3 ms·

Not drones, high-power lasers. The US has been testing laser weapons for terminal defense extensively, with quite a bit of success. A laser shot has about the s

Not drones, high-power lasers. The US has been testing laser weapons for terminal defense extensively, with quite a bit of success. A laser shot has about the same cost as a single 20mm cartridge and you don’t need to reload.

Animats 1y ago
That may work, but the enemy might attack with a thousand drones at once. So far, laser mounts are one per ship, and need several seconds on target to take down a drone. This drone video is seven years old.[1] It's a hobbyist jet aircraft. 415 mph top speed. You have to expect that by now there are militarized versions. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGDAZyQ44k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGDAZyQ44k
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  A drone with sufficient range, payload, and protection against the standard litany of modern EW and counter-measure systems would be quite expensive. Even the crappy non-survivable drones used in Ukraine are tens of thousands of dollars and that would probably tip north of $100k each if they actually had to be hardened against modern countermeasures, which aren't really a thing in Ukraine. Aside from the cost issue, launching thousands of them against a single naval target is unlikely to be feasible due to the weight and volume considerations alone. The largest drone attacks ever mustered across an entire theater of war, never mind against a single target, were in the hundreds and those didn't have to contend with much in the way of serious broad spectrum countermeasures or point defenses. You would likely be better off with several actual anti-ship missiles. A Harpoon only costs $1.4M and those are dedicated platforms purpose-built to defeat state-of-the-art defenses and countermeasures. The US Navy is testing the lasers against cruise missiles and other systems with much more protection and capability than the typical cheap drone. Current versions are lower-power testbeds but production versions are expected to be several hundred kW.
  - Animats 1y ago
    > A drone with sufficient range, payload, and protection against the standard litany of modern EW and counter-measure systems would be quite expensive. Not any more. DJI drone able to return home using visual navigation without GPS.[1] Unarmed. About US$1000. Small lightning-proof drone.[2] Aims lightning strikes. Cost not given. Ukraine EW-resistant drone.[3] Drops bombs. Currently about US$30,000. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzWIYOOKItM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzWIYOOKItM [2] https://dronexl.co/ja/2025/04/23/ntt-lightning-triggering-drone-survives-strike/ https://dronexl.co/ja/2025/04/23/ntt-lightning-triggering-dr... [3] https://interestingengineering.com/military/meet-the-shoolika-mark-6 https://interestingengineering.com/military/meet-the-shoolik...
    - jandrewrogers 1y ago
      None of these are applicable to the naval context here. That $30k drone has a measly 10km range. You can't navigate visually on the open ocean. The payload requirements are at least 100kg if you want to do any damage, which none of these come close to. None of them can withstand modern military countermeasures; the "EW resistance" in this case just means operating in a denied environment, which is pretty old and basic tech. Completely different class of drone capability. Something that could actually do damage in a naval context against modern countermeasure tech would be much more expensive.
      - watersb 1y ago
        Ok. Flying drones that we've seen in Ukraine lack the range to survive a naval deployment. Ukraine has had some success engaging Russian surface warships with small aquatic craft type drones. Does a ground-based operator pose a threat to modern navies by means of some swarm of jet-ski robots?
        nradov 1y ago
        Yes, but only in the littorals or protected waters. Small unmanned surface vessels can't really operate effectively out in the open ocean. They lack the necessary sensors, endurance, and sea keeping ability.
darth_avocado 1y ago
Also EMPs and microwaves to fry swarms of drones at once.
- nradov 1y ago
  What EMPs? This is the real world, not some sci-fi movie. Due to the inverse square law, generating an EMP powerful enough to act as a weapon takes an extremely powerful explosion.
  - jjk166 1y ago
    EMP weapons are directional, and thus aren't affected by the inverse square law. Further, the power that a ship can output can exceed what a drone could tolerate by many orders of magnitude. EMP weapons do not require an explosion.
    - nradov 1y ago
      You appear to be referring to some sort of jammer or directed energy weapon, not an "EMP" as the term is usually defined.
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    I think they were conflating EMP with directed RF weapons. The latter is a standard feature set for anything with a beam steering transmitter. Those can dump a lot of focused RF energy on a targets. That has been an automated defense response since the mid-20th century and would likely kill most drones. EMP is, of course, extremely inefficient no matter how you pump it.
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    You can direct an EMP so it’s close to linear losses — the difference between a laser and a lightbulb.
  - AngryData 1y ago
    You wouldn't want your EMP devices to have the range to go from your position to enemy object, you would mostly be fucking all your stuff up. What you would want to do is lob an EMP device at the enemy object, and detonate it as close as possible. Not only does it minimize damage to your own equipment, you need a MUCH smaller device. And it can be done without a ton of effort with a fast explosive, a neodymium magnet, and some copper wire to blast the magnet through, potentially launched mortar style. I think the only reason we don't see more EMP devices is because it will screw up all your communications and potentially other equipment too, and piss off every other country within 1,000 miles with all the EM noise. You can't really protect your radios equipment from EMP devices other than to coordinate taking them all down and shielding them all. It could also potentially be a prelude to nuclear EMPs and thus nuclear war but im not all that sure what a countries response would be to EMP weapons and attacks.

Animats 1y ago

That may work, but the enemy might attack with a thousand drones at once. So far, laser mounts are one per ship, and need several seconds on target to take down a drone. This drone video is seven years old.[1] It's a hobbyist jet aircraft. 415 mph top speed. You have to expect that by now there are militarized versions. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGDAZyQ44k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGDAZyQ44k

jandrewrogers 1y ago
A drone with sufficient range, payload, and protection against the standard litany of modern EW and counter-measure systems would be quite expensive. Even the crappy non-survivable drones used in Ukraine are tens of thousands of dollars and that would probably tip north of $100k each if they actually had to be hardened against modern countermeasures, which aren't really a thing in Ukraine. Aside from the cost issue, launching thousands of them against a single naval target is unlikely to be feasible due to the weight and volume considerations alone. The largest drone attacks ever mustered across an entire theater of war, never mind against a single target, were in the hundreds and those didn't have to contend with much in the way of serious broad spectrum countermeasures or point defenses. You would likely be better off with several actual anti-ship missiles. A Harpoon only costs $1.4M and those are dedicated platforms purpose-built to defeat state-of-the-art defenses and countermeasures. The US Navy is testing the lasers against cruise missiles and other systems with much more protection and capability than the typical cheap drone. Current versions are lower-power testbeds but production versions are expected to be several hundred kW.
- Animats 1y ago
  > A drone with sufficient range, payload, and protection against the standard litany of modern EW and counter-measure systems would be quite expensive. Not any more. DJI drone able to return home using visual navigation without GPS.[1] Unarmed. About US$1000. Small lightning-proof drone.[2] Aims lightning strikes. Cost not given. Ukraine EW-resistant drone.[3] Drops bombs. Currently about US$30,000. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzWIYOOKItM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzWIYOOKItM [2] https://dronexl.co/ja/2025/04/23/ntt-lightning-triggering-drone-survives-strike/ https://dronexl.co/ja/2025/04/23/ntt-lightning-triggering-dr... [3] https://interestingengineering.com/military/meet-the-shoolika-mark-6 https://interestingengineering.com/military/meet-the-shoolik...
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    None of these are applicable to the naval context here. That $30k drone has a measly 10km range. You can't navigate visually on the open ocean. The payload requirements are at least 100kg if you want to do any damage, which none of these come close to. None of them can withstand modern military countermeasures; the "EW resistance" in this case just means operating in a denied environment, which is pretty old and basic tech. Completely different class of drone capability. Something that could actually do damage in a naval context against modern countermeasure tech would be much more expensive.
    - watersb 1y ago
      Ok. Flying drones that we've seen in Ukraine lack the range to survive a naval deployment. Ukraine has had some success engaging Russian surface warships with small aquatic craft type drones. Does a ground-based operator pose a threat to modern navies by means of some swarm of jet-ski robots?
      - nradov 1y ago
        Yes, but only in the littorals or protected waters. Small unmanned surface vessels can't really operate effectively out in the open ocean. They lack the necessary sensors, endurance, and sea keeping ability.

darth_avocado 1y ago

Also EMPs and microwaves to fry swarms of drones at once.

nradov 1y ago
What EMPs? This is the real world, not some sci-fi movie. Due to the inverse square law, generating an EMP powerful enough to act as a weapon takes an extremely powerful explosion.
- jjk166 1y ago
  EMP weapons are directional, and thus aren't affected by the inverse square law. Further, the power that a ship can output can exceed what a drone could tolerate by many orders of magnitude. EMP weapons do not require an explosion.
  - nradov 1y ago
    You appear to be referring to some sort of jammer or directed energy weapon, not an "EMP" as the term is usually defined.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  I think they were conflating EMP with directed RF weapons. The latter is a standard feature set for anything with a beam steering transmitter. Those can dump a lot of focused RF energy on a targets. That has been an automated defense response since the mid-20th century and would likely kill most drones. EMP is, of course, extremely inefficient no matter how you pump it.
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  You can direct an EMP so it’s close to linear losses — the difference between a laser and a lightbulb.
- AngryData 1y ago
  You wouldn't want your EMP devices to have the range to go from your position to enemy object, you would mostly be fucking all your stuff up. What you would want to do is lob an EMP device at the enemy object, and detonate it as close as possible. Not only does it minimize damage to your own equipment, you need a MUCH smaller device. And it can be done without a ton of effort with a fast explosive, a neodymium magnet, and some copper wire to blast the magnet through, potentially launched mortar style. I think the only reason we don't see more EMP devices is because it will screw up all your communications and potentially other equipment too, and piss off every other country within 1,000 miles with all the EM noise. You can't really protect your radios equipment from EMP devices other than to coordinate taking them all down and shielding them all. It could also potentially be a prelude to nuclear EMPs and thus nuclear war but im not all that sure what a countries response would be to EMP weapons and attacks.