Drones and how to kill them?

Big_Zukini said:
Understand that lasers are just part of an array of C-UAS weapons. They're not meant to replace anything, but add onto, in parallel with other new systems. From a cost-efficiency standpoint, lasers are not in a great spot to fulfill every niche. There are indications that only recently they've become more viable as C-RAM, and that's where we're currently going.

So oddly there's often less expressed desire than ability to deliver.
Click to expand...
A lot of people are expecting lasers to more or less replace weapons like phalanx, 40mk4 and even as a supplemental option to traditional options, I don’t believe they’ll reach a level of reliability in most weather conditions to be of much use for at least another decade.
 
timmymagic said:
What are the odds....

Helios is a 60kw laser....thats very much in the destructive category...it has dazzler functionality as well at lower power settings...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1886259012632535520
View: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1886259012632535520
Click to expand...

For naval applications you need something in the 100KW range. Even then they are not going to be super effective against saturated attacks with cruise missiles. Then again, it is a weapon of last resort.
 
siegecrossbow said:
For naval applications you need something in the 100KW range. Even then they are not going to be super effective against saturated attacks with cruise missiles. Then again, it is a weapon of last resort.
Click to expand...

They might not shoot it down....

But what effect is a 60kw laser going to have on an optical targeting sensor like NSM's...
 
johnpjones1775 said:
A lot of people are expecting lasers to more or less replace weapons like phalanx, 40mk4 and even as a supplemental option to traditional options, I don’t believe they’ll reach a level of reliability in most weather conditions to be of much use for at least another decade.
Click to expand...
They're the type of weapon that lets you use up 12 missiles instead of 20 per wave. It won't get you down to 0, but saving those 8 missiles is really damn worth it.
In Israel's case, they're really counting on it. If an Iron Beam battery supplementing an Iron Dome battery could save it just 20 out of 80 missiles, that's a full launcher still ready for action.

Weather is a non-issue. It may interfere with laser usage ability, but it doesn't rain year-round, and the savings in clearer days more than make up for it. It was never meant as a standalone in the first place.

Power on target is what determines how long it takes to neutralize one target. Since we can't change the weather, we focus increasing power output.
Someone set the first milestone at 100kW. Getting lower than that means lasers get a lower share of the SHORAD workload. But as we're seeing more 50kW class solutions pitched for field use, price points may have significantly changed since then.

The increasing share of class 1 drones in combat use makes even 10kW lasers really attractive. But acquisition processes may still be in their infancy, i.e. less mature than the tech.
 
Big_Zukini said:
They're the type of weapon that lets you use up 12 missiles instead of 20 per wave. It won't get you down to 0, but saving those 8 missiles is really damn worth it.
In Israel's case, they're really counting on it. If an Iron Beam battery supplementing an Iron Dome battery could save it just 20 out of 80 missiles, that's a full launcher still ready for action.

Weather is a non-issue. It may interfere with laser usage ability, but it doesn't rain year-round, and the savings in clearer days more than make up for it. It was never meant as a standalone in the first place.

Power on target is what determines how long it takes to neutralize one target. Since we can't change the weather, we focus increasing power output.
Someone set the first milestone at 100kW. Getting lower than that means lasers get a lower share of the SHORAD workload. But as we're seeing more 50kW class solutions pitched for field use, price points may have significantly changed since then.

The increasing share of class 1 drones in combat use makes even 10kW lasers really attractive. But acquisition processes may still be in their infancy, i.e. less mature than the tech.
Click to expand...
Depends on their range and time to kill. At 2 miles with a 4-6 second time to kill, they’ll help thin a saturation attack a bit, but probably not much. Per google’s math, at Mach 1 a missile will only take 6 seconds to travel 2 miles, so even if time to kill is 3 seconds you’re only killing 1 missile.

If we can build a ship that’s capable of providing power for all the normal systems, as well as 3-4 lasers at one time, then I think they’d be useful.
Until then I think the opportunity cost of a more mature option isn’t worth it.

If you had to choose between a mk110 or a 80kw laser which would you take? Personally I’m taking the mk110.

Imho the only reason I’d add a laser in the foreseeable future is if it’s a situation like “oh hey, we have this small bit of deck space, we can put a mk38 or a laser here, and that’s about all.” In which case I’d take the laser.
 
I don’t think lasers will be a valid weapon for high end warfare until they get a TTK of 1.5 seconds or less, and an effective range of at least 4miles

Though as they are now, they’re the ideal option against a small attack by commercial quadcopter drones.
 
Forest Green said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m41VL0PSl7U

www.msi-dsl.com

MSI-DS TERRAHAWK PALADIN - MSI Defence Systems

MSI-DS TERRAHAWK PALADIN is a self-contained solution developed for augmented mobility and deployability in close range air defence. Modular, remote-controlled, and re-deployable – to defend against close range land, air, and maritime threats (proven C-UAS and C-FIAC capability). The...
www.msi-dsl.com www.msi-dsl.com
Click to expand...
More of a general SAM for air defence against all sorts of aerial platforms rather than a specific anti-drone system.
 
Big_Zukini said:
I agree. And I think those quickly discouraged by the short range of laser systems and long distances found in Europe and other theaters, have yet to consider the aerial option.
Click to expand...
For the FPV type drones that are more or less at ground level, the longest lines of sight in most of Europe is 1500m. Yeah, you might see a hilltop farther away, but then there's a big chunk of dead ground.

A laser that can smite anything within 2km is plenty adequate for ground forces.

===============

Also, the real advance for lasers is the reduction in cooling needed. Old school chemical lasers, you'd need to dump on the order of 450 kilowatts of heat to get 50 kilowatts out of the beam. Or more.

Modern fiber lasers, it's getting down to 50-150kw of heat for a 50kw beam.

As to why the USN doesn't have lasers on all ships yet? Because of how long government contracts take to process. A decade from RFI to IOC is quick!
 
Scott Kenny said:
For the FPV type drones that are more or less at ground level, the longest lines of sight in most of Europe is 1500m. Yeah, you might see a hilltop farther away, but then there's a big chunk of dead ground.

A laser that can smite anything within 2km is plenty adequate for ground forces.

===============

Also, the real advance for lasers is the reduction in cooling needed. Old school chemical lasers, you'd need to dump on the order of 450 kilowatts of heat to get 50 kilowatts out of the beam. Or more.

Modern fiber lasers, it's getting down to 50-150kw of heat for a 50kw beam.

As to why the USN doesn't have lasers on all ships yet? Because of how long government contracts take to process. A decade from RFI to IOC is quick!
Click to expand...
There hasn’t been any real news about them at all in years. The biggest news was like 2 days ago and was ‘oh look! A picture of ship shooting a laser!’ With no actual information.

There’s been orders for more to be tested of the same type or of new designs. A decade is plenty of time to have installed them on another ship or 4
 
johnpjones1775 said:
A decade is plenty of time to have installed them on another ship or 4
Click to expand...
Not when the state of the art is changing so quickly.

Company builds laser, impresses USN. USN sends out RFI, gets a bunch of responses in a couple of months. USN kicks around responses for a year, then sends out RFP. 6 months from RFP open to RFP close, maybe a year. At this point in time, the lasers all require half a megawatt of electrical power in, and basically half a megawatt of cooling capacity, all for a 50kw beam. No ship in the Navy has that much power and cooling to spare. 2-3 years from RFI to close of RFP.

3 years later, new company builds laser than only needs 250kw power in, and 200kw cooling capacity. USN sends out new RFI, gets responses, kicks those around for a year, then sends out the RFP. Still not many ships with a spare quarter-megawatt of power and cooling capacity. In the mean time, USN does buy some experimental lower-powered lasers that their ships do have enough power and cooling for.

It's now 5-6 years from first laser-armed ship proposals.

2 years later, a company builds a laser that only needs about 100-200kw power in, and 50-150kw cooling capacity, and finally USN ships have that much capacity spare! Yet another RFI, Navy sits on it for a year thinking, RFP takes about a year from issue to award, someone protests the award taking at least another year, protest is finally decided one way or another, and now it takes a couple of years to build the laser(s) for delivery to the USN.

12-13 years since first laser-armed ship proposals till the first operational laser CIWS units are deployed.
 
Scott Kenny said:
For the FPV type drones that are more or less at ground level, the longest lines of sight in most of Europe is 1500m. Yeah, you might see a hilltop farther away, but then there's a big chunk of dead ground.
Click to expand...
When I talked about range I actually referred to the C-RAM mission, not VSHORAD.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're still talking about ~1500 to maybe 3000m for that job.
Click to expand...
Yes and that's a problem in terms of coverage. Laser based C-RAM is less attractive for Europe.
While small Israel can cover strategic sites and also its more dangerous borders (Lebanon, Syria, Gaza), Europeans can only really hope to protect strategic sites and forward deployed troops which reduces the value of 100kW lasers and makes more worthwhile the 10-50kW types.
Israel on the other hand may prioritize 100kW.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Yes and that's a problem in terms of coverage. Laser based C-RAM is less attractive for Europe.
Click to expand...
Just means you need a lot more lasers.

And if you can afford* to stick one such laser on every single combat vehicle, problem solved.

* - not just monetarily, but power and cooling as well.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom