UK destroyers to get lasers
Discussion
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britains-destroyer...
I was tempted to call the headline frickin’ laser beams but successfully resisted
The £10 a shot sounds very cost effective ; better than using a million pound missile to down a simple drone.
I was tempted to call the headline frickin’ laser beams but successfully resisted
The £10 a shot sounds very cost effective ; better than using a million pound missile to down a simple drone.
hidetheelephants said:
Why would a system developed by Qinetiq, MBDA and Leonardo have significant ITAR issues? They're all pretty good at making their own sensors and no doubt have aspirations to sell it to 3rd parties.
Because none of them have made a high powered laser before, and there are elements in the laser path that use/used US-controlled products...Up until a few months ago, no one in UK defence was really that bothered about ITAR content. Sure, everyone would like to avoid it but no one was pumping big money into removing it, especially when that would delay system development time. It was the sort of thing you addressed down the line when export opportunities were a significant part of ongoing sales.
Evanivitch said:
hidetheelephants said:
Why would a system developed by Qinetiq, MBDA and Leonardo have significant ITAR issues? They're all pretty good at making their own sensors and no doubt have aspirations to sell it to 3rd parties.
Because none of them have made a high powered laser before, and there are elements in the laser path that use/used US-controlled products...Up until a few months ago, no one in UK defence was really that bothered about ITAR content. Sure, everyone would like to avoid it but no one was pumping big money into removing it, especially when that would delay system development time. It was the sort of thing you addressed down the line when export opportunities were a significant part of ongoing sales.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...
Not knowing much about the specifics of Dragonfire but knowing a little about lasers in the atmosphere, my twin concerns are based around time spend engaged on target and distance at which burnthrough is achieved - for example if it can burnthrough a drone in <1 sec but only at ranges of <1nm or that it has a 10nm range but takes 10mins to burnthrough or some combination of those etc - because whilst current drones are fairly slow, that won't stay that way forever, and faster drones means less time on target for the laser.
So I hope our boffins really have delivered a capability that is actually worthwhile against genuine military threats, rather than effectively giving us a tech demo version which still needs more time to mature whilst we all pat ourselves on the back as being "world leading" which isn't where I fear we actually are.
So I hope our boffins really have delivered a capability that is actually worthwhile against genuine military threats, rather than effectively giving us a tech demo version which still needs more time to mature whilst we all pat ourselves on the back as being "world leading" which isn't where I fear we actually are.
IanH755 said:
Not knowing much about the specifics of Dragonfire but knowing a little about lasers in the atmosphere, my twin concerns are based around time spend engaged on target and distance at which burnthrough is achieved - for example if it can burnthrough a drone in <1 sec but only at ranges of <1nm or that it has a 10nm range but takes 10mins to burnthrough or some combination of those etc - because whilst current drones are fairly slow, that won't stay that way forever, and faster drones means less time on target for the laser.
So I hope our boffins really have delivered a capability that is actually worthwhile against genuine military threats, rather than effectively giving us a tech demo version which still needs more time to mature whilst we all pat ourselves on the back as being "world leading" which isn't where I fear we actually are.
The system is intended to compliment, not replace, existing defensive suites.So I hope our boffins really have delivered a capability that is actually worthwhile against genuine military threats, rather than effectively giving us a tech demo version which still needs more time to mature whilst we all pat ourselves on the back as being "world leading" which isn't where I fear we actually are.
Mainly, in that it is one answer to the swarming issue of many "cheap" drones versus £1m air defence missiles of limited numbers. Alongside the 4.5/5 inch guns being used in an anti aircraft role too.
What I believe makes DF such a good system is that they managed to keep the spot size small and avoid too much thermal blooming.
Curious how much of this is classified.
When last I was involved in 'research lasers' the US were not in advance of rest of the world and there were arguments and efforts being made at the highest level to generate funding to develop and to bolster US suppliers of critical infrastructure as much of it resided in Europe.
When last I was involved in 'research lasers' the US were not in advance of rest of the world and there were arguments and efforts being made at the highest level to generate funding to develop and to bolster US suppliers of critical infrastructure as much of it resided in Europe.
hidetheelephants said:
IIRC there are systems that have successfully engaged mortar shells in testing, I dare say artillery shells and rockets will be engaged before long too.
Do you know if thats Mortar shells destroyed "in flight" during testing or just a Mortar shell motionless on a table being lasered for say 30 seconds etc?Mortar shells (81mm-120mm etc) are quite dense, hard metal to burn through plus quite small to be accurately tracked in-flight so destroying a real, fired mortar shell in-flight would be quite impressive vs the "tech demo" stuff I see a lot which is on an unmoving target strapped to a fixture and hit for a "long" duration burn i.e. completely unrepresentative of real life conditions.
Evanivitch said:
The system is intended to compliment, not replace, existing defensive suites.
What I believe makes DF such a good system is that they managed to keep the spot size small and avoid too much thermal blooming.
I get that its a complementary system rather than a replacement, but I still look at the publicly available data, look at the PR images of burnt drones from testing and then look at the "this is ready for combat" decision to fit this within a few years and I just have my strong doubts as to its real-world suitability in its current form to actually save lives in combat, vs the PR spin we're going through as I think we're maybe pushing this out to the fleet before its genuinely ready as a form of PR exercise i.e. "we're world leading in anti-drone tech, aren't we great" etc when all we've got is a tech demo at best.What I believe makes DF such a good system is that they managed to keep the spot size small and avoid too much thermal blooming.
I say that because, being complementary, a drone that can be engaged by DF must have already been "left/missed" by all our other defences (Missile, Gun & EW etc) to have gotten close enough for it to be damaged by DF and I worry about people in positions of power "believing the lie" that this will save them because the PR boasted about it so much - or of course I could be utterly wrong and it could be a mini-death Star and be knocking out dozens of drones in a few seconds at long range. I know which I think is more likely of those two choices.
I know I sound like a negative nancy, however I'm not "anti-laser" etc, I think when its given time to fully mature it'll a great game changer, I'm just concerned about the IRL combat viability of DF right now vs the very positive PR campaign behind it which maybe giving a false impression of its current effectiveness but, again, I could be utterly wrong.
IanH755 said:
Do you know if thats Mortar shells destroyed "in flight" during testing or just a Mortar shell motionless on a table being lasered for say 30 seconds etc?
Mortar shells (81mm-120mm etc) are quite dense, hard metal to burn through plus quite small to be accurately tracked in-flight so destroying a real, fired mortar shell in-flight would be quite impressive vs the "tech demo" stuff I see a lot which is on an unmoving target strapped to a fixture and hit for a "long" duration burn i.e. completely unrepresentative of real life conditions.
No idea, it is a claim made for the israeli Iron Beam system in this, presumably from an israeli press release.Mortar shells (81mm-120mm etc) are quite dense, hard metal to burn through plus quite small to be accurately tracked in-flight so destroying a real, fired mortar shell in-flight would be quite impressive vs the "tech demo" stuff I see a lot which is on an unmoving target strapped to a fixture and hit for a "long" duration burn i.e. completely unrepresentative of real life conditions.
IanH755 said:
I say that because, being complementary, a drone that can be engaged by DF must have already been "left/missed" by all our other defences (Missile, Gun & EW etc) to have gotten close enough for it to be damaged by DF and I worry about people in positions of power "believing the lie" that this will save them because the PR boasted about it so much - or of course I could be utterly wrong and it could be a mini-death Star and be knocking out dozens of drones in a few seconds at long range. I know which I think is more likely of those two choices.
I know I sound like a negative nancy, however I'm not "anti-laser" etc, I think when its given time to fully mature it'll a great game changer, I'm just concerned about the IRL combat viability of DF right now vs the very positive PR campaign behind it which maybe giving a false impression of its current effectiveness but, again, I could be utterly wrong.
It's been live tested and in 2027 there's another Formidable Shield where it'll be everything and the kitchen sink thrown at it.I know I sound like a negative nancy, however I'm not "anti-laser" etc, I think when its given time to fully mature it'll a great game changer, I'm just concerned about the IRL combat viability of DF right now vs the very positive PR campaign behind it which maybe giving a false impression of its current effectiveness but, again, I could be utterly wrong.
The MOD has a pretty good grip on verification evidence, and the Dragonfire team aren't some glossy startup.
LDEW isn't the last line AFAIK, that'll still be CIWS, but it reduces the number of missiles and bullets that would need to be fired on any swarm drastically, and that's very necessary right now.
Even if DF only kills seekers/targeting sensors, that still goes some way to reducing the effectiveness of all threats (modern anti ship weapons aim for specific parts of ships).
I guess that, for me at least, it just doesn't look like a "combat ready by 2027" weapon unless (as all the publicly shown images show) its being used on quadcopters hovering almost statically less than 300m away and they allow you a significant dwell time to achieve burnthrough. I just hope I'm wrong!
I believe LDEW will be an absolute game changer, and I realise this is still baby steps with DF, but I worry about what might be a false sense of confidence the end user will get looking at the massive PR spin this is getting vs what it has publicly shown it can actually do.
I believe LDEW will be an absolute game changer, and I realise this is still baby steps with DF, but I worry about what might be a false sense of confidence the end user will get looking at the massive PR spin this is getting vs what it has publicly shown it can actually do.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff