Tracking an aircraft to desrtoy it with a laser is extremely difficult because a long range laser requires so much power. You only get a few seconds (probably less) of laser before you have to recharge. Anti missle lasers being developed by the US are designed to intercept ICBMs. After the first few mins of launch, an ICBM is ballistic (i.e. very little directional control) and follows a basic parabola trajectory, so its very easy to shoot down. Aircraft are much more difficult because they can change direction easily.

[kharaa]

Probably depends, Laser weaponry is energy based. limited in range, (atleast in space) requires no ammo persay and can be potentally super destructive.

However.. Railgun(depending on if you mean one from like the show.) have a incredible potential range in space. as there is no gravity per say(obviously there is from the celestial bodies, but you should understand what I mean) Good kinetic punch.. blah blah blah..

Lets give the ship both!!

[kharaa]

Tracking an aircraft to desrtoy it with a laser is extremely difficult because a long range laser requires so much power. You only get a few seconds (probably less) of laser before you have to recharge. Anti missle lasers being developed by the US are designed to intercept ICBMs. After the first few mins of launch, an ICBM is ballistic (i.e. very little directional control) and follows a basic parabola trajectory, so its very easy to shoot down. Aircraft are much more difficult because they can change direction easily.

Sorry for the double post.

You do know that a laser moves at the speed of light? most of us are sci-fi techies here so i won't do the math on this one.

a high enough powered laser could destroy a aircraft before it could react(exp: the marine land based laser being devoloped.) the pilot has no idea that they're being targeted by a current laser because they do not give off a visable light. and the tracking power of a laser from long distance.. well.. I think you're way over estimating a air crafts speed and manuverability.

[Atlantean Engineer]

Sorry for the double post.

You do know that a laser moves at the speed of light? most of us are sci-fi techies here so i won't do the math on this one.

a high enough powered laser could destroy a aircraft before it could react(exp: the marine land based laser being devoloped.) the pilot has no idea that they're being targeted by a current laser because they do not give off a visable light. and the tracking power of a laser from long distance.. well.. I think you're way over estimating a air crafts speed and manuverability.

Lasers move at the speed of light, and I'm not saying the aircraft will dodge the laser, its just that hitting a moving target with an inconsistent trajectory is damn near impossible with current technology. Admittedly this is sci fi, and technology improves, but in space things move much faster.

If the spacecraft is moving at the speed of sound (very conservative, since its a speed current fighters move at) or 700mph, the aircraft moves about 5-10 times its own length in one second. Another difficulty is distance. If the target is farther away, your pointing accuracy has to be extremely good. If you're off by 1 degree from a distance of about 1 kilometer (not unlikely in space combat) you'll miss a target about the size of a normal fighter. Also, depending on how powerful the laser is, it might have to be tracked onto the target for a few seconds to burn through. Its not like a laser just touches the target and it explodes.

All these factors are the reason why even with current anti-ICBM systems, they're only achieving a 60% success rate. And that's when the trajectory is a simple ballistic (parabolic) trajectory. I doubt the Marines are even close to deploying an anti-aircraft laser. Could you post a link to that? I'm not doubting you, I just think it'd be an interesting read.

Anyways, after all that, I agree it does make sense for SG ships to have lasers and railguns. Maybe lasers for short range anti-fighter stuff and railguns for enemy capital ships.

[kharaa]

Lasers move at the speed of light, and I'm not saying the aircraft will dodge the laser, its just that hitting a moving target with an inconsistent trajectory is damn near impossible with current technology. Admittedly this is sci fi, and technology improves, but in space things move much faster.

If the spacecraft is moving at the speed of sound (very conservative, since its a speed current fighters move at) or 700mph, the aircraft moves about 5-10 times its own length in one second. Another difficulty is distance. If the target is farther away, your pointing accuracy has to be extremely good. If you're off by 1 degree from a distance of about 1 kilometer (not unlikely in space combat) you'll miss a target about the size of a normal fighter. Also, depending on how powerful the laser is, it might have to be tracked onto the target for a few seconds to burn through. Its not like a laser just touches the target and it explodes.

All these factors are the reason why even with current anti-ICBM systems, they're only achieving a 60% success rate. And that's when the trajectory is a simple ballistic (parabolic) trajectory. I doubt the Marines are even close to deploying an anti-aircraft laser. Could you post a link to that? I'm not doubting you, I just think it'd be an interesting read.

Anyways, after all that, I agree it does make sense for SG ships to have lasers and railguns. Maybe lasers for short range anti-fighter stuff and railguns for enemy capital ships.

Sure, i'll try to find it, I first heard about it about a year ago, on a special on the history channel, and another program on discovery called "Future Weapons" Gave a breif breakdown on it. initially it's being ment for Ballistic missiles of course, however they explained that the marine based land laser could be used for air targets. they have three systems being devoloped. one on a giant jumbo jet liner, that is ment to target incoming ICBM's, another is able to be mounted on an aircraft, like an F16 or one of the newer ones, that can take out vehicles or missile launchers like iraq's scud launchers

and the third was a much much larger one, ground based that the marines are working on right now. and as i said i'll try to find the info on this!

now when we were talking about lasers up before i wasn't assuming SG stuff and gouald tech and all that. what i mean is say you have a F-15 fighter for example flying through the air, they use this experimental laser weapon the marines are devoloping.

1. the laser is invisable, meaning the pilot may not be able to react before it's too late.
2. While very true that aiming a laser is a very delicate and Precise operation, I know in the first varation on the jumbo jet it has a second smaller laser mounted ontop of the aircraft, ment for aiming, it hits it with this more focused smaller laser and that calibrates the aiming for the weapon.

Don't take as this belittling you or anything like that, it's just my opinion differs on this, i find your points very valid i just think mine are pretty valid too. =)