South Korea is beginning the mass production of a low-cost laser weapon that has successfully shot down small drones during testing, the country’s key arms agency said Thursday.
The laser weapon, called Block-I, “can precisely strike small unmanned aerial vehicles and multicopters at close range,” a news release from South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said.
The release did not give a cost for the weapon, but said each shot fired would only cost about $1.50.
Imagery supplied by the agency appears to show a weapon around the size of a shipping container with a laser mounted on top and what appears to be a radar or tracking device mounted on one side of the platform.
They better send some to Ukraine.
Make Putler happy.
It’d probably be great testing for them too.
Will they be mounted on sharks?
They seriously need to call the platform sharks.
Best we can do are mutated sea bass
Are they at least ill-tempered?
There is no doubt that lasers will play a bigger and bigger role in combat systems, especially in a layered air defense networks.
But it’s dishonest how these articles only cite the cost of electricity. It would be like citing the cost of a single shell of artillery to imply that is the only expenditure when the system is used.
Just like a Howitzer, the parts on lasers experience wear and tear, but to replace them cost a hell of a lot more than a new barrel.
Yes, in the long-term lasers will be more cost-effective than ground to air missile interceptors*, but any reporting that is clearly trying to make an argument for cost savings, should have the integrity to get figures that factor in battlefield maintenance of those systems.
*When applicable. Lasers will not remove the need for any existing systems, but will provide a cost savings by providing additional options for the air defense system’s operators.
When discussing deterrents against drone swarms the cost per “round” is the correct metric…
The cost per round is a lot more than just power generation when talking about lasers.
The wear on tear on lasers is a lot different than other systems and when the case is being made for their cost effectiveness they need to be factored in, instead of the highly misleading figures that only prices out electricity.
What kind of wear are we talking about? Some of the laser types I can think of don’t seem like they would need to wear out.
it’s not just the laser…
It’s the optics, it’s the cooling, it’s the physical mechanics it’s built on, the laser may be pushed well over it’s designed target range causing it to breakdown further.
The power supply for the laser, the circuitry for control (to some degree) and most importantly, where ever you source that energy from. Presumably a super cap bank and a generator? Maybe batteries? Who knows.
Worked at a spring factory, a laser manufacturer bought copper springs by the boat load because they’d melt I guess
i would assume they used them in a heat sinking deal. Presumably to apply pressure to a diode package into a heatsink, while sinking heat, or something along those lines. Could be galvanic corrosion reasons also i guess.
The mount would wear out, that’s true. As would the cooling pump, although I don’t see why you wouldn’t just use a cheap one off the shelf. The rest doesn’t theoretically need to wear if you make sure you have enough thermal allowances.
yeah pretty much, optics would likely be pretty temperamental at those power levels, but maybe they aren’t using any? Idk.
If a bug lands on one while it fires would basically melt the optics instantly. I would imagine.
Oh yeah, there’s that. Ideally you’d want semi-disposable covers of some kind.
How powerful is this thing, anyway? I’m assuming it’s more of an “overheat” than “vapourise” situation.
I mean, sure that’s fair, and the figures could be updated to include that. But the order of magnitude difference between this and explosive ammunition is 10,000x or more. Unless these are single fire, I’m not convinced it changes the calculus
Even in the very long term, loss of equipment to enemy fire is non-negligible during active combat, so you need to tack on the purchase cost in some manner.
In the shorter term you have to buy a 30 million dollar laser system, even if you’ll eventually make it back.
Usually they do quote the cost per shell, not including rifle wear, she’ll transport, oder wages, etc. Or missile, in case of patriot systems.
What about the advantages of the logistics of those “rounds”. Seems like a huge savings.
What’s the kW or MW class of laser? If it’s too low, it could be ineffective against even tinfoil wrapped quad copters.
Inb4 flying disco balls!
Imagine getting a massive burn because the drone trying to bomb you reflected the laser your colleague used to try to shoot it down.
This screams UFO encounter.
Might still be powerful enough to blind the optics, which would effectively cripple them. Without a video feed neither FPV drones nor grenade-dropping ones would have the necessary precision to be effective.
Unless they’re gps guided, or they can turn their camera away from the laser source in time.
Unless they’re gps guided
These lower power DEW systems don’t target the optics they target propulsion, like the actual rotors themselves. Takes about 1-2 seconds to knock them out on the ISR type drones, maybe a bit longer on the FPV type depending on size.
I’d have thought the rotors would be harder to melt though because of their speed and cooling, but I guess it would work. Could you electroplate the rotors?
Could you electroplate the rotors?
I’m sure you could but the more armor you stack on the more you reduce the performance.
GPS wouldn’t be effective at all for drones dropping munitions on infantry moving around on the battlefield, nor on FPV drones trying to fly into moving tanks or other vehicles.
And how do you turn a drone away from an infrared beam of light that would damage the drones optics almost instantly? You’d have to spot the laser system from hundreds of yards away, recognize it’s aimed at your drone, and turn away before the laser is fired. And then what? Just avoid turning your drone back the way you want to go, hoping another strategically positioned laser you didn’t see doesnt fire from a different direction?
You’d need to know where the laser system is, yes. You could do that by having a first done get shot at to reveal the position so the others know where not to look.
Gps would still be effective against stationary targets, but gps jamming would probably be very effective.
A buck fifty a shot at the rate I pay is about 12
KwhkwH 😉 of power. That laser has got to be way up there in power.kWh
(I’m sorry, I have nitpicking issues.)
What a coincidence! I have picnicking issues.
I love you
Fixed
Oh you monster.
Wouldn’t that cut it’s communication though?
My coworker and I literally tried wrapping an access point in aluminum foil to replicate poor connectivity. It didn’t do shit. Even completely lined a cardboard box and put it inside with zero change.
Tinfoil won’t do shit.
https://blog.ibwave.com/a-closer-look-at-attenuation-across-materials-the-2-4ghz-5ghz-bands/
The link provided doesn’t say anything about tinfoil or aluminum foil…
I don’t think so? Radios don’t care is a laser is shining at them.
The tinfoil, not the laser
You could just stick the antenna through the foil. Antennas are just pieces of wire, which can also be made from shiny metal.
Oh okay, yeah you’d probably leave the top un-foiled for the radio
The tinfoil would stop it.
Yeah I’m no light expert but can’t they just make shilding and filters for this sort of attack vector?
Depends on the wavelength. Standard mirrors don’t always do mirror things at wavelengths far outside the visible spectrum.
Part of the advantages of UAVs is that you can deploy a lot of them cheaply with stuff you buy on eBay. While eBay does sell some of the more exotic mirrors for CO2 laser cutters (which are far-IR wavelengths), you couldn’t buy a lot of them to cover a single drone. It’d cut into the cost advantage, and would also weigh it down a lot.
My initial reaction was that it’s going to make drones more cost prohibited. Logistics of only deploying unshielded drones where there aren’t lasers will probably be a thing now too.
Even if they can, it will decrease the payload somewhat, and as the lasers get better the shielding will have to get stronger.
It’ll forever be a back and forth thing
Imagery supplied by the agency appears to show a weapon around the size of a shipping container with a laser mounted on top and what appears to be a radar or tracking device mounted on one side of the platform.
So, 30 million for the setup and deployment but 1.50 per drone. Plus it is huge and unweildy.
Gonna need a lot of drones to make that more cost effective than another drone with a stick or net, both of which have been effective in the defense of Ukraine.
lol
This is probably an early step towards a man portable setup so I’m just joking about the focus on the cost to fire.
Agreed, this is definitely first gen research.
Probably 2nd or 3rd gen, laser weapons have been in the works for decades.
There’s a rheinmetall video on YouTube, it’s a few years old already. Definitely not first gen research, and it’s good there’s competition already
Plus it is huge and unweildy.
The US already has a DEW unit that fits in a UTV (Side by Side) for shooting down smaller drones.
The US also has a more powerful palletized version that fits in the bed of a pickup truck.
The South Koreans are just a few years behind is all.
15 seconds later it crashed down
Why did it take so long?
The Journalist targeted a drone at long range and burned through the body. Make the drone closer and select a less beefy component such as a rotor arm and they go down quicker. BTW if you didn’t catch it in the article maximum effective range is well over 1 mile.
You also have to remember the US Military also isn’t going to allow a Journalist to publish the full capabilities of a fancy new future-tech weapon like this. Gotta leave some surprises in place!
Lmao Ukraine is about to become devoid of birds
Any radar sensitive enough to pick up drones is going to have an insane number of false positives
Modern radars can see way more than just size. You’re right that there should still be a human in the loop, though.
Good, now give some to Ukraine.
So would this potentially reset the battlefield and negate the disruptive changes drones had brought to it? Or does it just mean more drones and stronger drones?
Probably a cat and mouse game
I think it will just make drones more expensive as they put in systems to try and counter this tech.
Shotgun, camera, 2 servos and and an esp32 is all you need
Shotguns have a useful range of about 50 meters while these are short range, is that long enough?
You can fit a choke and longer barrel with higher caliber pellets to improve the range.
A little but the aerodynamits of shot will always be bad. A riifle will beat shot for range and accuracy. However for something moving that is close the in accuracy of shot improves your stastical odds of a hit.
Flechettes are an option but yeah, its imperfect.
Wait…
Are drones powered by kitties?
I hope this works how it sounds. The development of fighter planes, missiles and bombs, and drones has pretty grossly given an edge to invading militaries, able to quickly enter territory and do tremendous amounts of damage, especially to civilian life.
Being a bulky, heavy weapon with a reliance on a lot of electricity should hopefully encourage this for defensive use, and if it can keep all those flying invaders in check this could be a boon against war.
Being a bulky, heavy weapon with a reliance on a lot of electricity
The SK version is bulky and heavy because it’s their 1st Gen however other countries already have versions that are significantly smaller, lighter, and fully mobile.
Actually what im seeing from other countries are even larger and heavier technologies. I mean all of these can be mobilized as low speed ground vehicles, a far cry from the mobility and invasive potential of aircraft. Its the energy requirement thats the kicker, and the weight of batteries. Which is why we’re only seeing this technology being deployed as stationary anti air defense. Its a nice bonus that lasers have to travel in a straight line so we dont have to worry about long range trajectory attacks like with ICBM’s.
The only downside im seeing so far is surprisingly limited range hampering its ability to handle incoming supersonic targets.
Which is why we’re only seeing this technology being deployed as stationary anti air defense.
Someone should let the US Army know. 😎
The US also has a more powerful palletized version that fits in the bed of a pickup truck.
You realize all of these links are of anti-air defense
Fiber laser, ceramic disc laser, CO2 laser?
Should have watched this
I hope it works well
How much for a miss?
Well assuming one with explosives can take out a single person, they get a 10% accuracy (number pulled out of my ass), and a VSL (value of statistical life) of 1.5 million you get 150,000 USD.
Really throws off the cost function when the false negative penalty is a million times bigger.
