Surely the reason these are being tested at sea is to avoid the prospect of them breaking rules on 'blinding weapons'? I can't help but imagine in-atmosphere they'd be easily nullified by smoke/fog whereas most conventional weapons would continue to work. The idea of needing only energy for weapons is obviously attractive though, especially on ships with energy to spare.
I would imagine the Chinese version will be cheaper to procure, save on the old R&D costs. So what happens when it rains or snow, fog, smoke. I thought this thing just confused enemy laser signals, didn't realise it managed to shoot anything down. Another one to scupper it, Chaff along with other electronic countermeasures/ECM techniques in coordination with the chaff deployment.
Key words here: 'this is a demonstrator'. The actual system would have to be at least 4 to 6 times the power and regenerative for multiple drone/missile attack scenarios.
we shall see, they have to overcome basic physics namely, the longer the laser has to travel to its target the less effective it becomes, it also has to pass through the atmosphere which will disperse the laser.
Erm, at 1:43 you are showing a Meade Schmidt cassegrain 14" semi-pro astronomical telescope..... this isn't laser optics, its a telescope designed to look through. At 2:30 you can clearly see it marked as the LX600 model. You can't shove high power laaser energy through a telescope. Duh.
I assume that ground or ship-based laser weapons together with anti-aircraft guns are a good thing for air defense. But I cannot imagine that drones have enough electric power to activate them airborne.
It might be possible to make a chemical laser of a small enough scale, that way you wouldn’t need the electrical load. The US has already got an airborne chemical laser (built into the nose of a 747, I think) that might work
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 true, but the point I was trying to make is that if a chemical laser cell could be miniaturised to fit in a drone then the problem becomes one of laser fuel capacity not electrical load capacity, it’s a lot easier to carry tanks of fuel than it is to put a high power generator onto a drone
@@polarisukyc1204 I am not so informed about developments in laser technology, but will there be a chance to get a weapon's laser to a mass of a few kilograms within a few decades?
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 I’m not informed either, I’m an engineering students with an interest in crazy tech. Chemical lasers don’t have all the limitations of gas or crystal lasers, hypothetically it would be possible to make a 1MW chemical laser that would fit in a family sized car, although I have no idea it the technology for that will exist in the next decade or so. I almost hope it won’t, the military applications for such a weapon are terrifying
One thing and its not just this system but all laser weapons is the fact it appear to be on-target for a really long time before any damage is actually done. At least with kinetic weapons on contact there is damage. I struggle to see how effective lasers will be when its like 'wait there I need 20 seconds on target before I can get to my next target'........
There are two missing parts to your argument. Firstly kinetic weapons have a 100% hit rate, something the Ukraine war videos prove wrong. Secondly laser weapons are being used in isolation. It's very clear the targets in these videos have been very close to the ship and fly at relatively low speed and maneuverability. This weapon at the very least would provide a cost effective weapon that could save the more valuable ones for bigger threats.
once they can track and hit the target the duration is then down to the power of the laser its is a good answer for the cheap drones but at the high end detection to impact can be in seconds and the fast missiles are already protected from heat due to the friction of the air before you start making them with laser counter measures like just spinning
@@chad6080 I'm fully aware of development having worked in Defence and product / SW development. I'm articulating an opinion (not fact) that I'm surprised how long a laser needs to be on target. I've not read anywhere what power * time on target = damage is. Is the end goal 1 x 0.5 second burst.... I don't know
Not just the excessive dwell time, but basic Newtonian kinematics dictates that a laser cannot really impede any significant kinematic mass already on its final course. A Laser can only destroy poorly guarded electronics, not mass. A missile that close to the ship, its too late to mess up its final navigation.
The hype over the effectiveness of this low powered laser & its range , durability , sustainability as a tactical winner has not been proven. It may never get fully tested depending upon its deployment . Getting closer to shore makes the vessel risks rise accordingly. Dumb bombs that are now smart bombs are currently gliding 80 kilometers. Now with a push motor even further. Another low cost threat developed. The naval drone technology subsurface & then to surface is getting a lot of interest from rivals as well.
It takes to much time on target to destroy incoming threats especially in a swarm attack,I fear this is not the answer you only need to look at Ukraine war to see this.
This is only a low power prototype. An actual production model of this would build on this tech (the tracking tech developed for this would likely be similar to that on a production model), with a higher powered laser, resulting in less time on target to achieve a kill. Plus, eventually, I'd assume AI or other tech would be used such that these weapons will target weak spots like engines, props, warheads Etc
Defence companies don't have the greatest return on investment in fairness. They would be better putting their money into big tech which is why governments are unlikely to rein them in.
Surely the reason these are being tested at sea is to avoid the prospect of them breaking rules on 'blinding weapons'? I can't help but imagine in-atmosphere they'd be easily nullified by smoke/fog whereas most conventional weapons would continue to work. The idea of needing only energy for weapons is obviously attractive though, especially on ships with energy to spare.
Will they work for Rubber dingys?
they will be operated BY the dinghy users against us if Sunak has his way.
I would imagine the Chinese version will be cheaper to procure, save on the old R&D costs. So what happens when it rains or snow, fog, smoke. I thought this thing just confused enemy laser signals, didn't realise it managed to shoot anything down. Another one to scupper it, Chaff along with other electronic countermeasures/ECM techniques in coordination with the chaff deployment.
Key words here: 'this is a demonstrator'. The actual system would have to be at least 4 to 6 times the power and regenerative for multiple drone/missile attack scenarios.
Well, you have to start somewhere. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Thank You
How do you manage scattering and atmospheric absorption? With moisture over the sea the range must be very limited.
we shall see, they have to overcome basic physics namely, the longer the laser has to travel to its target the less effective it becomes, it also has to pass through the atmosphere which will disperse the laser.
would it fire underwater ? just thinking about it on a sub
But can it do anything to stop the type of drones being used in the Red Sea ????????????
Why would that be????
This has a ways to go.
High energy narrow beam microwave pulses might damage the electronics.for less soohisticated drones.
Erm, at 1:43 you are showing a Meade Schmidt cassegrain 14" semi-pro astronomical telescope..... this isn't laser optics, its a telescope designed to look through. At 2:30 you can clearly see it marked as the LX600 model. You can't shove high power laaser energy through a telescope. Duh.
I assume that ground or ship-based laser weapons together with anti-aircraft guns are a good thing for air defense. But I cannot imagine that drones have enough electric power to activate them airborne.
It might be possible to make a chemical laser of a small enough scale, that way you wouldn’t need the electrical load. The US has already got an airborne chemical laser (built into the nose of a 747, I think) that might work
@@polarisukyc1204 A 747 is a bit different from a drone as I assume.
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 true, but the point I was trying to make is that if a chemical laser cell could be miniaturised to fit in a drone then the problem becomes one of laser fuel capacity not electrical load capacity, it’s a lot easier to carry tanks of fuel than it is to put a high power generator onto a drone
@@polarisukyc1204 I am not so informed about developments in laser technology, but will there be a chance to get a weapon's laser to a mass of a few kilograms within a few decades?
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 I’m not informed either, I’m an engineering students with an interest in crazy tech. Chemical lasers don’t have all the limitations of gas or crystal lasers, hypothetically it would be possible to make a 1MW chemical laser that would fit in a family sized car, although I have no idea it the technology for that will exist in the next decade or so. I almost hope it won’t, the military applications for such a weapon are terrifying
Smells like something is cooking?
and what if our enemies started coating the underside of the drones with reflective properties!
One thing and its not just this system but all laser weapons is the fact it appear to be on-target for a really long time before any damage is actually done. At least with kinetic weapons on contact there is damage. I struggle to see how effective lasers will be when its like 'wait there I need 20 seconds on target before I can get to my next target'........
There are two missing parts to your argument. Firstly kinetic weapons have a 100% hit rate, something the Ukraine war videos prove wrong. Secondly laser weapons are being used in isolation. It's very clear the targets in these videos have been very close to the ship and fly at relatively low speed and maneuverability. This weapon at the very least would provide a cost effective weapon that could save the more valuable ones for bigger threats.
@@dawid8844 Yeah good points there, especially using this as a complementary to other weapon systems.
once they can track and hit the target the duration is then down to the power of the laser its is a good answer for the cheap drones
but at the high end detection to impact can be in seconds and the fast missiles are already protected from heat due to the friction of the air before you start making them with laser counter measures like just spinning
@@chad6080 I'm fully aware of development having worked in Defence and product / SW development. I'm articulating an opinion (not fact) that I'm surprised how long a laser needs to be on target. I've not read anywhere what power * time on target = damage is. Is the end goal 1 x 0.5 second burst.... I don't know
Not just the excessive dwell time, but basic Newtonian kinematics dictates that a laser cannot really impede any significant kinematic mass already on its final course. A Laser can only destroy poorly guarded electronics, not mass. A missile that close to the ship, its too late to mess up its final navigation.
Playing catch-up with Australia 😅
Hardly
@@stabilis8895 😂
calm down colony
Even though we had a lower power unit fitted during the Falklands and Iran Iraq war, catch up Cobber! :)
👍👍👍
The Chinese have them too, they even use them for cutting down trees.
❤❤❤❤❤
Nice Cartoon!!
The hype over the effectiveness of this low powered laser & its range , durability , sustainability as a tactical winner has not been proven. It may never get fully tested depending upon its deployment .
Getting closer to shore makes the vessel risks rise accordingly. Dumb bombs that are now smart bombs are currently gliding 80 kilometers. Now with a push motor even further. Another low cost threat developed. The naval drone technology subsurface & then to surface is getting a lot of interest from rivals as well.
Couldn’t heat shields easily defeat this?
That's like asking is armour can defeat a conventional munition. Yes, if you use enough of it, but at a significant cost
I cannot imagine this technology working reliably or effectively on a fast moving warship rolling and pitching in a storm swept open ocean.
We've had gyro stabilised tank guns since the 1950s lol
Also, even the jets that fly fast as hell use laser precision targeting for bombs on the ground
I would bet They could even use a laser from a space satellite for targeting lol , they probably already do
🤣@@AverageWagie2024
Lasers are brand new for west. Soviet Union had them for decades.
✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️
It takes to much time on target to destroy incoming threats especially in a swarm attack,I fear this is not the answer you only need to look at Ukraine war to see this.
This is only a low power prototype. An actual production model of this would build on this tech (the tracking tech developed for this would likely be similar to that on a production model), with a higher powered laser, resulting in less time on target to achieve a kill. Plus, eventually, I'd assume AI or other tech would be used such that these weapons will target weak spots like engines, props, warheads Etc
Drone swarm
now THAT looks like the next big thing, coupled with those autonomous dog looking 4 legged robots and AI
Lots of coping by the anti west bots today
How many politicians own shares in the company who make this?
the question is why dont you own shares in them?
There are multiple companies and the MoD itself working on this as explained in the video.
Defence companies don't have the greatest return on investment in fairness. They would be better putting their money into big tech which is why governments are unlikely to rein them in.
@@graveperil2169 I don't support any weapon manufacturer, blessed be the peace makers as the bible says
The good people at Meade seem happy to have one of their crap scopes strapped to the side of this thing.
Another woke weapon 😂
Hardly. It is illegal to fire a laser at manned target. Even in Warfare.
How is a high power laser that can burn flesh and destroy electronics woke exactly?
@@CynicalPlatapus woke spotted 😂😂😂
@@chad6080 can't take a joke libturd.... Pathetic
@@bennytsai4065 nice rebuttal, you made your defence very clearly