4 ms·

"Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually " Why would lasers not work? Thos

by lukan 8mo ago

"Realistically, I doubt there’s ANY system out there will be able to counter small weaponized drones that are flown manually " Why would lasers not work? Those cheap drones are made from plastic, if you have a laser powerful enough and a target guidance system (like a camera and a PI) - then you would just need enough of them.

condensedcrab 8mo ago
At long distances the small cross section of the drone requires tight focusing (expensive optics) or a high power, preferably pulsed laser (expensive laser) or both. Not impossible but many times more expensive than the drone
- tjoff 8mo ago
  Expensive is fine since it is reusable.
  - rdtsc 8mo ago
    At some point it itself becomes a target. It has to be able to get almost 100% kills, otherwise the enemy can swarm it with cheap drones, destroy the expensive installation, then continue as before.
    - tjoff 8mo ago
      Sure, but it needs many "many times" for that to be a factor. And even in the case it could be useful as an addition to or paired with a tank etc.
      - rdtsc 8mo ago
        Many times more is about what it comes out to. There are some companies selling laser defense systems but they are many times more than cheap FPV drones with grenades attached.
tamimio 8mo ago
Lasers won’t effectively work, it’s a two part equation, detection and targeting. To neutralize a target using a ground-based laser, you need an enormous power, and still it won’t penetrate a high distance/altitude in the sky, environment factors also to be considered. The detection part is even harder, these small 8in drones are almost impossible to detect unless you can hear it, aka it’s over, because they can fly at 250km/h, too small to be visually detected, acoustic sensors will fail to detect them, and radar will miss it as a false negative since it’s the size of a bird. I have seen some systems trying to combine all that to detect them plus AI for flying pattern detection, but they are far from being reliable in practical applications.
- ljlolel 8mo ago
  Can radar distinguish from the bird since it’s moving 250km/h?
- lukan 8mo ago
  The small weaponized drones do not fly 250 km/h.
  - Aspos 8mo ago
    Yes, but they still approach in just a few seconds.
  - tamimio 8mo ago
    They can fly at 350kph, check this redbull drone that was used in Olympics, acceleration of 100-300kph in just two seconds faster than any F1 car. Now add a bit of payload and you get the 200-250 speed range, still crazy fast. https://www.redbull.com/id-id/worlds-fastest-filming-drone-build https://www.redbull.com/id-id/worlds-fastest-filming-drone-b...
- ndriscoll 8mo ago
  Unless you mean it just can't detect objects that small, my guess is we'll see things calibrate toward a lot more birds being cooked in active war zones vs drones with explosives being let through.
torginus 8mo ago
Lasers imo don't really have IRL advantages over machine guns and rockets, and their line of sight nature is a huge limitation.
- lukan 8mo ago
  Laser: - are cheap to shoot - do not fall on someones head if they miss (unlike firing bullets and rockets at a drone that will come down again) - do hit the target immediately if aimed right Problems with lasers are, cooling, power consumption limiting mobile use - and indeed targeting and fog and clouds.
  - hermitcrab 8mo ago
    And rain.
  - torginus 8mo ago
    You need about 2 MJ (or 2000 Watt seconds) to boil away 1L of water. The Dragonfire ship class laser puts out 50 KW, so it would take 40 seconds to do that, assuming it can fire without pause, all of the enrgy makes it into the target, and none of it gets reflected. This is a container sized system that needs to be mounted on a ship. Meanwhile in Ukraine you have auto turrets made from anything ranging from heavy machineguns to old AA guns, with some added optics and/or radar, which are super cheap and you can carry them around in vans.
rdtsc 8mo ago
At very short distances and with a lot of power, perhaps. Despite what we see in movies laser beams diverge. And then with distance it’s harder to track moving objects precisely to hit the same spot long enough to melt it. At that point might as well spend the money to use a kinetic weapon with basic tracking and ballistic calculations.
- chatmasta 8mo ago
  Kinetic weapons pose greater risk to bystanders.
robotresearcher 8mo ago
Powerful enough laser and accurate enough targeting system is easy to say, but not easypeasy to do. Dumping thousands of Joules on a tiny moving target is much easier to do with explosives.
hermitcrab 8mo ago
The practicalities of using lasers are covered in some depth on the Naval Gazing blog. First part here: https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1 https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1

by lukan 8mo ago

condensedcrab 8mo ago

At long distances the small cross section of the drone requires tight focusing (expensive optics) or a high power, preferably pulsed laser (expensive laser) or both. Not impossible but many times more expensive than the drone

tjoff 8mo ago
Expensive is fine since it is reusable.
- rdtsc 8mo ago
  At some point it itself becomes a target. It has to be able to get almost 100% kills, otherwise the enemy can swarm it with cheap drones, destroy the expensive installation, then continue as before.
  - tjoff 8mo ago
    Sure, but it needs many "many times" for that to be a factor. And even in the case it could be useful as an addition to or paired with a tank etc.
    - rdtsc 8mo ago
      Many times more is about what it comes out to. There are some companies selling laser defense systems but they are many times more than cheap FPV drones with grenades attached.

tamimio 8mo ago

Lasers won’t effectively work, it’s a two part equation, detection and targeting. To neutralize a target using a ground-based laser, you need an enormous power, and still it won’t penetrate a high distance/altitude in the sky, environment factors also to be considered. The detection part is even harder, these small 8in drones are almost impossible to detect unless you can hear it, aka it’s over, because they can fly at 250km/h, too small to be visually detected, acoustic sensors will fail to detect them, and radar will miss it as a false negative since it’s the size of a bird. I have seen some systems trying to combine all that to detect them plus AI for flying pattern detection, but they are far from being reliable in practical applications.

ljlolel 8mo ago
Can radar distinguish from the bird since it’s moving 250km/h?
lukan 8mo ago
The small weaponized drones do not fly 250 km/h.
- Aspos 8mo ago
  Yes, but they still approach in just a few seconds.
- tamimio 8mo ago
  They can fly at 350kph, check this redbull drone that was used in Olympics, acceleration of 100-300kph in just two seconds faster than any F1 car. Now add a bit of payload and you get the 200-250 speed range, still crazy fast. https://www.redbull.com/id-id/worlds-fastest-filming-drone-build https://www.redbull.com/id-id/worlds-fastest-filming-drone-b...
ndriscoll 8mo ago
Unless you mean it just can't detect objects that small, my guess is we'll see things calibrate toward a lot more birds being cooked in active war zones vs drones with explosives being let through.

torginus 8mo ago

Lasers imo don't really have IRL advantages over machine guns and rockets, and their line of sight nature is a huge limitation.

lukan 8mo ago
Laser: - are cheap to shoot - do not fall on someones head if they miss (unlike firing bullets and rockets at a drone that will come down again) - do hit the target immediately if aimed right Problems with lasers are, cooling, power consumption limiting mobile use - and indeed targeting and fog and clouds.
- hermitcrab 8mo ago
  And rain.
- torginus 8mo ago
  You need about 2 MJ (or 2000 Watt seconds) to boil away 1L of water. The Dragonfire ship class laser puts out 50 KW, so it would take 40 seconds to do that, assuming it can fire without pause, all of the enrgy makes it into the target, and none of it gets reflected. This is a container sized system that needs to be mounted on a ship. Meanwhile in Ukraine you have auto turrets made from anything ranging from heavy machineguns to old AA guns, with some added optics and/or radar, which are super cheap and you can carry them around in vans.

rdtsc 8mo ago

At very short distances and with a lot of power, perhaps. Despite what we see in movies laser beams diverge. And then with distance it’s harder to track moving objects precisely to hit the same spot long enough to melt it. At that point might as well spend the money to use a kinetic weapon with basic tracking and ballistic calculations.

chatmasta 8mo ago
Kinetic weapons pose greater risk to bystanders.

robotresearcher 8mo ago

Powerful enough laser and accurate enough targeting system is easy to say, but not easypeasy to do. Dumping thousands of Joules on a tiny moving target is much easier to do with explosives.

hermitcrab 8mo ago

The practicalities of using lasers are covered in some depth on the Naval Gazing blog. First part here: https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1 https://www.navalgazing.net/Lasers-at-Sea-Part-1