>>13338976>will energy based weapons ever surpass conventional weapons?Surpass? I doubt it. The amount of power you'd need to burn a hole through a tank with a laser as fast as you could with an EFP is stupid huge. If you have to lase the tank for a solid minute to put a hole in it, that obviously sucks compared to conventional weapons. And putting a hole in the tank isn't even the end of it; you need to disable the tank or its crew, not just burn a small hole into it. With conventional weapons, you're putting hypersonic molten copper or shards of iron into the tank and wreaking havoc on everything inside. It's not just a matter of making a hole.
In space they might. They have a few advantages that really shine for space combat. Frying an enemy satellite with an orbital laser could be done from quite a long distance since you don't have the atmosphere to contend with. Also lasers don't have the "equal and opposite reaction" issue (but missiles can be effectively recoilless too)
Besides space combat, there is also the matter of energy weapons being used to fry electronics on earth (this overlaps with electronic warfare) and laser blinding weapons (these are forbidden by international treaty, but I doubt we've seen the last of them.) These supplement conventional weapons, but don't surpass them.
Lasers may also have some air-defense use. Lasers can in principle destroy missiles or artillery shells , however this is easier said than done. Maybe one day this will be more practical, but extant air defense systems use either missiles or shells it intercept enemy missiles or shells. It's not easy to make a weaponizable laser that is powerful enough to destroy an artillery shell. Consider that the artillery shell is spinning fast and are effectively air-cooled by the atmosphere they are rushing through. Industrial lasers are good at cutting, but not from miles away. And making laser systems robust enough for battlefield use isn't trivial either.
