The UK has successfully fired a high-power laser weapon against an aerial target for the first time in a trial.

It is hoped that the test will pave the way for a low-cost alternative to missiles to shoot down targets like drones.

The DragonFire weapon is precise enough to hit a £1 coin from a kilometre away, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) says.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the targeting system is fast and accurate enough, that would be a difficult system to counter without using some kind of laser as well to destroy it, or an attack on its power source.

            • HollandJim@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              How would you know when that is?

              They hit you with a tracking beam, you deploy glitter, it flies away at the speed of the missle, still being tracked, and then they zap the missle once the glitter is gone.

              I know you’re just being facetious, but this shit is real and it’s really out there, and the fact that someone’s taking this seriously is probably the only reason we’re safe.

    • JohnDClay
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t work well against large missiles or fast moving ones, these are pretty low powered, just enough to melt though a plastic drone or fry some electronics. So a big metal fast moving missile would still need a traditional defensive.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        DragonFire is a 50KW system, the US is supposed to have systems that are 6 and 10 times more powerful available in 2024 with a system that’s 20 times more powerful in 2026. The US already has a mobile system, deployed on Army Strykers called DE M-SHORAD, as powerful as the British DragonFire.

        A 10KW will down a decent sized drone in 8-15 seconds depending on where it hits. A 50KW will obviously do it faster and the 300KW and up systems will likely make it near instant.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hmm interesting. Imagine a new arms race between lasers and drones. Country A can make this crazy laser defense system. Country B can make 50x as many drones as country A can handle.

        • JohnDClay
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is it 50kw power draw, or thermal power delivered to the target? Even if it’s power delivered to target, that’s a 10 deg/sec rise in temp for a 1kg mass with the thermal capacity of water, it’s not insane. (If I’m doing my math right)

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I believe they are rated by power output at the emitter. I think your math is correct but these systems aren’t heating water, nor are they heating a kilogram of it. They’re simply trying burn through / melt a few ounces of plastic. The journalist who test fired a 10KW system was able to down a drone in about 15 seconds by slagging its propeller so I have to imagine that a 50KW system would do it even faster, potentially as quick as just a second or two.

            • JohnDClay
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s why I was saying larger missiles would be more resistant, since they’d have higher thermal conductivity aluminum, and a shorter closing time than 15sec.

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wonder how they scale up. Probably not great since the amount of energy lost scales greatly as well, to the point where there’s so much heat it’s not possible to cool anymore.

    • pandapoo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Laser’s aren’t difficult to counter, and are extremely dependent on uncontrollable operational conditons i.e. the weather.

      No one weapon of the military is used in a vacuum, they are awful bloody tools in a large toolbox.

      So having this will expand the capabilities and cost effectiveness overall, but not because it’s singularly amazing and unbeatable.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Having such lasers stationary is one thing, but having them mobile another.

        The US already has them. They’re called DE M-SHORAD and they’re mounted on Strykers.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            but those are still meant for flimsy aerial targets, not an armored laser turret within a heavily protected compound.

            Wait, what? The comment I replied to insinuated that a mobile 50KW system wasn’t possible so I linked you to one that the US already has. You then linked me to the Skyranger which has a LESS powerful laser than DE M-SHORAD and brought up “armored laser turrets within a heavily protected compound.”

            I am now confused as to your point.

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        at least for small or very fast objects, because you need to be so much more accurate compared to autocannons with programmable ammunition.

        Quite the opposite. Lasers don’t need to be “led” when shooting, they’re as fast as light. Putting the targeting reticle over the bogey and firing should guarantee a hit without possibility of evasion.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes programmable munitions may currently be able to do the job more reliably, especially in adverse weather conditions, but they’re also vastly more expensive. The cheapest option is a CWIZ but even that thing costs something like $40,000 a minute to fire and using missiles can cost up to $1,000,000 each or more. The laser costs maybe $5 each time you fire it.

            Economically its a no brainer to use a laser system when possible.

  • Steamymoomilk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Oi oi oi governer you got a liscence for that?”

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The UK has successfully fired a high-power laser weapon against an aerial target for the first time in a trial.

    It is hoped that the test will pave the way for a low-cost alternative to missiles to shoot down targets like drones.

    Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the technology could reduce “the reliance on expensive ammunition, while also lowering the risk of collateral damage”.

    The MoD says both the Army and Royal Navy are considering using the technology as part of their future air defence capabilities.

    It is being developed by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), alongside some industry partners, on behalf of the MoD.

    Dstl’s chief executive Dr Paul Hollinshead said: “These trials have seen us take a huge step forward in realising the potential opportunities and understanding the threats posed by directed energy weapons.”


    The original article contains 402 words, the summary contains 138 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lasers are still a meme weapon. Their range is short and has extremely high loss with distance. Furthermore they need to burn a target for a while so the exact same tactic that defeated the iron dome will defeat these lasers a hundred times harder. A barrage of cheap rockets and drones all at the same time.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes this is probably powered…controlled by AI. Fantastic. Okay, we got autonomous dogs and jumpingjacks acrobatic humanoids, when do we allow to mount lasers to their backs? Are laser drones less scary? Nope.

    But sure it would be a good weapon to quickly blind the enemy ruzzians.

  • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cheaper than missiles! Look how cheap it is to kill people now. Unfortunately we need to kill more innocents now to keep the manufacturers in profit.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How are we gonna make a laser arc? And if it was from an aerial POV it would actually cause less collateral damage than something that explodes.

    • deft@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why is this comment downvoted? Raytheon exists on Lemmy or something?