Futuristic flamethrower idea

[fuzzymillipede]

The idea of a flamethrower-like weapon in a scifi context is too cool for me to pass up. I figure such a weapon would be vehicle-mounted and very inefficient, used primarily to demoralize the enemy.

Anyway, this is what I came up with:
The weapon heats air to extremely high temperatures at the muzzle (I dunno, maybe around 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit), while projecting a tubular force-field that terminates right before the enemy. With nowhere to go, the superheated air (now plasma) is forced down the tube at high speeds, creating a huge fireball and shockwave upon exiting the tube. The weapon also sucks additional air into the muzzle-end of the tube to keep it pressurized.

Now, is this idea feasible? If so, how fast will the plasma travel through the force-field tube, and what kind of explosion can be expected at the receiving end?

[Admiral Valdemar]

How about pumping a jellified gasoline/naptha based hydrocarbon fluid through a tube at high pressure using methane?

[fuzzymillipede]

I shied away from the traditional concept of a flamethrower because I don't want fuel tanks for the weapon itself; I just want it to run off of energy from the vehicle's reactor. Also, I want a very violent explosion at the target area.

As I said before, I don't care if the design is less efficient at making things burn than burning fluid, as well as less efficient at blowing things up than your typical mass-driver/blaster cannon/etc.

[Sea Skimmer]

To make that work you’d need some super magic material not only to build the weapon, but also to build a suit for the user that can let him withstand that kind of temperature. Even a robot would melt from the radiant heat if built out of a real material, tungsten melts at just 6,200 degrees Fahrenheit. The force field you want to direct the weapon also amounts to being a magic energy shield, I suspect enemy infantry will employ those shields to become immune to this weapon. I’m not even going to think about powering it or finding a way to generate the ultra high temperature at all.

Explosive force would depend on just how much air is being heated, which is in turn limited by how fast the atmosphere can push air into the back. I’m sure you’d be able to get more then enough overpressure to destroy normal buildings though, at least at close range.

[Zixinus]

I never quite understood the attraction to the flamethrower. Yeah, its awesome and all, but as a weapon, it's pretty shitty compared to a good machine gun, or in this context, a powerful laser or mere cannon. Low range, dangerous to the user as much as to the target, questionably effective, bulky and complicated.

Besides, if we are talking futuristic, why bother with heating air? Use an infra-red laser to ignite anything you wish. Just point, squeeze and presto! Thing on fire. If it can be ignited that is.

The problem is with the lack of fuel tanks, is that then you won't have anything that works on different environments. There are also some worlds where using the flame-thrower would have unintended consequences.

In today's battlefield, having a flamethrower is an invitation for a bullet rather then something that's feared very much. There is a reason why pretty much most armies abandoned the use of it.

[Kurgan]

Throwing fire is just inherently cool... that's one of the main reasons dragons are cool!

It's just a really dramatic way to attack (or lay down destruction) even if it's not the most efficient.

[Peptuck]

I never quite understood the attraction to the flamethrower. Yeah, its awesome and all, but as a weapon, it's pretty shitty compared to a good machine gun, or in this context, a powerful laser or mere cannon. Low range, dangerous to the user as much as to the target, questionably effective, bulky and complicated.

Really, the best use I've seen regarding the flamethrower is in the 40K Gaunt's Ghosts books, where its used as a sort of close-in weapon for clearing fortifications or holding off attackers who have a preference for massed, close assaults.

Of course, 40K flamers are a lot more powerful and have much longer ranges than standard flamethrowers.

[Sabastian Tombs]

Clearing fortifications IS the primary military use of a flame thrower. They are also used as a quick means of removing concealment, i.e. burning away the brush that the bad guys are hiding in.

Basically, a flamethrower isn't as good as a bullet, but properly used, it will make your bullets more effective.

[Block]

It's also extremely effective in defense, denying areas to enemy infantry, capable of hitting things in cover that might stop a bullet (requiring some sort of liquid property to do that though) and it's capable of hitting more than one enemy at a time close in. Their use has stopped because most fights now are either in a city, bad place to start a fire, or out in the open, where their limited range is a liability. People don't really dig the bunker networks now like they did in the early half of the 20th century.

[Lord Revan]

problem with incineries is that there's not much control over what they damage in cities the flamethrowers ability to start fires is more a liability then an asset (unless you intend to burn sections of the city down, with the attached resource and public opinion problems), btw Plasma and other energy weapons could also have this problem if their power is high enough (or they hit easily flamable materials).

while flmae throwers look cool enough they're really impractical (and not just for the big fuel tanks).

[Swindle1984]

Throwing fire is just inherently cool... that's one of the main reasons dragons are cool!

It's just a really dramatic way to attack (or lay down destruction) even if it's not the most efficient.

Well, flamethrowers are also pretty awesome for clearing out bunkers. If you don't incinerate everyone inside, you suffocate them from the lack of oxygen.

They're also pretty handy for dealing with air-breathing vehicles, which is why molotovs were so useful against tanks in WWII. The engine can't get enough oxygen because of the fire and dies, leaving the vehicle a sitting duck for heavier weapons or for infantry specialized in prying them open and dropping in grenades or more molotovs.

A standard flamethrower or the Flash incendiary rocket concept (launch rockets at the enemy to douse them in burning napalm) still has use today, albeit a limited one. Their only purpose would be to clear out bunkers/disable armored vehicles and severely demoralizing the enemy.

Most soldiers have only a vague concept of being shot, so guns aren't all that intimidating. Sharp, pointy objects have more of an impression, so bayonets are intimidating when mounted. The possibility of burning alive leaves you with all sorts of mental images though.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I never quite understood the attraction to the flamethrower. Yeah, its awesome and all, but as a weapon, it's pretty shitty compared to a good machine gun, or in this context, a powerful laser or mere cannon. Low range, dangerous to the user as much as to the target, questionably effective, bulky and complicated.

Really, the best use I've seen regarding the flamethrower is in the 40K Gaunt's Ghosts books, where its used as a sort of close-in weapon for clearing fortifications or holding off attackers who have a preference for massed, close assaults.

Of course, 40K flamers are a lot more powerful and have much longer ranges than standard flamethrowers.

I liked the flamethrowers in the Chtorr series by David Gerrold. Meant for use against the giant and very hard to kill Chtorran worms, they fired a stream of incendiaries in a hardened form, that hit as hard as a typical bullet. THEN, they splattered from the force of impact and ignited upon the interior being exposed to air. They shred AND burn, and have a lot longer range than a real world flamethrower.

[Zixinus]

If we want something set on fire, why not use special ammunition or grenades that do that? You have a bit more control what will get ignited, it is lighter and less sophisticated (in use anyway), it can travel ranges that a flame-thrower can't, etc. I heard that there is a Dragon's Breath or Napalm rounds for shotguns. Can similiar technologies be put into regular rifles?

Nowadays, assault rifles get grenade launchers attached to them. There was the XM36 OICW project was actually a grenade launcher and a sophisticated targeting system with a full-automatic (donnu if I can call it an assoult rifle or a sub-machine gun) attached to it. It wouldn't be a terribly big stretch to assume that a future weapons would travel in that direction.

[Sea Skimmer]

If we want something set on fire, why not use special ammunition or grenades that do that?

Militaries can and do use incendiary bullets and grenades and artillery shells, but a flamethrower with five gallons of napalm for fuel is going to do a better job all and all. This is because it’s a dense closely directed stream of flame However that’s not reason enough on its own to use the things. Attacking bunkers and caves is the only thing they really make sense for, and now we have better ways of doing that.

You have a bit more control what will get ignited, it is lighter and less sophisticated (in use anyway), it can travel ranges that a flame-thrower can't, etc. I heard that there is a Dragon's Breath or Napalm rounds for shotguns. Can similiar technologies be put into regular rifles?

Not really, the calibers of rifles, especially modern assault rifles, are too small for a liquid payload to work well, and they’d be a huge safety hazard. However incendiary rifle and even 9mm pistol ammo does exist using solid fuels like phosphorus.

[SAMAS]

I never quite understood the attraction to the flamethrower. Yeah, its awesome and all, but as a weapon, it's pretty shitty compared to a good machine gun, or in this context, a powerful laser or mere cannon. Low range, dangerous to the user as much as to the target, questionably effective, bulky and complicated.

Bullets can't curve down into caves or bunkers. Burning gasoline can.

Plus there's the psychological value. People, understandably, don't like being set on fire, and are often willing to run out into your line of fire to avoid it.

Plus, when it comes to accuracy, Flamethrowers are like horseshoes and hand grenades: Close counts.

[SAMAS]

If we want something set on fire, why not use special ammunition or grenades that do that?

Grenades can be thrown back. Try that with a great gob of burning napalm and see where it gets you.

[Darth Nostril]

On the other hand you have the vulnerability of having a five gallon tank of napalm strapped to your back.
One lucky shot and anyone nearby joins you in a red hot agonising screaming death.

Much easier and safer to wield a laser designator and let a nice big FAE suck all the oxygen out of that bunker complex.

[Cykeisme]

On the other hand you have the vulnerability of having a five gallon tank of napalm strapped to your back.
One lucky shot and anyone nearby joins you in a red hot agonising screaming death.

Much easier and safer to wield a laser designator and let a nice big FAE suck all the oxygen out of that bunker complex.

That assumes that air superiority has been accomplished, and that there are sufficient air support assets to be tasked.
The thread is talking about a fictional sci-fi setting where there are all sorts of factors that haven't been defined yet, but presumably the situation is such that infantry or ground vehicle-mounted flamethrowers have found some use.

Basically any situation where you have enemies well dug-in within prepared or natural fortifications, and you usually rely on line-of-sight infantry weapons (bullets or laser beams or somesuch), they might be useful, as long as the tech in the setting makes the flamethrowers compact and portable, generate sufficient heat, and project the burning fuel out to far enough a distance.


Using plasma, like described in the OP suffers from the problems that Mike Wong outlined on his plasma brainbug page, and only the fantastic tubular "force field" saves it.
However, if you're going to have a "force fields" you can shape at will, there's a lot of cooler things you can do with that sort of technology.

[PeZook]

That assumes that air superiority has been accomplished, and that there are sufficient air support assets to be tasked.

There are man-portable thermobaric rocket launchers, you know: the RPO series and the American M202A1 (I'm not sure if the M202 is still in use,though)

If you want a vehicle mounted flamethrower, use thermobaric shells and rockets instead of funky stuff like forcefields and plasma.

[The_Saint]

Really thermobaric warhead's are more like a creative-explosive than a "traditional" flame thrower


Mind you the TOS-1 Buratino seems to get listed as a "heavy flamethrower" from time to time. Global Security, FAS, wiki, youtube </linkspam>

[PeZook]

And explosives are just very creative flammables

They perform the same role as flamethrowers. The RPO even has a napalmesque version which uses a rocket to deliver flaming goo to the target: in both cases, they have longer range, are safer for the user and allow him to carry a weapon in addition tothe "flamethrower".

[Kartr_Kana]

Aren't flamethrowers outlawed by the Geneva Convention? Anyways thermobaric rockets are safer (your not going to get covered in napalm if someone shoots it) and are more effective. A single shot can kill everyone in a two story building according to USMC doctrine. Plus flamethrowers have a much shorter range the rockets (100m for the tank mounted ones in WW2 IIRC vs 250m for a SMAW Novel Explosive round)

[Teleros]

Now, is this idea feasible? If so, how fast will the plasma travel through the force-field tube, and what kind of explosion can be expected at the receiving end?

Assuming you have an adequate power supply, can control the forcefields, waste heat won't cook the user, etc etc etc, then yes it's feasible. Sea Skimmer pretty much summed up the chance of an explosion at the target. There will be problems however:

1. As before, what if the enemy can deploy similar forcefields? I doubt it would take nearly as much energy to deflect the plasma as it would to channel it, so a much smaller forcefield generator might offer sufficient protection. Perhaps there's a limit to such forcefield generator miniaturisation however...?

2. If you want an explosion at the other end, just use a laser or something, which is far more efficient. Similarly if you want something to burn, then chemical-based flamethrowers are probably going to be more effective too.

3. The forcefields required to channel it would have to be extremely powerful - it depends on quite how dense the plasma is etc, but with such technology why not just project a forcefield through someone's neck and decapitate them? The more manipulative and more powerful forcefields are, the more sense it makes to use them as a weapon.

Really, the best use I've seen regarding the flamethrower is in the 40K Gaunt's Ghosts books, where its used as a sort of close-in weapon for clearing fortifications or holding off attackers who have a preference for massed, close assaults.

I use them for the same thing - in most sci-fi settings about the only advantage a flamethrower has over another weapon is the psychological effect.

[Zixinus]

Bullets can't curve down into caves or bunkers. Burning gasoline can.

Grenades can.

Plus there's the psychological value. People, understandably, don't like being set on fire, and are often willing to run out into your line of fire to avoid it.

Psychological value loses itself over range and with the advent of rifled erm, rifles ranges now usually extend far beyond that of a flame-thrower. Bunkers are now also pretty obsolete, knowing that if the enemy has the means, there is no building in the world that can't be blown to everloving high hell unless its deep underground.

Also, anybody carrying a flamethrower will be the first target of any sniper or ambush if given a choice: this is the case of when psychological terror is working against you.

Grenades can be thrown back. Try that with a great gob of burning napalm and see where it gets you.

Try to throw a grenade back and see where it gets you.

Also, I'm fairly certain that there exists impact-based or contact-based grenades.

Really, I don't particularly see any advantage of flame-throwers on an individual scale, unless the targets are non-human. Against your typical space bugs that only bite you and don't shoot you, the issues changes and a flame-thrower might actually be a useful weapon.

Mount it on a vehicle, the issue changes again. Most disadvantages of a flame-thrower are minimised on an armoured vehicle: the gas tanks are safe, range isn't that much of an issue, there is far less danger to the users, etc. In case of a bug invasion or cases like the Zerg where half of enemy units are meléé, it can clear the immediate surrounding.

However incendiary rifle and even 9mm pistol ammo does exist using solid fuels like phosphorus.

How's their track record?

[PeZook]

Try to throw a grenade back and see where it gets you.

This actually happened quite a lot in WWII. Not a major problem by any stretch, and of course "grenades can be thrown back" is hardly a devastating argument against the weapon: if your enemy is trying to throw back the grenade, he's not busy shooting at you, and risks getting his face blown off anyways. It's like saying that bullets aren't very good, because they can ricochet and kill the shooter, too.

Also, I'm fairly certain that there exists impact-based or contact-based grenades.

They'd be quite useless and overcomplicated for the role, seeing as the main role of a hand grenade is to be able to attack an enemy indirectly, toss it into rooms, around corners, in windows, holes and trenches.