Handheld energy weapons

[Drashner1]

Okay, you have a point there. Having mature nanotechnology imbedded into a plasma rifle could help overcome some of the reliability problems. But how well can nanomachines handle high temperatures? Would they be able to patch up erosion spots in the barrel of a plasma rifle thats glowing white hot?

Just a point of clarification here:

In much of your replies in this post you only mention 'plasma weapons'. Earlier you spoke in terms of 'energy weapons' and most of my replies have been focused on 'laser weapons' - which are a totally different type of weapon from a plasma weapon. Are you saying you are only interested in discussing plasma weapons now, or is this just a coincidence of phrasing in this post?

Re your question above, agree with Rynn that nanotech isn't going to be running around in white hot operational conditions. However, you could, in principle, have nanotech or microtech or synsects running around doing repairs and maintenance on the device (including 'healing' erosion spots) during a device's periods of down-time or storage.

Also, as Rynn notes, plasma weapons are most often discussed in terms of use in vacuum, not atmosphere. Hellbores can be used in atmosphere, but are in something of a class by themselves and rely on magnetic monopoles - and even they mainly used in space.

Would a rifle built in the future use fundamentally different mechanical principles to achieve the same thing?

Assuming you mean a projectile weapon type rifle, then probably not fundamentally different principles - but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a massively (fundamentally?) different weapon.

The muskets used during the Revolutionary War use the same fundamental principles as a modern M-16 (or equivalent), but modern weapons demonstrate a range of capability that would likely have been astounding to soldiers of the time. Similarly, modern aircraft operate on the same fundamental principles as the plane the Wright brothers flew - but have built on those principles to produce performance that would have seemed near magical to the Wrights, most likely. The same can be said of automobiles, computers, and various other things, depending on how one is defining 'fundamental principles'.

Yes, but a fighter jet is an actual weapons system with many other sub-systems in its frame. Airborne fighters are going to be complex regardless of what you do (not so for a rifle). The cost/benefit analysis is different for them than for monolithic items like howitzers, mortars, and small arms.

Actually modern guns (rifles, pistols, etc.) are also part of a 'weapons system' and cannot operate for very long without it. Mines extract various metals and chemicals, refineries and factories process and shape them, and a global supply chain transports the finished products to the people wanting to use the weapons created. The same goes for the bullets that turn the weapons into more than a club.

While a few hobbyists 'make their own bullets' (which my grandfather did) even in that case, there is considerable infrastructure behind them since I'm rather doubting very many of them mine/refine/forge their own bullets. And certainly no significant number of people are handcrafting modern weapons from base materials.

I consider myself to be a military historian, although that simply comes from having read lots of books and papers. I have conducted my education at my own pace, outside of colleges or academys. I am not without some knowledge of how militarys decide to choose a new weapon...

Fair enough.

The U.S. army has been using the M-16 pattern rifle for over 50 years now, despite numerous attempts to replace it: There was the ACR program of the late 80s, and the OICW program in the 90s. The XM-8 rifle was mechanically identical to the M-16, but had far superior ergonomics. It would have been a great replacement weapon, but the U.S. army decided not to go through with it. The costs did not justify the performance returns, in their opinion. The U.S. is extremely stingy with programs for small arms: They'd rather spend their money on big ticket items like missiles, jets, ships, and tanks, to the result is that they get stuck with somewhat obsolescent hand weapons.

While other militarys are less obstinate in that regard, my reasoning holds firm. Even when they become practical in the distant future, handheld energy weapon would not pass a militarys cost benefit analysis. They might be used in niche applications, but its unlikely they will ever replace the rifle as a premier small arm.

Actually, none of what you've just said here in any way demonstrates that handheld energy weapons would not pass a military cost benefit analysis. You haven't included any details at all about how what such an analysis would consist of, for one thing. Nor do you show what factors a given military would be considering when doing such an analysis. For completeness it would also probably be necessary to know the nature of the weapon system being considered, how it operates, and what benefits, features, costs, and limits it has.

At best, you've shown that militaries (particularly the US military) change slowly and are conservative about such things. Which says more about the psychology of such organizations than it does about the capabilities or limits of energy weapons.

I would also point out that even the US military does change out its weapons over time (50 years isn't really very long, actually). Modern soldiers aren't using Revolutionary War muskets, nor WWI or II weapons.

Thats an unreasonable demand, because I can only extrapolate from what is currently know about science and engineering.

It's an entirely reasonable demand, given that you've been making absolute declarative sentences on the subject while providing no supporting information or evidence or arguments to back up your statements.

You also keep mentioning 'reliability' as if this is the absolute be-all and end-all of any consideration.

Spears, bows and arrows, and swords are all vastly simpler than even a bolt-action gun - by your stated reasoning it would seem the world's militaries should still be using those instead of modern (and much less 'reliable') weapons. Of course, we don't do that.

The reason (that you're rather leaving out) is that 'reliability' is not the only (or most important) factor that is considered when thinking of weapons systems. Range, destructive power, and the advantage it provides on the battlefield are also things that are going to be considered (or demonstrated).

'Soldier proofed' is when a piece of equipment is made durable enough for the rigours and abuse of warfare. A colleague of mine was criticising laser surveillance equipment when he said the following: ''A physicist may consider such a laser system perfectly fine, an electrical engineer may consider it slightly troublesome yet functional - a soldier would probably put it in the trash after a couple weeks if no-one was held accountable for it.''

I don't see any inherent reason yet why you couldn't design a laser weapon that could be used to dig a trench in the rain and still work fine afterward.

Laser surveillance equipment is also a fairly new tech and very 'early days' in its development. It seems very likely that the state of the art will advance and produce much improved equipment over time. This has happened numerous times over the history of weapons. And again, this seems more of a problem with the process used by the military to develop and roll out new systems than anything inherent in the systems themselves or the physics underlying them.

I meant phasers as they were described in the star trek encylopedia. The weapons which produce a beam of subatomic particles called rapid nadions. Such particles are fictional, of course, and have propertys that defy the laws of physics.

I've never read this book (but may try to look up what a phaser is supposed to do, time permitting), but this again takes us to the question I asked earlier:

When you speak of 'energy weapons' using terms from SF are you saying you want something that does exactly what the SF describes in all respects? Or just something that does some of these things or is 'in the ballpark'?

Todd