Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

While that is true if machinery over all, military tech is the opposite... at first it is a bunch of specialized tools, but over time they converge to make supply lines easier as one thing begins to do the job well enough.

• Light, Medium, and Heavy tanks become the MBT.
• Light, Medium, and Heavy machineguns become the LSW and the GPMG
• Torpedo and Dive bombers become naval bombers, which then get combined with CAP for a general purpose Naval Aircraft.
• SMG, LMG, and Combat Rifles phase out for the Assault Rifle
• Light and Medium bombers mix with CAS to leave only Strike Aircraft and Heavy Bombers.
• Fighters and heavy fighters merge, and then obsolete interceptors.
• Torpedo Boats and Torpedo Boat Destroyers merge into destroyers, which then proceed to devour frigates, and later cruisers.

And the list goes on, due to how important logistics is to an army, keeping things simple and having to supply as few diffrent things as needed is a strong design pressure that pushes convergence.

Basicly the army applies KISS to the supply chain, which isn't a factor for civilian machinery.

Edited by Imca on Sep 14th 2019 at 3:12:16 AM

The F-35 is probably THE single greatest example of never trying to have one airframe or design trying to do everything

True, but it is also the single greatest example that militaries are sure as hell going to TRY to make one thing do everything.

I mean, basically every modern tactical aircraft is multirole. The F-35 may not be the best example, but multirole fighters are alive and well.

Most universal weapons systems for small arms have a tendency to fail at covering everything as well. An M27 IAR is not as good at the machine gun role as a 240 or 249. An AK-12 isn't as good at the DMR role as an SVD.

Thus a lot of their intended niches to fill have a record of being forked off for other weapons instead. For example the M14 and M16 being used like a BAR in 'Nam was superseded at first by M60 then later M249 in the 80s.

That depends how you’re comparing them. The M27 has done well in the support fire role, but it’s a change of tactical emphasis compared to a belt-fed machine gun. You can’t easily compare the two.

Tom, your comparing categories that aren't comparable. The M27 IAR is not an LSW, that did not replace machineguns... and arguably even if you insist it did, the category it replaced would be light machineguns... which I remind you looked like this◊, they were not belt fed... and I would argue that the M27 is a better fire support weapon then the Type 99 or the Bren.

An LSW is the M249, L86, and RPK, and its like, medium to high capacity machine guns, chambered in an intermediate cartridge... designed to be fired while being very mobile.

Edited by Imca on Sep 14th 2019 at 9:12:21 AM

Thats Tom's point—these weapons arent generalizing.

They very much are though.

Instead of the M3, the BAR, the M1, and the M2 carbine, they have all been replaced with the M4 that does all there jobs.

Instead of thr Chaffee, the Sherman, and the Pershing you only have the Abrams that does all those jobs.

Instead of the Hellcat, the Dauntless, and the Devestator there is only the F-18 that does all there jobs.

Tom's point fails if that's the one he was trying to make because he is trying to compare across categories and under a false premise the M27 didnt replace the M249 in reality, both are happily co-existing.... the reality is that the M27 replaced every thing that is listed under the M4(which is what it replaced outside of budget requests), while the M249 picked up the slack for the Lewis Gun, the 1919, and the 1917(though a diffrent part of its job then the M27, which is why some people will make the argument there the same category is they dont look at the bigget picture.)

The military trend is 100% towards generalization, big sprawling supply lines are bad.

Edited by Imca on Sep 15th 2019 at 1:14:13 AM

The current repertoire of US Army and Marine Corps infantry weapons is:

• M16 rifle (specifically the A4 version)
• M4 carbine (A1 version is US Army standard issue)
• Colt SMG (replaced M3 in Marine Corps)
• P90 (Rangers/SOCOM)
• Mk 14 EBR
• G28 battle rifle (HK 417) as M110A1 SDMR/CSASS.
• Mk 17 SCAR-H
• M27 IAR
• M249 SAW
• M240 GPMG
• B&T APC-9 (New 9mm SMG for US Army VIP security)
• M2010 ESR (replaced M24 SWS in Army service)
• M40A6 sniper rifle
• M107 .50 cal sniper rifle/anti-materiel rifle
• M2A1 HMG

And that's most of the bullet sluggers anyways. Of that list, maybe half of it has any kind of generality with each other of some kind, very few of them share any parts at all. The more specialized of that list have unique supply chains all their own. (The three sniper rifles share no parts or even ammo to name one example.)

Actually they all have generalities in one category or another. You have 4 different SMG's which all fill the exact same niche they are generally the same weapon in the same general role and all are a limited issue/use. Several assault rifles, same thing and I could literally point out how every weapon on that list fills a generalized role not a unique or specific one. We have oddball and one-off weapons and munitions but you really didn't list any.

The military runs on generalized weapon and platform types. They tend to fill overall broad roles often with multiple variants falling into other categories or at least partially covering other categories in a limited fashion. Even the Barret is a generalized weapon these days.

But the question is whether or not fewer distinct models of weapons are being issued to troops over time. If so, then a case can be made that military technology is an exception to the more general rule of ever greater specialization in tool types. If not, then less so.

And to answer that you just need to look at Ships, Planes, and Tanks all of which have moved to a single type that has eaten at least 3 distinct types.

De Marquis: That question was already answered. The military, in general, tends towards generalization also known as standardization, rather than unique weapons platforms. Overall the doctrine of a given role plays a massive role in determining the general shape of the weapons. You instead get weapons in the same general role with variations in overall performance. There are some unique niches but those are the exception not the rule. Even special forces have a good degree of standardization alongside some of their unique kit. The unique weapons and equipment tend to be limited issue at most.

Common Infantry Squads, for example, have a general predetermined load out. The most basic unit is the rifleman. They all pretty much use the exact same set of equipment.

Planes is a funny thing, they originally were only scouts. Then they became bombers and fighters and interceptors and attack aircraft and strike aircraft and air superiority and more.

They've diversified quite a bit since their inception. Some of the extraneous or no longer effective types have been phased out or merged into other designs but overall aircraft are far more diversified and specialized than they were 100 years ago.

In helicopters, it's continuing to expand and diversify even more. Originally they were only scouts or transports, then armed transports/air cavalry, then you had attack helicopters, then armed reconnaissance, then special operations types (Little Birds for example) and maritime patrol and anti-submarine, now there's been some COIN type helicopters different than the rest and some are even being thought of as drone controllers (to say nothing of helicopters becoming drones themselves). Very few types of helicopter role have been retired or phased out over the years.

Drones are undergoing a similar expansion and diversification into specialized roles right now as well.

Worth noting, 100 years ago airplanes were already starting to diversify a good bit. They were even already well into the agility vs power debate for fighter design and the Army had already fielded one fighter plane that was either the almighty's gift to fighter pilots or a dangerous unmitigated deathtrap that should have been pushed off the edge of the airfield and set on fire rather than flown (the Nieuport 28, if you're curious. Very agile, slight tendency to set itself and its pilot on fire or for the wings to tear themselves apart, but both situations were avoidable if the pilot was careful).

One big factor in the specialization of aircraft is improvements in structural and engine design, which was also a big factor in eliminating certain classes of aircraft. Ever wonder why dive bombers just sort of disappeared after WWII? Improvements in engine design meant that fighters by the end of WWII could carry heavier payloads than many dive bombers could at the start of the war, to say nothing of what the torpedo bombers could carry. Eventually they just removed the defensive armament and bomb bays from the torpedo bombers and merged both classes into the all-purpose Attack plane (the A-1 Skyraider was Douglas's follow-up to the TBD Devastator torpedo bomber and the SBD Dauntless dive bomber). With the later advent of smart bombs, even that class of aircraft was pushed off the carrier deck to make room for the flying Swiss Army Knife, the Strike Fighter.

For land-based air forces, we've also seen the general phase-out of many of the lighter classes of bombers. Medium Bombers and Light Bombers both disappeared entirely in favor of fighter planes, especially with heavier attack-oriented fighters like the F-15E Strike Eagle. Pretty much everything with a B- prefix in the Air Force's aircraft fleet now is a strategic bomber.

Random thought. Thermochromatic pigments on the heat sink of a laser pistol. Instead of trying to touch a hot heatsink or pulling out some infrared sensor you've got different pigments that turn different colors as the gun heats up. Let's say it's green when merely warm, yellow as it gets dangerous to handle, and red when the gun is on the verge of meltdown.

Gunna wear out quickly.

Why not just have an insulating exterior covering so that it’s not hot to the touch?

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 23rd 2019 at 7:51:16 AM

Thermodynamics. Lasers generate a ton of heat. A laser powerful enough to kill a human or damage a military target is going to get roasty-toasty in very short order. You can't just insulate that away. You could have a liquid refrigerant system, but then you have your laser gun connected to a bunch of hardware that won't be easily man-portable.

I mean, how hot are we talking?

A suppressor cover for an automatic firearm is usually rated to a few thousand degrees, and that’s with modern materials. If we’ve got laser small arms, I assume we’ve got better insulators too.

How powerful of a laser are we talking? Most lasers are, what? 30 percent efficient? Even if we're generous at 50 percent then your laser is getting just as hot as the target.

For a lethal hit you'll need a laser than can flash human flesh into vapor fast enough to cause a fatal explosion. So a lot of BT Us.

@Demarquis I figured the pigment will eventually char under the heat but you could scrape it off and reapply it.

In a firearm, the heat is coming from two sources: the chemical ignition of the propellant, and the friction of the round against the barrel. This heat can be diverted away from the handling portion of the weapon by a variety of means, particularly because a lot of it is in the form of hot gases that can be directed into the air.

In a laser, most of the heat is coming from the stimulated emission of the chemical source material, which involves strong electrical currents that come from a power supply, which also heats up. This is in the core of the weapon and there's no propellant to expel to help cool it. As noted, even if it is fifty percent efficient at delivering energy to the target, the remaining 50% heats up the weapon itself. Active cooling is required for any laser of significant size.

That scene in Real Genius where they fire the five megawatt laser into the target is unrealistic for a number of reasons, but one of the absolute worst is that every single person in that room would have been roasted like a Thanksgiving turkey, the room itself would have been flash-ignited, and probably the whole wing of the college campus would have burned down.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 23rd 2019 at 3:08:31 PM

They actually had a good idea by having the lasing medium vaporize under use. This would help sink a lot of the heat even though you'd only get one shot.

...and still probably set the room on fire BUT Probably Not the Building.

Edited by Belisaurius on Sep 23rd 2019 at 3:17:13 PM

And have a plume of searing hot, probably toxic chemical vapor blast out of the lasing chamber into the room where they were all standing without protective respiratory gear. Five megawatts is a freakishly enormous amount of power.

There's also a minor problem in that they don't say whether that power rating is input or output. Some efficiency is always lost to thermodynamics; if you go with the standard 30% rating for commercial lasers, either what's coming out the end is a mere 1.5 megawatts, with 3.5 megawatts of heat energy going into the laser equipment and its nearby environment, or the output is 5 megawatts and nearly 12 megawatts are being used to immolate the college campus.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 23rd 2019 at 3:58:41 PM