3 ms·

That’s all nice and sounds good in theory, but practically speaking, drones are always ahead. Assuming the laser is indeed effective, the drone was detected too

That’s all nice and sounds good in theory, but practically speaking, drones are always ahead. Assuming the laser is indeed effective, the drone was detected too, and the accuracy is spot on, good luck taking down a swarm that’s piloted by AI, all at the fraction of the cost compared to that defense system in place.

XorNot 2y ago
That's a heckin' assumption you're injecting there. For a drone to fly a system of motors, batteries, sensors and microprocessors has to engage in a complex real-time process to maintain stability, navigate and acquire targets. Disrupt any of that, the drone falls out of the sky. Or goes off course. Or explodes. Punching through steel is useful when you're trying to shootdown dumb-fire artillery rounds which have to survive being fired under a 310MPa pressure and need to trigger an internal detonation. A drone with a camera will be blinded if it catches even a glancing reflection of a 50kW laser. And every bit of defense you add to that system is now increasing cost, weight and power requirements. How quickly can the laser track and engage a drone? It's light, so the time is limited solely by optics tracking speed - for all purposes impact is instantaneous. And the idea of "stealth" runs in direct opposition to all ideas of reflective coatings - since that does the exact opposite of what stealth materials do to defeat RADAR and LIDAR.
groby_b 2y ago
You're arguing from the wrong position. The cost of a defense system competes against the cost of other defense systems, and only very indirectly against the cost of the attack. If you haven't read the article: The final paragraph addresses most costs. Prototyping the laser - which is always a bit more expensive than a productionized version - was $73 million. A single missile shot is $4 million. That's 20 missiles shot at drones. That's it. Which means, on a pure cost basis, this thing getting off 20 shots at drones means it's paid for itself. Given it's capable of firing 6 shots per minutes, you need 4 minutes to make it worth the investment. Which, given drone speeds, probably means you fire for 2 minutes and start moving - another advantage it has over a more stationary missile systems. Cost isn't the issue here. As the fine article points out, the problems are of an operational nature.

XorNot 2y ago

That's a heckin' assumption you're injecting there. For a drone to fly a system of motors, batteries, sensors and microprocessors has to engage in a complex real-time process to maintain stability, navigate and acquire targets. Disrupt any of that, the drone falls out of the sky. Or goes off course. Or explodes. Punching through steel is useful when you're trying to shootdown dumb-fire artillery rounds which have to survive being fired under a 310MPa pressure and need to trigger an internal detonation. A drone with a camera will be blinded if it catches even a glancing reflection of a 50kW laser. And every bit of defense you add to that system is now increasing cost, weight and power requirements. How quickly can the laser track and engage a drone? It's light, so the time is limited solely by optics tracking speed - for all purposes impact is instantaneous. And the idea of "stealth" runs in direct opposition to all ideas of reflective coatings - since that does the exact opposite of what stealth materials do to defeat RADAR and LIDAR.

groby_b 2y ago

You're arguing from the wrong position. The cost of a defense system competes against the cost of other defense systems, and only very indirectly against the cost of the attack. If you haven't read the article: The final paragraph addresses most costs. Prototyping the laser - which is always a bit more expensive than a productionized version - was $73 million. A single missile shot is $4 million. That's 20 missiles shot at drones. That's it. Which means, on a pure cost basis, this thing getting off 20 shots at drones means it's paid for itself. Given it's capable of firing 6 shots per minutes, you need 4 minutes to make it worth the investment. Which, given drone speeds, probably means you fire for 2 minutes and start moving - another advantage it has over a more stationary missile systems. Cost isn't the issue here. As the fine article points out, the problems are of an operational nature.