Drones and how to kill them?

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.
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.
 
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...

View: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1886259012632535520

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.
 
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.

They might not shoot it down....

But what effect is a 60kw laser going to have on an optical targeting sensor like NSM's...
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m41VL0PSl7U

More of a general SAM for air defence against all sorts of aerial platforms rather than a specific anti-drone system.
 
More of a general SAM for air defence against all sorts of aerial platforms rather than a specific anti-drone system.

Not to mention missile agnostic making it a very flexible system.
 
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.
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!
 
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!
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
 
A decade is plenty of time to have installed them on another ship or 4
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.
 
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.
When I talked about range I actually referred to the C-RAM mission, not VSHORAD.
 
You're still talking about ~1500 to maybe 3000m for that job.
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.
 
Yes and that's a problem in terms of coverage. Laser based C-RAM is less attractive for Europe.
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.
 
What no-one seems to be saying, even in light of developments in Ukraine, is that the proliferation of Counter-UAS solutions is going to make the battlefield an exceptionally unpleasent place for helicopters....

I'm not saying helicopters are over....but are we building the right ones? Cheap, transport 'trucks' like Puma or MI-8 will certainly have utility behind the lines, but even the complex ones with self protection systems will find it hard and costly to operate near the front line.
 
Are you serious? That sounds comical. Dragging a line all over the battlefield.
Comical, you say? Ask the AFU, under attack in the following videos, from the N-07 junction in Pisarevka, north of Sumy, how funny they found it this week. Note that the nearest Russian positions are 15km away. You will see the remains of optical fiber line in video taken by bystanders immediately following some of the strikes.
 
What no-one seems to be saying, even in light of developments in Ukraine, is that the proliferation of Counter-UAS solutions is going to make the battlefield an exceptionally unpleasent place for helicopters....
If you're operating helicopters within AAA range of the enemy, it's an extremely unpleasant place for helicopters. Vietnam proved that.


I'm not saying helicopters are over....but are we building the right ones? Cheap, transport 'trucks' like Puma or MI-8 will certainly have utility behind the lines, but even the complex ones with self protection systems will find it hard and costly to operate near the front line.
Look, it's 1hr per km of distance in contested territory on foot.

Those self protection systems are necessary just to get the helos close enough to drop troops an hour away.

Nobody but 160th SOAR is crazy enough to drop troops out of a helicopter directly on the enemy.
 
How do you know which videos are shot from drones that are controlled via fiber optic?
Uninterrupted full HD video. In other words, no breaking-up of the image. Additionally, if the video hasn't been cropped or re-sized, you will see two voltages reported at the top of the screen. One is battery voltage and the other is VTx voltage. Telemetry information will be in the bottom left and right corners but will normally be cropped out or blurred.
 
Helos firing long range OTH ATGMs is where I see the future of helos.

You can do that cheaper and better with a land based system though...

And no-one needs AH-64E with Longbow radar then...as its not OTH.

Maybe the German's are right in purchasing H145 to replace Tiger....
 
"Aselsan claims that the hard kill AKKOR APS is effective against drones, and published this information a few days ago on its Facebook page.
The adaptation of the APS hard kill AKKOR system to combat drones in the future was already announced by Aselsan some time ago.
We are now waiting for some video from Aselsan confirming the effectiveness of the AKKOR system in combating drones.
Source: View: https://facebook.com/aselsan/videos/1175518397239050
"
View: https://x.com/RyszardJonski/status/1879206164497408274
Love how the West thinks they have a monopoly on innovation. Has it not occurred to anyone that Russia's Arena-M, which was the first such protection system of its type in the world, would have been the ideal springboard for an anti-drone system, had the Russians concluded it was a viable way of defending tanks against drones? I mean, do you think the Russians, who have the most advanced tank technology in the world, are constructing cages around them because they like the way it looks? Tell me, how will this expense piece of garbage, called AKKOR APS, defend a tank against four FPV drones, flown by four pilots, coming at it simultaneously from four different directions at 180 km/h? This, BTW, is a typical attack scenario for some time now in the SMO. And this is not to mention that, in addition, any putative APS must contend with the most advanced, proven EW ever deployed or that, any day now, you're going to see AI controlled drone swarms attacking in waves of dozens or hundreds.
 
You can do that cheaper and better with a land based system though...

And no-one needs AH-64E with Longbow radar then...as its not OTH.

Maybe the German's are right in purchasing H145 to replace Tiger....
Land-based systems aren't as mobile and are easier for the enemy to target OTH.
 
You know what a fiber optic is I trust?

Fiber optics have been successfully tested in a very wide range of military applications, including air-to-ground weapons deployed from fast jets.


The challenges of operationalizing fiber optic control systems are known and have been tackled by Ukrainian (and Russian) developers and drone operators. Just as they were in prior projects.
 
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...

View: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1886259012632535520

Defense Updates has just uploaded a video about that seaborne test:


The U.S. Navy has confirmed that the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Preble successfully tested its High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical Dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system, taking down an aerial target drone during Fiscal Year 2024. This marks the latest milestone in the Navy’s efforts to integrate shipboard laser weaponry, even as other military laser programs have faced setbacks in recent years.
The test aimed to "verify and validate the functionality, performance, and capability" of HELIOS, representing a key step toward making shipboard laser systems fully operational. Details of the test were disclosed in the Pentagon’s annual Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOTE) report,However, the report provided little information on the exact time and location of the test conducted by Preble, a Flight IIA variant of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.Developed by Lockheed Martin, the laser is a cutting-edge directed energy weapon that is being deployed to counter new types of aerial threat like drones.
In this video, Defense Updates reports on HELIOS laser testing from Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Preble.
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
02:12 HELIOS OVERVIEW
03:51 HELIOS INTEGRATIONhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y49-0nwmJYs&t=324s
05:24 ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES
06:32 ANALYSIS
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom