Nope. Laser (and microwave) CIWS are not silver bullets.
Yes, lasers aren't silver bullets, but I think they are way better than Gun CIWS or HHQ-10.
Note that each HHQ-10 only has 24 SAMs and a 20mm Phalanx only has rounds for 20 engagements, and the ammunition is a lot more expensive than a laser.
While lasers can get pretty powerful, they are also undeniably huge power guzzlers.
A 600kW laser would have a total power draw of about 2MW. The Arleigh Burkes have progressively upgraded their electricity generation from 7.5MW to 12MW and is maxxed out.
Then look at how the Type-055 has 30MW of electricity generation, plus 112MW of gas turbines
Also consider how an IEPS solution for a Type-055 would have a minimum of 80MWe available, and it would be straightforward to divert 4MW of that electricity for a few minutes of laser operations for an unnoticeable decrease in maximum speed.
Lasers are only considered huge electricity guzzlers if the underlying ship hasn't been designed for it.
And for warships, propulsion makes up the vast majority of power generation on the ship.
In addition, subsonic cruise missiles and drone swarms aren't the only threats that could potentially get past interception efforts at long and medium ranges. Try figure out how much time is needed to not just disable the sensors on each of those supersonic, let alone hypersonic missiles (as higher speeds typically mean better heat shielding features on them), let alone dealing with multiple of them at once.
For incoming supersonic or hypersonic missiles, these are by definition going to be expensive and worth using long-range SAMs to defend against. Resorting to any sort of CIWS, whether gun, laser or HHQ-10, is going to be a last ditch effort for these sorts of incoming missiles.
As for heat shielding on hypersonic/supersonic missiles, irrespective of the sort of CIWS, the missile is going so fast that the ship would get hit anyway.
Furthermore, there're also range and environmental conditions that can be detrimental to the effectiveness of laser-based CIWS systems as mentioned by
@latenlazy above.
This is why hard-kill options are still crucial as additional options for last-line defense. In fact, both the DEW-type and hard-kill type CIWS should complement each other and coexist on warships, going forward.
My view is that a 20/30mm CIWS or HHQ-10 isn't going to do much against a supersonic/hypersonic missile at such close ranges. So you might as go with lasers for last ditch point-defence, even if there is environmental degradation. My view is that for hard-kill CIWS, they should use guided projectiles from the main gun.
The OTO Melera 76mm gun can fire 120 guided projectiles (costing $20K) per minute, with a range of 8km and could be firing right until a missile reaches the ship. Presumably a larger 100/130mm gun would have more range and be more effective.
They really need a new hull (the DDGX) to incorporate laser based weapons, as the Arleigh Burkes have been completely maxxed out. But the DDGX has been cancelled to get a handful Trump battleships starting in 10 year's time, and they're just going to continue building 2 Burkes per year. So where are these American lasers going to be placed?
There are no QC-280 engines in service on any PLAN warships today. In fact, there are only the CGT-25M engines in service on PLAN DDGs today, not QC-280.
Those values are based on what?
Given that the CGT-25M and QC-280 have the same power output (and indeed are interchangeable), it doesn't change the calaculation.
Given a Type-052D has 2 gas turbines and a retrofit with the CGT30s means there is now 10MW of extra output, at 40% efficiency, that implies 4MW of electricity. That means two 600kW lasers (4MW total draw for both as per US Navy) can be comfortably accommodated.
