Footage circulating in Russian pro-military channels this week shows what is claimed to be a Russian laser weapon system engaging aerial drones, according to a Russian military blogger who described the video as an "exclusive." The blogger's post claimed several
These are large drones that fly too high to hit with a shotgun. also laser is by far the cheapest option because it just takes electricity to operate.
Lasers massively lose efficiency over distance because the light spreads with distance. They’re horrible for long range targeting.
Shotguns lose efficiency over distances even faster.
That’s why there are shells which explode at a certain distance. But yes the general issue here is range. Shotguns are close range and cheap. Lasers are close range and expensive.
But the ammunition is the real cost. Not only to produce but to package, about ship, store, and carry. A boat can only store so much shotgun ammo, but a boat with a fusion reactor has infinite laser ammo
Munition isn’t actually that expensive. As long as the munition is (a lot) cheaper than the drone, the math checks out.
Now let me tell you about the cost to build a giant laser with a limited range…
No no I understand that building the platform is expensive. That’s not in question. What’s in question is whether an expensive platform with very low price per shot eventually makes up for the platform cost.
Likely it is intended to be used in concert with ballistics, not instead of. Laser have a very low peak rate of fire relative to ballistics, but have a very high duration of continuous field service relative to ballistics
Not to mention lasers move at the speed of light. That’s got to be a benefit, right? Is there no benefit realized from the boost there?
I think there is benefit there but not from a time-to-kill (since the laser kills via heat accumulation which takes some measurable time) but rather that it can be more responsive to evasive maneuvers from the target
They are using them right now, so clearly not that terrible for this use case. Even when you have loss of efficiency, if you’re hooked up to the power grid, you can amplify the power enough for it to be effective. And it’s going to be cheaper than producing interceptor missiles and drones that have to be physically produced, stored, and distributed.
It’s not about power efficiency. Lasers require focussing a lot of light at one certain point. But the further the distance the more the light spreads. That’s just physics. Communicating with lasers isn’t the same as burning stuff with them.
Lasers are also utterly doomed when the sky isn’t clear because mist and clouds can fracture the concentrated light
As for intercepting missiles: If you’ve seen the speed at which hypersonic missiles come down you’ll find a laser doesn’t have much time to burn it.
Israel has been bragging about their epic laser tech for multiple years now yet they’re still firing interceptors. A laser might be able to defend one single static target in a 1km range from drones but not a whole border. And swarm tactics can still overwhelm the laser and just destroy it
Yes, and that’s literally where power comes in. The more powerful the laser, the further it stays coherent. Again, these are literally being used in combat right now. And they’re not intercepting missiles, they’re intercepting slow flying drones. What I was saying is that it’s much cheaper to power a laser than to make an interceptor.
Americans also can’t figure out how to make hypersonics, but Russia, China, Iran, and DPRK can. Just because the reich can’t do something, doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
Yes that’s true but the power requirement (not to mention cooling) exponentially increases the further the object is because of the light spreading. The amount of burst power and light density needed for a long-range laser is bonkers and making it go further will requires exponential bonkers.
This is why they frequently fire them using pulses but even then getting them to destroy objects at a very long distance gets harder and harder the further the object is. If the drone flies near a laser then it works wonders. If the drone flies around the area laser then it’s not much more effective than simple airshot munition.
I checked the article but didn’t see a video in it so I’m not sure what the laser managed to do here.
Maybe it is, but unless this interception was very long range they haven’t found the magical bullet yet and it isn’t much of an improvement over air-burst ammunition or interception drones.
If my high school physics and maths aren’t failing me, it’s not growing exponentially, it’s growing quadratically because inverse-square law.
Though maybe the energy required to power the laser increases exponentially but idfk
Do you think the engineers building this system might’ve done the basic math to figure these things out?
And there is a whole interview they did on a Russian TV channel where they show the system in action and taking out Ukrainian drones. You can watch it here. https://southfront.press/russia-unveils-secretive-lasers-downing-ukrainian-drones-videos/
So you spend $10k+ (totally just a WAG) in energy costs to take down a $200 drone, I suppose it works but I don’t think Russia can keep it powered long enough to be effective against swarms of drones.
So you just pull numbers out of your ass to make an argument?
Not always, it was half based on the 30KW ‘Silent Hunter’ they bought from China. While it is a really cool idea, that one used close to 100kW just to produce the 30kW beam. It requires more than that to operate the chillers and pumps that must be ran to keep the whole system from overheating.
I would have to make the asumption that they upped the power significantly as Silent Hunter was only capable of 4,000 meter max range (the ‘killzone’ is only listed as 1500 meters), if they upped the power all of the requirements go up. If they managed to up the power too much, it’s going to cause grid power dips that will thankfully bring down their other systems that depend on it.
ok thanks for confirming that you are pulling numbers out of your ass
I have a serious doubt that whatever Russia could cobble together would be an effective laser weapon for more than just demo.
Why?
Because even with all the stupid amount of money the usa spend on r and d we have few few operational and tested platforms… If a drone hit one it goes boom just like anything else. If we can’t field 30of the things in our wildest imagination I can’t imagine they can achieve. More than 2 or 3 operational units and they will get whacked eventually
The Russian economy is far more industrialized, while the US is far more financialized. Spending goes farther in Russia than it does in the US. I don’t think it’s far-fetched to think Russia could implement some degree of laser-based drone defenses.
I’ll give you that. One thing though. On a rainy or foggy night those defenses are worthless. Range goes in the crapper.
I don’t think the article above indicates that this is the only tool Russia has.
We get it … you like Russia.
The article above was specifically talking about lasers
I wouldn’t say I “like” Russia just because I don’t see them as some barbarian society like I see them portrayed as commonly. I am immensely critical of their nationalist, capitalist system, as any communist should be. I just understand that they are presently subject to imperialist encirclement, and this encirclement drives their hostile reaction.
Yeah the will of Ukraine will triumph against the slavic horde that hadn’t even seen asphaltroads, plumbing or anything but human wave assaults.
How to say you uncritically guzzle propaganda about the adversaries of the empire without saying it.
How to say I am a Russian bot in two lines.
yay my shitty meme <3
Our shitty meme.
But seriously, I really liked it so I saved it. Thanks for making it.
You gotta love how the first thing libs do is dehumanize anybody who disagrees with them. Scratch a liberal and…
Yep. And they’re always so quick to do it when they receive any pushback to the things they say.
ok there reddit brain
Is this the sequel to “Russia’s nukes probably don’t even work”?
No it’s more like Russias piss poor attempt at making their very own gps system while having none of the benefits of the USSR … 32 satellites launched so far. One lost … 4 or 5 in orbits so low as to be detrimental, not one so far has reached the target 800km goal . Second launches are dispersed in various geostationary orbits and completely varied. They needed a net to get geo location and they cats pebbles in the pond. There are ramifications to dumbing down the country.
Oh, you’ve been gorging on youtube thumbnail slop and this is the result.