4 ms·

A single patriot missile is estimated to cost $4 million USD https://www.cbsnews.com/news/patriot-missile-ukraine-explainer https://www.cbsnews.com/news/patrio

A single patriot missile is estimated to cost $4 million USD https://www.cbsnews.com/news/patriot-missile-ukraine-explainer https://www.cbsnews.com/news/patriot-missile-ukraine-explain...

slt2021 3y ago
Directed energy (laser) will solve this issue, so that Patriots are only engaged for expensive planes, while lasers will destroy drones and cheap ballistic rockets
- missedthecue 3y ago
  They will not solve this issue because laser weapons will not work when light is defracted (fog, heavy clouds, rain), and they will not work against targets beyond the horizon. It's not a technology hurdle, it's a physics impossibility. Interceptor missiles are here to stay. Lasers will accompany them but never replace.
  - slt2021 3y ago
    There is still benefit in shooting laser at a speed of light, instead of a guided rocket which travels at 2-3 Machs at best. 2 machs is ~0.686 km/s - vs 300k km/s for laser. and laser can be mounted on a plane, which makes it even more dangerous for air2air combat
    - Maxion 3y ago
      Lasers won't really be used in A2A, except for maybe intercepting missiles and drones. There's not really any A2A going on anymore within visual range.
      - ElectronCharge 3y ago
        You speak with certainty, when you clearly have little knowledge on the topic. Stealth aircraft are immune to targeting radar guided lock except at quite close range. IR missiles are better, but are generally not BVR. Also, at high altitude “within laser range” could be at “BVR” type ranges, e.g. over eighty km.
        Vecr 3y ago
        You can (in theory) guide an air-to-air missile in at that range remotely using an optical targeting pod on the launching fighter, it's generally more risky though because you can't immediately break contact like you can with a Meteor for example. Meteor is highly resistant to ECM however, and a remote guided missile might not be. In all cases however, any laser system you can power on a fighter jet (assuming current and near future technology) will not be able to target a manned or unmanned fighter jet in a way that a remote guided missile system can't. A laser system could be useful for close range defense.
- dralley 3y ago
  No, lasers will not be a sufficient defense against ballistic missiles. Lasers require time to burn through the target. With ballistic missiles, they're facing a target traveling 5+ times the speed of sound (ie. little time), that also has heat shielding on the bit that's facing the target. Not to mention adverse weather conditions. And missiles w Lasers will, however, be very effective at SHORAD, especially against cheap drones, rockets, artillery shells and cruise missiles, in the proper conditions. Iron Beam is projected to cost $0.50-$1.00 in electricity per shot, compared to a $50-60k Iron Dome interceptor missile (which is already insanely cheap for what it is).
SeanAnderson 3y ago
and the drones are apparently $50k not $300!

A single patriot missile is estimated to cost $4 million USD https://www.cbsnews.com/news/patriot-missile-ukraine-explainer https://www.cbsnews.com/news/patriot-missile-ukraine-explain...

slt2021 3y ago

Directed energy (laser) will solve this issue, so that Patriots are only engaged for expensive planes, while lasers will destroy drones and cheap ballistic rockets

missedthecue 3y ago
They will not solve this issue because laser weapons will not work when light is defracted (fog, heavy clouds, rain), and they will not work against targets beyond the horizon. It's not a technology hurdle, it's a physics impossibility. Interceptor missiles are here to stay. Lasers will accompany them but never replace.
- slt2021 3y ago
  There is still benefit in shooting laser at a speed of light, instead of a guided rocket which travels at 2-3 Machs at best. 2 machs is ~0.686 km/s - vs 300k km/s for laser. and laser can be mounted on a plane, which makes it even more dangerous for air2air combat
  - Maxion 3y ago
    Lasers won't really be used in A2A, except for maybe intercepting missiles and drones. There's not really any A2A going on anymore within visual range.
    - ElectronCharge 3y ago
      You speak with certainty, when you clearly have little knowledge on the topic. Stealth aircraft are immune to targeting radar guided lock except at quite close range. IR missiles are better, but are generally not BVR. Also, at high altitude “within laser range” could be at “BVR” type ranges, e.g. over eighty km.
      - Vecr 3y ago
        You can (in theory) guide an air-to-air missile in at that range remotely using an optical targeting pod on the launching fighter, it's generally more risky though because you can't immediately break contact like you can with a Meteor for example. Meteor is highly resistant to ECM however, and a remote guided missile might not be. In all cases however, any laser system you can power on a fighter jet (assuming current and near future technology) will not be able to target a manned or unmanned fighter jet in a way that a remote guided missile system can't. A laser system could be useful for close range defense.
dralley 3y ago
No, lasers will not be a sufficient defense against ballistic missiles. Lasers require time to burn through the target. With ballistic missiles, they're facing a target traveling 5+ times the speed of sound (ie. little time), that also has heat shielding on the bit that's facing the target. Not to mention adverse weather conditions. And missiles w Lasers will, however, be very effective at SHORAD, especially against cheap drones, rockets, artillery shells and cruise missiles, in the proper conditions. Iron Beam is projected to cost $0.50-$1.00 in electricity per shot, compared to a $50-60k Iron Dome interceptor missile (which is already insanely cheap for what it is).

SeanAnderson 3y ago

and the drones are apparently $50k not $300!