What kind of rifle will the soldiers of the future carry? Caseless? Rail muskets? Gyrojet derivatives? Lasers? Something biological?
>>29946992
homing lasers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TeeYWB6TYI&t=4m30s
Depends on how far into the future.
the next 100 years will almost certainly maintain cartridge rifles. and they'll more than like be direct derivatives of current stock. because we've already hit a block in what to do with gun design. There are only so many ways you can make a cartridge rifle.
The real innovation will come in materials. with lighter and stronger polymers and ceramics, plus improved bullet design and philosophy of use.
Of course, if the nations of the war stagnate much further, it's very much feasible to see an AR in 2150.
although you may see some experimental weapons like a coil gun, there will never be a mass issued laser gun for terrestrial soldiers, at most you'll see em for men stationed out in the black, where even a pallet of ammunition would weigh too much to be cost effective, so a rechargeable rifle would be worth the money. Though it'll more than likely be a weapon similar to the Flashbulb guns of the atomic era. something to just poke a hole in an Astronauts suit.
unless we hit a point of extreme resource scarcity, where even the lead for bullets is too much of a price. combustion weapons will remain king for a long time.
>>29947122
t. a 20 year old fudd and /tg/ reject who doesn't see the point of the thread is to actually look beyond MUH AR BEST GUN IN THA WORLD
>>29946992
Near future? Polymer cased-telescoped, with a Trijicon/Tracking Point style smart sight. Plus 40mm smart missiles like the Pike.
It won't happen next year, or next 5 years, but it's a guarantee by 20 years. Big Army finally has it on the contracting lists.
Farther in the future...depends on energy storage. Unless we see graphene supercapacitors (not in the next 2 decades) or room-temp superconductors (no time soon) chemical energy will be the norm.
But given those things, EM-powered slug throwers will probably be popular, more so than lasers, which have serious focusing and firepower problems despite their hitscan attributes.
A bolter is basically a gyrojet that uses a hi-lo cartridge to provide the initial propulsion.
>>29947157
Uh, fucking what?
Look kid, just because you saw the new starwars film doesn't mean you'll be a space pirate.
if you payed attention to the last 60 years of design, you'll see the inherent stops in small arms technology. Innovation ahsn't been in creating some miracle weapon, or some perfect gas system. it's been in the fields of polymers and 3d printing technology.
Seriously kid, just stop. if you came here to see some DARPA mini nuke, you've come to the wrong place.
also
>fudd
>AR
This is how you can pick out people who don't belong here. Also, where do you see
>muh AR
Oh, wait. this is bait. never mind.
>>29946992
Lasers will be king if we can get another couple orders of magnitude out of battery density and solve the capacitor charge rate problem.
>>29947222
>kid
>kid
>kid
saying kid over and over doesn't make your shitty point valid.
>>29947222
>some DARPA mini nuke
Uh. FNGW pure fusion weapons are a highly likely future invention that naturally develop out of both laser and fusion research paths.
>>29947232
>if we can get another couple orders of magnitude battery density
>if we can get antigravity
>if we can get a Hillary-Trump double ticket
Yeah no. Nothing short of fully mature diamondoid nanotechnology can even dream of that.
>>29947222
>look mom I called him kid again
>>29947288
>>29947238
>says nothing to refute
sure thing, kids.
>>29947246
lasers are fucking dumb, why would you use an extremely unreliable technology that goes to shit on a misty day? and clearly, what about stuff also needs clear as day lenses. mini nuke is a reference to bad scifi wonderweapons. you won't have a nuke that only blows up a city block.
>>29947316
You will with pure fusion. Zero-fallout 80% neutron output with dial-a-yields from 1 to 100 tons TNT in a palm-sized warhead.
The R&D problem for fusion is initiation. With 1950s tech it takes fission. But high-intensity/low-energy on-chip lasers can do it. (So can antimatter - and the quantities required are well within reach of modern technology - but amat containment is hard and it's fail-deadly).
>>29947222
>get called out for being a fag
>proceed to be an even bigger fag
pfhffhahfahfhaha
go back to arfcom, my man
>>29947316
>lasers are fucking dumb, why would you use an extremely unreliable technology that goes to shit on a misty day?
>heavier-than-air flight is fucking dumb, why would you use an extremely unreliable technology that goes to shit on a windy day?
>muskets are fcking dumb, why would you use an extremely unreliable technology that goes to shit on a rainy day?
>etc. until the end of civilization
>>29947366
alright, lets say we do make nukes the size of a finger, i'll be honest i'm not a physicist, so i'm not the authority on fusion. why. at no point in the future is it cost effective to use a nuke over some plastic explosive, or if you really needed a boom, a hellfire.
and antimatter, $250 million for ten grams. we're only scratching the surface of it's theoretical properties. anything useful to come out of it will be long after your kids are dead, which comes back to my previous statement of "How long into the future?" even a thousand years from now, unless the price of iron and lead skyrockets there is no real reason to use em. but again, we're talking about small arms. any of these future technologies will cost a lot more than a simple rifle. what benefit does a laser rifle have? the only one i can imagine is no ballistic drop. otherwise it's much more prone to weather, can't be suppressed and may as well be lie a tracer round.
a keyboard
Laser weapons are probably the most feasible if we can get a better mobile power source. Our current laser technology is lightyears ahead of our batteries.
My bet is on caseless ammo having a comeback, then flechettes, then caseless flechettes, then [spoiler]bales and bales of Anime, Furry Porn and Fat Positivity brochures with which to poison the culture of the civilization being invaded[/spoiler]
I'd bet against lasers not because MUH DISPERSION but because they don't knock stuff down. Lasers might be excellent for making precise cuts in things, but not for knocking down structures or taking people out of fights instantly.
I'd also not be surprised if armed forces turn into entities more resembling SWAT teams using less-lethal munitions and whatnot, as we move further and further into warfare being an issue of corralling dissidents rather than toppling nations. Like, some Defense Minister somewhere is just going to go "We are basically the world police. Why not literally act and arm ourselves like police?" and then it'll become the new hot shit for a while to break the geneva convention --not with mustard gas or land mines deployed in the dead of night-- but OC sprays and firehoses on brightly colored tanks blasting recordings of miranda rights readings.
>>29947260
>nanotechnology would affect charge rates in a positive way
>diamondoid is anything exotic
lol
>>29947444
>laser
>tracer round
That is not how it really works.
You might think of plasma or something.
>>29947395
Come up with something good. you started with the passive aggressive name calling. if being called a child upsets you than you should go back to plebbit.
>>29947433
>heavier-than-air flight is fucking dumb, why would you use an extremely unreliable technology that goes to shit on a windy day?
No, even a canvas biplane can cross an ocean or a country faster and cheaper than any train or boat. it only loses out on it's cargo capacity
>muskets are fcking dumb, why would you use an extremely unreliable technology that goes to shit on a rainy day?
a peasant with a weeks worth of training being able to kill a professional soldier in armor is a very desirable thing. Bows were also garbage when you get the strings wet. lasers on the other hand, have nothing going for it. it's like asking for the military to adopt Foogle glass when a smartphone or some shit does it all and better.
>>29947122
>>29947222
>>29947316
>>29947444
>>29947576
https://soundcloud.com/moralix/original-song-go-fuck-yourself-ust
>>29947556
correct me if i'm wrong, but a laser strong enough to kill a man at more than 300m would be a fairly visible thing, especially if there are a lot of particles like smoke or dust in the air.
>>29947576
>even a canvas biplane can cross an ocean or a country faster and cheaper than any train or boat.
Are you including all the time lost to crashes when it gets windy and the thing flips over and spins into a forest?
>Bows were also garbage when you get the strings wet.
no
>lasers on the other hand, have nothing going for it.
cutting power, logistics, and range. I don't know why you think lasers can't go more than a foot on a "misty day" but even a handheld cheapo green dot laser can go for miles, let alone some kind of magical future military tech
>it's like asking for the military to adopt Foogle glass when a smartphone or some shit does it all and better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%89LIN#Helmet
you dont know shit
real or close real nano tech drones.
nano tech can utilizie any shape you want. they can simulate fluid, solid, hard or soft surfaces. one single drone is extreme small or hundrets of them form a bigger shape. they can adapt every surface. they could form a invisible sphere shield for its user.. the person behind in the sphere cant be seen nor harmed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19nzPt62UPg
ok lazerfags, what do?
>>29947182
>Trijicon
why are americans so obsessed with branding and buzzwords
>>29947593
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBuiPZm6hK4
Not really. And this will kill a man or leave him unable to fight at kilometers.
>>29947618
>Are you including all the time lost to crashes when it gets windy and the thing flips over and spins into a forest?
are you forgetting all the people lost at sea? or all the trains robbed? accidents happen, but it's advantages still remain. a train car or boat can't take Arial photos, nor can it cover 100 miles as quick.
>no
Yes, wet strings lose a good chunk of their draw weight. this is established truth.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%89LIN#Helmet
>you dont know shit
a radio mounted to a helmet and a touchscreen means something. i remember that future warrior project too. where is it? in the garbage. because a laptop and a smartphone is still and will likely remain for a long time both superior and cheaper.
>cutting power, logistics, and range. I don't know why you think lasers can't go more than a foot on a "misty day" but even a handheld cheapo green dot laser can go for miles, let alone some kind of magical future military tech
you ever think a pen laser isn't a weapon?
Have you ever used one of the real powerful pen lasers? the ones that can burn you? yeah, they don't after a hundred feet. lasers lose energy quick. whereas it will still be a lot cheaper to use either a conventional rifle or a drone to take someone out past 1000m there's a reason we don't issue battle rifles to everyone in the infantry anymore. fights don't usually occur past 300m
>>29947683
>All the energy of the laser is absorbed by the mirror
>The mirror explodes
>>29947728
>not understanding the point
m8 lasers are dumb as an infantry weapon meant for other infantry but you are also dumb as shit for not understanding that
>A: Technology marches on, and that's what this thread is about
>B: Lasers are already pretty good and don't get ruined by "a misty day" wtf
your understanding of technology is really bad, too. canvas biplanes are shit and bow strings don't get ruined because it's raining. At least one military HAS adopted a google glass like device, and otherwise, a smartphone is not that useful a device for tromping around as a soldier except maybe for looking at porn. other future warrior programs got scrapped for weight and cost reasons, and they don't issue netbooks to infantry. and they don't issue battle rifles because a person can carry more .223 than .308, and automatic fire from lightweight arms is preferred over single shots from heavy long guns because it means a single person can lay down more fire and have more room/weight available for batteries and rations and tools and shit
go back to arfcom idiot
>>29947683
shoot it with lasers
you can laser-cut reflective materials, just make extra sure you've got protective eyewear
>>29947794
But then there's a million little mirrors.
>>29947819
Why not shoot it with bullets?
>>29947850
>Why not shoot it with bullets?
because you were issued a laser rifle
>>29947683
wear two sided mirror armor. You can see out, and you're totes laserproof.
lasers weapons are bad against infantry mainly because our current ceramic based armor is highly effective against lasers as they are dense which means that it takes a lot of energy to heat them up and they will give off a gas acting like an ablative shield dispersing the lasers focus. Secondly blood loss is what kills in the battle field. lasers cauterize the wound preventing blood loss all it means is that you have now poked a small hole in me if you even manage to get past my body armor.
>>29947795
>not understanding the point
clearly the same goes to you.
>m8 lasers are dumb as an infantry weapon meant for other infantry
No shit cuck, i said that in the very first post.
>A: Technology marches on, and that's what this thread is about
No shit, but some things stay on longer than you'd think dumbshit and that was the entire point of the post. Cartridge rifles will remain for a long long time, even if you make these wonder weapons that cost a shit ton.
B: Lasers are already pretty good and don't get ruined by "a misty day" wtf
You ever hear of divergence? the more shit in the air the less effective your laser it.
>your understanding of technology is really bad, too. canvas biplanes are shit
and yet it still is faster than a train or boat, and doesn't need thousands of miles of road or track to get somewhere.
>bow strings don't get ruined because it's raining.
yes they fucking do, numbnuts. you ever shoot a bow through a chrono? you'll see quite a drop in speed if you get your string wet.
>and otherwise, a smartphone is not that useful a device for tromping around as a soldier except maybe for looking at porn.
and you think google glassalikes will? anywhere electronics are needed a laptop will cover it. and still cost less. (contractor price jacking not withstanding)
>other future warrior programs got scrapped for weight and cost reasons,
again, square one. you think your wiki linked wunderwaffe will fare any different? cost .vs effectiveness is the name of the game.
>they don't issue battle rifles...etc
the whole debate was started after findings after the second world war stated engagements rarely went past 300m the rest were benefits that happened to grease the wheels
>go back to arfcom idiot
fuck off back to eddit, idiot
also gauss rifles suck because of limitations due to magnetic saturation if I rember correctly limiting the amount of energy they can dump rail guns do not have the same issue why idk
>>29946992
Here have some infographic
>>29947927
obviously sir you are dealing with a sparky the only difference is that instead of having a hard on for the m113 he has a retard hard on for laser weaponry. To laser retard. The only thing lasers will be used for for the next 100 years is probably missile interception on a large mounted platform due to the weight of the energy storage medium.
>>29946992
>>29947943
And there was one more that showed a naked dude with an Ak-47 that cost 4 rat skins and casualties was listed "as many as the gods will".
>>29947683
Draw my slug-thrower backup gun.
>>29946992
War...War never changes
>>29947989
So you admit that lasers are useless
>>29947593
That's only assuming that the laser is on the visible light spectrum. It would be much more advantageous to use something off that spectrum (probably above it rather tha below)
>>29948042
I never said anything about lasers, actually.
I don't really know jack all about them, but I know that if I was issued one I would want to carry some kind of kinetic weapon as a backup.
>>29948095
I agree. If lasers ever see use in warfare it would likely be as some kind of special operations thing, but not as a primary weapon.
>>29947710
Because it's easier than explaining the details of a CCAS to someone from a nation that can't afford 'em.
Common lingo, standard jargon, cultural context...is that something Eurofags can't afford either?
>>29947683
Mirrors aren't perfect. And every bit of energy that leaks through, reduces the reflective. At combat-useful hard-kill intensities, mirrors are not a defense.
It's like saying a boxer can weather the KE of a punch, therefore he can weather the KE of a machinegun.
Polymer cased telescoped cartridges seem like the logical path if you ask me. While the Russian AN-94 and other prototype actions are interesting, they are clearly trending towards the same basic AKM design with some quality of life improvments
Assuming we're only talking about the individual countries PDW carts like 5.7 and 6.5 CBJ have a lot of potential beyond their currently niche applications. The big thing with poly-CT is weight reduction. Not only will the plastics have to be durable enough but the designers will also have to manage both the heat on the casing itself as well as the gun since now you don't have brass acting as a decent heat sink.
Barring massive technological jumps in the next few decades I wouldn't expect anything radically different. We will probably see a bigger focus on efficiency and ergonomics in addition to getting weight down (the main focus pf LSAT and it's successor programs).
Caseless sadly is pretty much dead in the water as far as interest goes. Yea the G11 is awesome, but going caseless brings serious issues to the table. Mainly heat, cycling, complexity, and the inability to quickly clear jams and missfires, as well as the possibility of a malfunction of that sort permanently disabling a gun without heavy work and/or replacing parts. That's one of the reasons the G11's operating action was designed to be replaced in it's entirety, as well as 3-shot burst instead of full auto (the heat generated by full-auto would cause cook-off).
The only situation I see caseless being useful is in slave states like where I live in Cali where only centerfire carts (for rifles anyway) are feature-banned. Though you'd be racing against potential legislation at that.
See the thing is the military and gov can only do so much. Without 922(o) and NFA, (mostly NFA) you'd see a lot more innovation in the commercial market, and it's a major reason innovation stagnates.
>>29947922
>what is internal bleeding
>>29947683
is it able to reflect every frequency from infra-red to gamma?
>>29947467
Queen of the battlefield!
