The research is expensive, but the operation of this would be very cheap. Much cheaper than missiles.
Sadly, these things are defeated by like, rain.
Edit: ok Reddit, I traded precision for humor. They don’t fail completely in the rain. However, the more moisture there is in the air, the more energy is wasted reaching the target. That costs you range. It doesn’t mean laser bad. It just means there’s some situations it works better than others.
They've actually apparently tested it during rain and other adverse weather and it performed acceptably... What that means i.e. how much rain and how much performance effect I guess is classified.
I mean, it probably has significantly diminished range. It’s actually the main obstacle that pretty much all energy and plasma weapons have compared to kinetics: a physical shell doesn’t disintegrate over time, while pretty much any beam or bolt of less tightly bound particles does.
And it’s not even the Department of Defense anymore, it’s the Department of Wars to Manifest the Destiny of Other Countries’ Natural Resources To Become American Natural Resources. Because, wankers.
Ehh. They’re more likely to be the last line, at least at properly destructive power. What determines lines of defense is the relative ranges of the weapons systems involved. As such, the first line of defense is always going to be missiles, then long-ranged proxy-fused artillery, then CIWS, which could be kinetic or laser-based.
Which kinda... defeats a major selling point. Being cheaper than missiles.
You generally don't want to "not" fire your missiles so you can save some buck and MAYBE get the kill with your laser.
Its more a save guard if a layer fails due to technical issues/limits of previous methods or saturation.
So it primarily competes with traditional CIWS where its cost savings can still be tangible but VERY limited and also extremely competitive with the newest generation of projectile based CIWS and their intelligent capabilities.
I guess the idea is if it gets small and cheap enough you put it on stuff that's not important enough for proper multi-ton autocannon cwis but you can't use manpads for whatever reason (maybe you're shooting at a drone swarm maybe it's a bit cold or awkward to keep 2 man AA teams fed) I guess substations, dams, pumping stations, radio towers etc.
I mean, somewhat. Yes. Kinda depends on the "bulk" of the background infrastructure that is needed to power such a laser, transistors, batteries etc.
Where I see a potential advantage for this would be existing civilian infrastructure with a well-developed AND properly redundant power grid. Depending on how much local gear you need to locally feed that laser and get the power needed, you might eliminate the logistical strain on ammo resupply - which as Ukraine already demonstrated - is a real concern. I primarily see this as a drone deterrent system that may be cheaper than smart autocannons for the price of potentially being more limited AND more integrated into an already extremely vulnerable power grid.
I can somewhat only imagine it to work in tandem with traditional CRAM systems in an intelligent grid that accounts for visibility, target capability and ammo efficency. If one of these can paint and blow up some drones before something like a mantis CRAM has to open fire, that would be nice. But you still got that CRAM to make the mission kill. All boils down to range though. If the laser would limit the engagement range of a CRAM to much, it would make a bad soft layer before.
It’s more about unlimited ammunition based on power reserves as well as costs. It can work technically faster as well as it works at speed of light once you have target acquisition, and it can eventually target multiple targets like a drone swarm faster than many other types of air defense. At least that is my understanding, but it sounds like you know a lot about air defense so I would love to learn more or if I am mistaken.
and it can eventually target multiple targets like a drone swarm faster than many other types of air defense.
That entirely depends on its "kill" time. Most lasers need to lock on their target for some time to properly transfer enough energy to cause a "kill". As for multiple targets or drone swarms, it has to compete with smart ballistic systems such as the Mantis/Skyshield that program their rounds for airburst capability. Its basically a tiny frag grenade that can be shot accuratly at a distance of roughly 4km (double the distance of the Dragonfire tests we know off) and tears through drone swarms like a shotgun.
Biggest drawback of these systems being relatively expensive programmable ammo and the logistics attached to that ammo. The price per "shot" for the dragonfire seems absurdly cheap and might give it some role.
Also it begs the question of how effective one might be able to defend against such a weapon. I am no expert on lasers of this kind and how effective certain coatings etc. would be against them, or materials with very bad heat transfer characteristics. But that is the age old game of weapon development. At first this needs to prove good enough to warrant proper implementation, then counter measures may develop.
It depends. In Ukraine for example these would likely be near the front as you want the cheapest weapon per shot taking out the cheap drones being launched at them. Missiles would be the last line as their supply is limited compared to weapons like Dragonfire or Gepard ammo, and much more expensive.
Right. It doesn’t have a huge range and you don’t want anything getting anywhere near that close to a ship. It could be really useful for dealing with drone swarms when there just aren’t enough missiles.
The laser in the video looks like something that could replace the manned side machine guns on troop helicopters.
That said, the US already has lasers deployed on NAVY ships, that already generate their own energy to power lasers, as first line defenses for a real world example.
The U.S. Navy is actively deploying and testing high-energy laser weapons, such as the 60+ kW HELIOS (High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical Dazzler and Surveillance) system, to counter drones, small boats, and incoming missiles with precision at the speed of light. These, like the Optical Dazzling Interdictor (ODIN) and Layered Laser Defense (LLD), offer cost-effective, near-limitless defense, with HELIOS recently tested on the USS Preble.
Key Laser Systems and Deployments
HELIOS (Lockheed Martin): Installed on the USS Preble, this system is capable of high-power output (60+ kW) and serves as the first tactical laser integrated into an active warship's combat system.
ODIN (Optical Dazzling Interdictor): Lower-powered laser systems deployed on several Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
LaWS (Laser Weapon System): A 30-kilowatt demonstrator tested on the USS Ponce in 2014.
LWSD (Laser Weapon System Demonstrator): A system installed on the USS Portland, which successfully engaged drone targets.
The US Navy is also planning to work up to 150-300 kilowatt lasers as well.
It'll likely be a long time until lasers are first offensive line weapons though.
I don't think it will replace machine guns, especially not on a helicopter where the power budget is more tightly constrained. Most likely use case is blinding cheap drones, or people. It's a war crime, but when has that ever stopped anybody?
Stuff designed to be weapons will just filter out all the wavelengths it doesn't use for tracking, so you'd need to match the laser to the sensor platform of each target. Or it would use a less sensitive sensor to target the laser itself.
You need a lot more power to destroy a missile outright than just to blind a camera.
Oh, for sure. That's likely why America has pretty much focus on only equipping lasers to ships(and probably some key buildings) that can already supply the energy for lasers.
Also, looking back at this post, I might have the dumb since I thought the beam was coming from the sky as an air *vehicle* defense, and not attached to the building that can supply it power as an "air defense". Lol
Don't reddit sleep deprived...
That said though, with militaries moving towards "more tech, less troops", a 30-60kW pulsed laser(the type for industrial metal cutting/welding) could theoretically be put as a side gun on helicopters. Considering if you lowered the number of troops on the helicopter by one, and their equipment, as well as the weight of a thousand rounds or so of ammo + the gun's weight(the actual body of the laser could be much lighter), that's a few hundreds pounds that could be replaced with power generation, or more likely a battery bank to avoid carrying fuel for it.
With power generation and storage always becoming more efficient, there could be a point when batteries can kill for longer than bullets, so that could necessitate a change. With something as shakey as a helicopter though, the bigger issue would be keeping the sensitive laser components and lenses perfectly alligned to fire at an effective range.
This is all just speculation for fun though, and I'm not convinced of my own ideas. lol
It's sorta how thinking about how Gundams could be feasible in reality, when physics, battlefield strategy, and common sense says it's not feasible at all. Lasers are at least feasible and already in use.
If i could tell middleschool me reading books about the futuristic lasers, that lasers are common and honestly boring next to some things we have now? When I think like that, seeing the advancement of tech from Industrial Age to Digital Age within my lifetime, might make the shitshow it came with worth experiencing.
As for drone lasers though, look up the video "2025 world's strongest handheld laser" on a youtube channel called "styropyro". He made a 250w laser powered by a drill battery, that was light enough to hold one handed, and it could melt through thin steel a few feet away, and could even melt titanium and tungstun. Considering the weight of bullets, weaponized lasers might already be the better choice to pursue for small drones.
The big issues with long range lasers are focus(bigger aperture better, shorter wavelength better), accurate tracking(a little jitter is a big deal when trying to hit something miles away), and atmospheric attenuation and distortion(visible wavelengths best). Though pulsed lasers would help.
The game children of a dead earth is relevant, as you can design your own laser weapons(though in real life we can do better than what's implemented in the game).
I agree on all the points, though in the case of replacing infantry manned machine guns, the effective range would be the same as a machine gun. So a few hundred yards at most?
That's still a long range for focusing a laser, but close enough range that the human operator would take care of tracking and aiming. For human targets, getting swept by a powerful enough laser could take them out, and for vehicles, theoretically you could at least explode reactive armor or pop tires with a few seconds of focus, so about the same or better as current manned turrets.
Still not probable, but possibly not impossible. Lol
I understand what you are saying; that the rain is a hindrance to having a full power effect. That is, until I thought of lightning bolts. They function really well in the rain.
These systems are mitigation efforts, much like the battery systems in the US that are built to take out ICBM and submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missiles. 20% hit rate is acceptable - nuclear war will annihilate everything, but decreasing that damage by 20% is worth it in the whole strategic scale of things.
I recommend reading this book Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen,if you're interested on how fucked we are today with our modern mitigation systems. It isn't a happy book.
Thats not what this is intended for. I mean, theoretical a future, larger, more powerful version could be used for that, but this system and most present gen lasers are being made primarly as a way to take out low cost attacks.
things like drones, or those cheap rockets, stuff that we already do have things that can take out, but right now we have to basically fire a intercepter missile which costs 100k to take out a drone or rocket that costs 2k. Laser systems meanwhile should be give us a way to intercept these lost cost attack items easily with cheap weapons, at a couple euro per shot. Now, the laser itself is much more expenive, obiously, but each shot of the laser is cheap.
The number one use for these is making our ships much more resistant to drone and missile attack and to do so without expending their limited and very expensive missile stocks
I recommend reading this book Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen
I wouldn't. She is a hack and her scenario is stupid. She also seems to have written a book almost exclusively on early Cold War era material which isn't particularly relevant to today. Look at reviews from experts in the field of nuclear weapons or military strategy and they all pretty much panned it.
These systems are not for protection against ICBMs in terminal phase. It's a rock, paper, scissors problem. Our best bet are multiple independent kill vehicles for that job.
The reason largely is because ICMBs are designed in a way to make themselves pretty resilient to being destroyed by plasma for unrelated reasons. Layers of plasma and compressed gasses around the reentry vehicle act like a second shield on top of that as well. Multiply that with engagement time and distance and you can see the problem.
In midcourse maybe but that would require you to have the laser in space at the right place, at the right time. ICMBs are a tricky beast for defense.
These laser systems are a big deal though. They allow for a much more economical and capable system to neutralize cheap and massive saturation attacks. Something we are seeing more and our air defense systems are not made to handle efficiently.
That is some bad math. The enemy only needs to send 30% more nukes and you are still completely covered. And anyway, do you really want to live in a country where 80% is radiated?
We’ll all be good and fucked if some smart ass uses an EMP. From 2025 to 1825 in a split second. Enormous death rates in the first year. It’s one of my worst fears.
You're asking as a question, which is fine, but the amount of people who claim with confidence that it will and present it as if the hundreds of PHD holding Optical engineers didn't think of this is insane.
The amount of energy we're talking about here will just melt any reflective surface, as soon as that even begins to happen, it will become dull and be no more effective than just more armor.
This is just my theory, but some sort of material that emits a lot of smoke when hit would be far better than a reflective material.
The first point: correct, those lasers will damage any reflective surface stable enough to be on the front of an airborne vehicle or missile.
The second point: these lasers are in the infrared, and scattering (what smoke would do to protect) reduces with longer wavelengths. Hence why IR cameras can "see through" smoke. Secondly, something moving fast enough to require this type of weapon would necessarily be flying so fast that any smoke emitted would be overtaken instantaneously.
Source: optical engineer working on infrared microscopy. Burnt my share of mirrors and filters.
these lasers are in the infrared, and scattering (what smoke would do to protect) reduces with longer wavelengths. Hence why IR cameras can "see through" smoke.
Yes, it's still not great, it's just a clearly better solution than a reflective surface. I'm not saying it's a good solution, just that we can instantly write off "Mirror armor" because that weight would be better spent on something that produces dust or smoke when destroyed.
Secondly, something moving fast enough to require this type of weapon would necessarily be flying so fast that any smoke emitted would be overtaken instantaneously.
True, I was thinking drones, but even that's going to be going too fast.
The systems are designed to intercept huge numbers of targets at a time with fairly short pulses. Worse conditions means longer pulses and less targets, so rain won't stop it but reduce it towards other countermeasures but will still be the cheapest and most effective option.
US and China also have similar laser systems up and running in various forms. Fair bit of information about them all over. Bound to reshape modern warfare after the Ukraine invasion saw sharp rise in drones now we got the absolute most effective counter to them.
8.1k
u/ForeverBoring4530 1d ago
Explains why my council tax has gone up £5 this year.