chinese laser weapon development


supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
Indeed. I am not sure if everyone realizes this, but weapons of this class are already capable of taking out subsonic cruise missiles. For harder or faster targets, multiple beams can be aimed at the same spot on the target. Rheinmetall demonstrated this capability 8 years ago when they shone five 10kW laser beams at the same target simultaneously.

If you scroll to 6m15s point of this video, you can see how such a technique would work out against cruise missiles:

EDIT:
This will be hugely disruptive to nations who don’t have an adequate counter-measure in development. We are on the cusp of a major paradigm change. The USN LCS Little Rock will be fielding a 150kW Lockheed Martin laser on its next deployment.
Maybe I am missing something here, but this seems way more complex, expensive, and possibly less effective than conventional guns... at least at this time.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
Maybe I am missing something here, but this seems way more complex, expensive, and possibly less effective than conventional guns... at least at this time.
The advantages are infinite magazines and higher ROF vs RAM targets. Likely much longer “barrel” life too. However, all such systems are in demonstrator phase as of now.
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
The advantages are infinite magazines and higher ROF vs RAM targets. Likely much longer “barrel” life too. However, all such systems are in demonstrator phase as of now.
For the time being infinite magazines are limited by power as well as heat. Price per shot is of much greater consideration. Cost per firing ranges from one dollar to 50 dollars depending on the system, which is a drop in the bucket even compared to auto cannons, let alone missiles.
 

AssassinsMace

Brigadier
I'm not impressed with all the bragging over the CIWS role of lasers. I'll be impressed when it's not relegated to slow moving targets and goes beyond a CIWS role because those are the most optimum of conditions for it to work. Like I've been posting in this forum, the reason why the US cancelled the airborne laser program to shoot down ICBMs is why the technology now is not something to crow about. First of all lasers don't have a lot of range. The atmosphere dissipates laser energy quickly. The more range you need, the more power to compensate for the loss. If that was no problem then you can just have fixed ground lasers stationed next to nuclear power plants to draw power from to shoot at incoming ICBMs but you hear nothing of the sort meaning it won't work that way. Then beyond the laser itself, you need the technology to be able to track and hold a laser in one spot on the target for time for the laser to burn through at hundreds or thousands of miles away. That requires ultra precision. If you pass your hand quickly through a flame, you won't feel a thing. At long distance that's what a laser would be like on a target moving at supersonic speeds. That's one end of the laser. How about the other end? An airborne laser onboard an aircraft, the slightest turbulence could knock that laser off target by miles at that distance. How about one on a ship sailing through waves of constant motion...? One of the reasons why they cancelled the airborne laser was because the aircraft the laser would be on would have to be literally loitering over the target ICBM when it's launched in order to have a chance at destroying it. If a country has ICBMs, they'll have the anti-aircraft capabilities to destroy it before it gets anywhere near the target.

If the airborne laser could do what was hyped at destroying ICBMs from hundreds or thousands of miles away, it could do everything else in between from it's minuscule role it's relegated to today to the dream of shooting ICBMs out of the sky. It could hover over a battlefield killing soldiers and destroying tanks and the battle would be over in minutes. There would be an impenetrable shield where nothing flying in the air including the fastest fighter jets could get past. But do you hear anything of sort being advertised...? No.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm not impressed with all the bragging over the CIWS role of lasers. I'll be impressed when it's not relegated to slow moving targets and goes beyond a CIWS role because those are the most optimum of conditions for it to work. Like I've been posting in this forum, the reason why the US cancelled the airborne laser program to shoot down ICBMs is why the technology now is not something to crow about. First of all lasers don't have a lot of range. The atmosphere dissipates laser energy quickly. The more range you need, the more power to compensate for the loss. If that was no problem then you can just have fixed ground lasers stationed next to nuclear power plants to draw power from to shoot at incoming ICBMs but you hear nothing of the sort meaning it won't work that way. Then beyond the laser itself, you need the technology to be able to track and hold a laser in one spot on the target for time for the laser to burn through at hundreds or thousands of miles away. That requires ultra precision. If you pass your hand quickly through a flame, you won't feel a thing. At long distance that's what a laser would be like on a target moving at supersonic speeds. That's one end of the laser. How about the other end? An airborne laser onboard an aircraft, the slightest turbulence could knock that laser off target by miles at that distance. How about one on a ship sailing through waves of constant motion...? One of the reasons why they cancelled the airborne laser was because the aircraft the laser would be on would have to be literally loitering over the target ICBM when it's launched in order to have a chance at destroying it. If a country has ICBMs, they'll have the anti-aircraft capabilities to destroy it before it gets anywhere near the target.

If the airborne laser could do what was hyped at destroying ICBMs from hundreds or thousands of miles away, it could do everything else in between from it's minuscule role it's relegated to today to the dream of shooting ICBMs out of the sky. It could hover over a battlefield killing soldiers and destroying tanks and the battle would be over in minutes. There would be an impenetrable shield where nothing flying in the air including the fastest fighter jets could get past. But do you hear anything of sort being advertised...? No.
You have the concept wrong.

To take out ICBMs, lasers need to be put in orbit. Thereby they don’t suffer from absorption nor turbulence. Ranges in excess of 1000km should be feasible from the perspective of targeting systems. In outerspace IR gets fantastic contrast against such targets.
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
I'm not impressed with all the bragging over the CIWS role of lasers. I'll be impressed when it's not relegated to slow moving targets and goes beyond a CIWS role because those are the most optimum of conditions for it to work. Like I've been posting in this forum, the reason why the US cancelled the airborne laser program to shoot down ICBMs is why the technology now is not something to crow about. First of all lasers don't have a lot of range. The atmosphere dissipates laser energy quickly. The more range you need, the more power to compensate for the loss. If that was no problem then you can just have fixed ground lasers stationed next to nuclear power plants to draw power from to shoot at incoming ICBMs but you hear nothing of the sort meaning it won't work that way. Then beyond the laser itself, you need the technology to be able to track and hold a laser in one spot on the target for time for the laser to burn through at hundreds or thousands of miles away. That requires ultra precision. If you pass your hand quickly through a flame, you won't feel a thing. At long distance that's what a laser would be like on a target moving at supersonic speeds. That's one end of the laser. How about the other end? An airborne laser onboard an aircraft, the slightest turbulence could knock that laser off target by miles at that distance. How about one on a ship sailing through waves of constant motion...? One of the reasons why they cancelled the airborne laser was because the aircraft the laser would be on would have to be literally loitering over the target ICBM when it's launched in order to have a chance at destroying it. If a country has ICBMs, they'll have the anti-aircraft capabilities to destroy it before it gets anywhere near the target.

If the airborne laser could do what was hyped at destroying ICBMs from hundreds or thousands of miles away, it could do everything else in between from it's minuscule role it's relegated to today to the dream of shooting ICBMs out of the sky. It could hover over a battlefield killing soldiers and destroying tanks and the battle would be over in minutes. There would be an impenetrable shield where nothing flying in the air including the fastest fighter jets could get past. But do you hear anything of sort being advertised...? No.
It all has to start somewhere. When guns were first invented they didn’t offer much advantages over bows and crossbows either but gradually with the addition of mechanism and sights, they became good enough to supercede them.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
Price per shot is of much greater consideration. Cost per firing ranges from one dollar to 50 dollars depending on the system, which is a drop in the bucket even compared to auto cannons, let alone missiles.
That makes me wonder what the ramp-up time of HELs are. They can’t just go from 0 to 100kW in a fraction of a second. That would permanently damage the optics. They would have to be in a hot state (lasing internally) before they can fire, and staying in that state costs dollars.
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
It all has to start somewhere. When guns were first invented they didn’t offer much advantages over bows and crossbows either but gradually with the addition of mechanism and sights, they became good enough to supercede them.
But they have been at it for half century with no result to speak about other than hitting thin skin small boat at 100 feet. yeah let me know when they actually hit missile out of sky I am waiting
 

AssassinsMace

Brigadier
It all has to start somewhere. When guns were first invented they didn’t offer much advantages over bows and crossbows either but gradually with the addition of mechanism and sights, they became good enough to supercede them.
Of course it has to start somewhere but people act like it lives up to the hype is simply not true. It's like the railgun. Yeah it looks spectacular with all that smoke and fire when it shoots but it's all magnetics. Why all the smoke and fire? It's because the gun is literally disintegrating before your eyes hence the smoke and fire because that's how much power it requires where the materials science hasn't caught up. I read it might need an overhaul after only around a few dozens shots fired. Just imagine installing that on the Zumwalt and then the gun has to be overhauled after a few dozen rounds. That's going to be a lot of money just for maintaining it. That gun is not going to be practical in a war situation. It isn't going to happen unless they reduce the power which they got the picture because videos afterwards had less smoke and fire but that means lesser performance.
 

Top