gigawatt amounts of power in terms of heat. In a much less concentrated form, yes.

There is a big difference between absorbi ng waste heat spread over dozens of square meters and absorbing heat from a lase r beam a foot in diameter. The two are really not all that comparable. And that's only the first time they fire...the second time they fire, unless the y dumped the heat already (good luck using your radiators in combat), the second shot will add its own waste heat to the existing heat.... A radiator/cooling system that cannot take the strain of prolonged use is useles s indeed.

Yes it is. You're assuming that laser technology will magically get better yet a rmour/construction technology wouldn't. The whole of a ship cannot be armored, contrary to BSG. You also seem to be igno ring the prospect of using different wavelengths of light and how they would dif fer in their capabilities. As it is, I am making no such assumptions, but merely acknowledging that lasers and other DEWs could be used to great effect, even in space. Additionally, no armor resists all threats equally well. If kinetic weap ons are primary, then certain parts of a ship will be more vulnerable to DEWs. be r armor is more 'magitech' than ber lasers are. I don't think you really understand the math behind it as to how bad lasers are in space as a primary weapon....Any argument that uses "well, we haven't discove red how to create a super laser" can also be used to argue "well, we haven't dis covered how to create super armour". I understand the math just fine, which is why I am not advocating that lasers wo uld replace all kinetic weapons in space. I also understand, however, that DEWs can have a much longer effective range than other weapons and can be used in mul tiple ways (don't always have to kill). I can see lasers being used as a form of AMS (which is what the us military curr ently focuses its research on...this makes sense since missiles aren't generally going to become "thicker") but as the main weapon in actual space battles betwe en ships... yep, that's space magic. Missiles would most definitely be fitted with ablative armor if lasers were the primary PD systems aboard ships. Again though, I'm not proposing that lasers be primary anti-ship weapons. My initial post was pointing out the utter lack of la sers being used for anything other than PD in ME. Shrike21, Feb 14, 2013 Report#79LikeReply Rockhound Sexual Triceratops Shrike21 said: ? Missiles would most definitely be fitted with ablative armor if lasers were the primary PD systems aboard ships. Again though, I'm not proposing that lasers be primary anti-ship weapons. My initial post was pointing out the utter lack of la sers being used for anything other than PD in ME. Ablative armor would be the last thing you would ever put on a missile. ????????! Rockhound, Feb 14, 2013 Report#80LikeReply locki If your primary sensors in space are huge, sensitive, cryogenically cooled IR se nsors (as is likely) then lasers, especially those in the red and infrared wavel engths, are going to be bloody useful for blinding sensors. Shutters only go so far. You do have to peak those eyes open pretty regularly if you want to hit your target closing in at 10-50kps.

I favour DEW for soft kills but if you want to blow something to pieces than hit ting it physically the old fashioned way is always more efficient. Eternal, exalted procrastinator above all. locki, Feb 14, 2013 Report#81LikeReply Shrike21 Rockhound said: ? Ablative armor would be the last thing you would ever put on a missile. And why is that? Shrike21, Feb 14, 2013 Report#82LikeReply Rockhound Sexual Triceratops Shrike21 said: ? And why is that? Ablative protection...ablates. When it does so, there is a word for the result: rocket. You now have a missile with a rocket at each end, imperfectly balanced. Mission kill. ????????! Rockhound, Feb 14, 2013 Report#83LikeReply locki Rockhound said: ? Ablative protection...ablates. When it does so, there is a word for the result: rocket. You now have a missile with a rocket at each end, imperfectly balanced. Mission kill. To be fair if your rocket is more of a remote controlled missile bus (so virtual ly a one use, one way rocket ship) with multiple shorter range rockets as a payl oad then it would be well worth armoring up the main missile bus. My thoughts are a realistic space warfare battle would be pretty much like the C old War standoff. Essentially MAD in Spaaaaaace. Loads of inter-planetry range m issile buses (aka ICBMs) which are virtually unstoppable and ready to launch wit h the press of a red button. For story purposes the interesting part is about what pushes the respective lead ers to edge closer to launching them in similar style to the Cuban Missile Crisi s/Able Archer style. There will be no long range duels between starships. Fuel constraints will ensur e nothing is reusable. If your space warship doesn't need to return home you can get away with a quarter of the delta V. All weapons will be one way instruments of atomic/kinetic doom. The rest of the conflicts it will be little low violence, relatively low energy policing actions and customs control. But when it comes time for total war everyone dies. For the purposes of story it s about to avoid that mutual destruction. Eternal, exalted procrastinator above all. locki, Feb 14, 2013 Report#84LikeReply Shrike21 Rockhound said: ? Ablative protection...ablates. When it does so, there is a word for the result: rocket. You now have a missile with a rocket at each end, imperfectly balanced. Mission kill. Yeah, I thought about that but how much thrust would actually be created from ab lation? Shrike21, Feb 15, 2013 Report#85LikeReply Rockhound Sexual Triceratops

Shrike21 said: ? Yeah, I thought about that but how much thrust would actually be created from ab lation? Quite a bit, if that ablation is meant to protect a missile from hard-kill optic al/particle DEWs. Certainly enough to cause tumbling (if not mechanically disint egrate the missile itself). ????????! Rockhound, Feb 15, 2013 Report#86LikeReply Shrike21 Rockhound said: ? Quite a bit, if that ablation is meant to protect a missile from hard-kill optic al/particle DEWs. Certainly enough to cause tumbling (if not mechanically disint egrate the missile itself). Hmm, interesting. Shrike21, Feb 15, 2013 Report#87LikeReply SGTschlock How am I holding all of these pens?! Ralson said: ? First off: It's actually really easy to show ships fighting at long range. You h ave a shot where ships are shooting at something too far away to be seen, and th en cut to the effects on target.Boom. Yeah. The demand to make everything happen at short ranges at times DOES seem a bit...uncreative. And for the sake of argument, lets say she IS trying to kill me. I don't necessa rily think that necessarily means that she isn't in LOVE with me! When the Singularity comes, you will still be just as unpopular. SGTschlock, Friday at 10:34 PM Report#88LikeReply 13th Fleet Citizen Remember the Borg orbital bombardment scene from Star Trek: First Contact? The B org ship is just another light in the night sky, and then shots come streaking d own. I still think it is pretty cool. There one moment, and there the next.