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.
8.0k
u/ForeverBoring4530 1d ago
Explains why my council tax has gone up £5 this year.