Ukraine is testing an AI-guided laser weapon that can destroy drones in seconds

[Skye Jacobs]

First look: Ukraine is testing an air defense system that relies on directed energy and software rather than traditional munitions. A laser platform called Tryzub, developed by Ukrainian firm Celebra Tech, is now in the final stages of testing, with recent footage showing it in operation.

The system is mounted on a trailer and pairs a high-energy laser with AI-assisted targeting. In one clip, the laser burns through armor in a few seconds. In another, it tracks a drone mid-flight, holds steady, and disables it, sending it down within moments. The footage is brief, but it suggests a system designed to do more than just hit static targets.

Tryzub has reportedly been in development since at least 2024 and is now approaching the end of its testing cycle. Celebra Tech says the platform can "burn holes in Shaheds from 5km away," targeting the larger, slower drones widely used in the war. Those drones are easier to track than smaller ones but still require sustained precision to disable.

Range drops off as targets get smaller and faster. Reconnaissance drones can be engaged at about 1,500 meters, while FPV drones – harder to track and more maneuverable – need to be within roughly 800 to 900 meters. This reflects a basic limitation of laser systems: maintaining sufficient energy on a distant target becomes more difficult.

A key part of the system is its use of automation. Tryzub relies on AI to identify, track, and stay locked onto moving targets. That tracking capability is critical. A laser must remain fixed on a drone for several seconds, which is difficult to do manually against a fast-moving target.

The system also incorporates radar for target detection. Details are limited, but radar and the laser appear to work together, with radar detecting targets before the laser engages them at closer range.

Reports indicate that Tryzub isn't limited to physically destroying drones. It may be able to interfere with FPV drone cameras, effectively blinding them before they reach their target. This adds a non-kinetic capability alongside its ability to physically disable drones.

The system could also be used outside of combat. Directed energy systems like this can, in theory, be used for demining, where precision matters and physical contact is risky. That may become more relevant over time, depending on how the conflict evolves.

Tryzub is still being tested, and there's no clear timeline for when it might enter active service. Celebra Tech has said the system will be ready for mass production once trials are complete.

Permalink to story:

Ukraine is testing an AI-guided laser weapon that can destroy drones in seconds

 

[Megalomaniac]

We got the jet age, rocket age and ultimately the space age out of WW2.

Ukraine vs. Russia - all we get is "how to shoot down paper airplanes".

 

[noel24]

We got the jet age, rocket age and ultimately the space age out of WW2.

Ukraine vs. Russia - all we get is "how to shoot down paper airplanes".

Call It cost optimization. Like in every industry in the last few decades. Besides - LASERS!!!

 

[gamerk2]

We got the jet age, rocket age and ultimately the space age out of WW2.

Ukraine vs. Russia - all we get is "how to shoot down paper airplanes".

If paper airplanes could carry a general purpose 500 pound bomb, I guarantee you they would be a multi-billion dollar industry.

But the point is, you can build tens of thousands of cheap, disposable drones for the cost of one fighter aircraft putting two bombs on target during one sortie. From a cost perspective, it's an absolute no brainer over using fighter aircraft to deliver bombs.

 

[Vanderlinde]

This war is continued because of the interests of the weapon industry. They can deploy, test at the expense of other human lives and massive profits, stuff like this. Nobody wants to actually, solve the war. That millions died by now nobody cares.

 

[gamerk2]

This war is continued because of the interests of the weapon industry. They can deploy, test at the expense of other human lives and massive profits, stuff like this. Nobody wants to actually, solve the war. That millions died by now nobody cares.

There's any easy way to solve the war: Russia withdraws from Ukraine in full. It's entirely on Russia at this point, since they have zero capacity to win.

 

[Megalomaniac]

There's any easy way to solve the war: Russia withdraws from Ukraine in full. It's entirely on Russia at this point, since they have zero capacity to win.

Or...Ukraine surrenders to Russia. Russia has already taken 20% of Ukraine.
America may be willing to fight till the last Ukrainian but Russia has already proved that it can't be beaten. Proved it to the Nazis first. Now proving it again. The only people who think Russia is losing are drowning in American propaganda.

"As of 2024, Russia occupies almost 20% of Ukraine and about 3 to 3.5 million Ukrainians are estimated to be living under occupation; since the invasion, the occupied territories lost roughly half of their population. "

 

[Megalomaniac]

Russia understands -like any Good Chess player - that it doesn't necessarily need to "Checkmate" the opponent.

It is possible to simply stay afloat and run the opponent's clock out.

Obama's clock ran out.
Biden's clock ran out.
Trump's clock is running out.
Putin is sitting there watching US presidents come and go.

Same goes for Iran.

These people are dealing with a time scale completely different than America is. They've been around way longer and they will probably be around way longer (thanks to their cultures ).

America can't handle much more than blitzkrieg air assaults. Ground invasions are not our strong suit.

Drone warfare is the answer to that. Can't have an air base that can get decimated by cheap drones can ya?

In fact: China, Iran and Russia have proven that to beat America all you need is time and cheap weapons.

 

[Che Cazzo]

If paper airplanes could carry a general purpose 500 pound bomb, I guarantee you they would be a multi-billion dollar industry.

But the point is, you can build tens of thousands of cheap, disposable drones for the cost of one fighter aircraft putting two bombs on target during one sortie. From a cost perspective, it's an absolute no brainer over using fighter aircraft to deliver bombs.

I keep reading about this great idea where drones are made from cardboard (Japan) or paper (right here!)

Serious question:
First thing that jumps to mind is....are they water proof?? And what happens if it was rainy / quite wet on it's 100+ mile (or 1000)+ journey??

Or are they meant to be used in fair weather only??

 

[Billyjoebob007]

If paper airplanes could carry a general purpose 500 pound bomb, I guarantee you they would be a multi-billion dollar industry.

But the point is, you can build tens of thousands of cheap, disposable drones for the cost of one fighter aircraft putting two bombs on target during one sortie. From a cost perspective, it's an absolute no brainer over using fighter aircraft to deliver bombs.

Japan is deploying ultra-low-cost cardboard drones developed by the startup AirKamuy, specifically the AirKamuy 150, which costs approximately $2,000 to $2,500 per unit. These fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles are constructed from corrugated cardboard with a water-resistant coating, allowing them to be assembled in five to ten minutes without specialized tools and shipped flat-packed, with 500 units fitting in a single standard container, The drones achieve a top speed of 120 km/h (74 mph) with an 80-minute flight endurance and a 150 km range, carrying payloads of up to 1.5 to 3 kg.

 

[TooQik]

I keep reading about this great idea where drones are made from cardboard (Japan) or paper (right here!)

Serious question:
First thing that jumps to mind is....are they water proof?? And what happens if it was rainy / quite wet on it's 100+ mile (or 1000)+ journey??

Or are they meant to be used in fair weather only??

They use waxed cardboard to protect them from the weather.

 

[p51d007]

They use waxed cardboard to protect them from the weather.

Very common. In WW2, with the "metal" shortages, they made 110 gallon paper drop tanks that
were waterproofed. Cheap to make.

 

[gamerk2]

I keep reading about this great idea where drones are made from cardboard (Japan) or paper (right here!)

Serious question:
First thing that jumps to mind is....are they water proof?? And what happens if it was rainy / quite wet on it's 100+ mile (or 1000)+ journey??

Or are they meant to be used in fair weather only??

Counter-point: We can't use the much more expensive F35 when it rains because it ruins its stealth coating.

Also, look up the De Havilland Mosquito.

 

[gamerk2]

Or...Ukraine surrenders to Russia. Russia has already taken 20% of Ukraine.
America may be willing to fight till the last Ukrainian but Russia has already proved that it can't be beaten. Proved it to the Nazis first. Now proving it again. The only people who think Russia is losing are drowning in American propaganda.

"As of 2024, Russia occupies almost 20% of Ukraine and about 3 to 3.5 million Ukrainians are estimated to be living under occupation; since the invasion, the occupied territories lost roughly half of their population. "

Uh, no.

Here are the actual facts:

1: Russia's tank forces are basically in ruins. About 50% of their pre-war stock is confirmed destroyed via photographic evidence, and the real numbers are probably closer to 70%. They simply don't have the reserves to do any form of armored offensive along anything more then a *very* narrow front.

2: Ukraine is deploying about 30% more drones then Russia, and the gap is widening. Ukraine has also shown it can hit literally anywhere in Russia with impunity, and is currently hitting most of Russia's oil production/export facilities to ratchet up the economic pain.

3: Russia's economy is slowing down, as confirmed publicly by Putin literally yesterday. His regime has been pointing to the high wartime GDP to proclaim all is well, but even that slowing down as Russia's exports are falling off a cliff. Oh, and Russia's reserves of cash can only sustain the war another few months before needing to resort to more extreme measures (higher taxes are being openly considered).

4: Russia is currently starting to lack for manpower. They're more and more reliant on prisoners and foreign mercenaries, which tend to break on first contact with the enemy.

5: Most importantly: Russia has basically made no meaningful progress in over two years.

The most likely outcome at this point is Ukraine outlasting Putin. Russia simply does not have the military capacity to defeat Ukraine at this point. All Ukraine has to do is "not lose".

It's telling that Putin is the one proclaiming the end of the war is near, since he *desperately* needs to get out of it given the rising discontent at home (both from the population at large, and more importantly, within his inner circle). But the ancient saying holds: "The victor is not victorious unless the defeated says it is so.".

 

[Endymio]

1: Russia's tank forces are basically in ruins. About 50% of their pre-war stock is confirmed destroyed via photographic evidence

Tanks are useless in modern warfare, which is why Ukraine isn't even using the M1 Abrams we sent them. (remember when they were going to "change the tide of the war overnight"?) Russia's air force and navy are nearly untouched, and their army is 30% larger today than when the war began.

... They simply don't have the reserves to do any form of armored offensive along anything more then a *very* narrow front.

And yet Russia is maintaining an offensive across the entire length of Ukraine. According to the BBC:

"...In 2025, Russian forces gained approximately 4,700 to 5,600 square kilometers (\(1,800\)–\(2,160\) square miles) of territory in Ukraine, marking the largest annual increase since the initial 2022 invasion...."

Russia is currently starting to lack for manpower ... They're more and more reliant on prisoners and foreign mercenaries

This is far more true of Ukraine. Nearly 25% of Ukraine's forces are foreign mercenaries, whereas even when the DPRK contingent was present in Russia, the total never topped 1.5%. And Russia has yet to issue a general mobilization, like Ukraine did Day 1: if they did, they could (as Ukraine did) more than double their army nearly overnight.

Russia's economy is slowing down, as confirmed publicly by Putin

Four years ago, you were claiming that sanctions would "collapse the Russian economy". Now you're reduced to saying it's just going to grow more slowly. And in fact, in two of those four years, Russia saw faster GDP growth than did the US (thx: Joe).

5: Most importantly: Russia has basically made no meaningful progress in over two years.

You mean, except for achieving all their pre-war objectives: control of Donetsk, Luhansk, the land bridge to Crimea, and --- most of all -- keeping Ukraine out of NATO.

 

[gamerk2]

Tanks are useless in modern warfare, which is why Ukraine isn't even using the M1 Abrams we sent them. (remember when they were going to "change the tide of the war overnight"?) Russia's air force and navy are nearly untouched, and their army is 30% larger today than when the war began.

The US "insisted" Ukraine follow US armored doctrine, which resulted in the majority of the M1s being knocked out basically immediately. Ukraine reverted to defense in depth, where the Abrams have been successful as mobile gun platforms.

The problem was more US armored doctrine, rather then the tanks themselves.

And yet Russia is maintaining an offensive across the entire length of Ukraine. According to the BBC:

"...In 2025, Russian forces gained approximately 4,700 to 5,600 square kilometers (\(1,800\)–\(2,160\) square miles) of territory in Ukraine, marking the largest annual increase since the initial 2022 invasion...."

Ukraine didn't lose any major strategic objectives, and traded upwards of 20:1 in exchange for basically empty land.

Anyone who thinks holding land leads to winning wars doesn't understand modern warfare. Even then, at the rate of Russia's expansion, they'll reach Kiev again somewhere in the 60's.

If that's winning, I hate to see what loosing looks like.

This is far more true of Ukraine. Nearly 25% of Ukraine's forces are foreign mercenaries, whereas even when the DPRK contingent was present in Russia, the total never topped 1.5%. And Russia has yet to issue a general mobilization, like Ukraine did Day 1: if they did, they could (as Ukraine did) more than double their army nearly overnight.

Except Putin "really" doesn't want to do that, given the general discontent. While polling in Russia is spotty at best, recent independent polls shows disapproval upwards of 60%, and you *never* see that.

Four years ago, you were claiming that sanctions would "collapse the Russian economy". Now you're reduced to saying it's just going to grow more slowly. And in fact, in two of those four years, Russia saw faster GDP growth than did the US (thx: Joe).

While inflation went up and Russia's debt soared. That's what wartime economies do. Except now GDP is dropping (2.1% in Q1 by Putins admissions), while inflation and debt are spiraling.

You mean, except for achieving all their pre-war objectives: control of Donetsk, Luhansk, the land bridge to Crimea, and --- most of all -- keeping Ukraine out of NATO.

Revisionist history. Their stated pre-war objective was to "protect native Russians living in Ukraine" and "remove the Fascist leadership" And lets be clear, Russia doesn't control all of Donetsk yet (and Ukraine is regaining territory), the bridge linking to Crimea to Russia is in ruins, and the only reason Ukraine isn't in NATO at this point is Trump, and he isn't going to be around eventually.

The endgame is the same as it was the day Russia failed to take Kiev outright: Ukraine outlasts Putin.

 

[Endymio]

The US "insisted" Ukraine follow US armored doctrine, which resulted in the majority of the M1s being knocked out basically immediately. Ukraine reverted to defense in depth, where the Abrams have been successful as mobile gun platforms.

Successful? Of the 31 original tanks we sent, 27 were destroyed by mid 2025, with only four remaining. Australia just sent another contingent; it's doubtful these fare any better.

Ukraine didn't lose any major strategic objectives, and traded upwards of 20:1

Ukraine didn't win any major -- or minor -- strategic objectives either. And Ukraine's absurd low casualty count propaganda is roundly debunked. Not that it's relevant. Russia's losses haven't kept them from expanding the size of their army dramatically, and Ukraine's manpower shortages are far worse than Russia's. You can literally find hundreds of Youtube videos of Ukrainian TCC officers kidnapping men off the streets to fill their ranks.

Anyone who thinks holding land leads to winning wars doesn't understand modern warfare.

Winning objectives is what wins war.

Even then, at the rate of Russia's expansion, they'll reach Kiev again somewhere in the 60's.

Why would they want to "reach Kiev"? Their Blitzkrieg strike at the start of the war was simply to topple the seat of government and cause a swift end: the same tactic the US has used in ever major offensive since WW2. And in fact, during the failed 2022 peace talks, Russia agreed to withdraw fully (even surrendering the Donbass) in exchange for nothing more than Ukraine remaining out of NATO. Joe Biden told them to keep fighting instead ... and now even Ukraine admits that regaining Donbass is a lost cause.

While inflation went up and Russia's debt soared.

You mean like US inflation went up and US debt soared under Joe Biden?

Revisionist history. Their stated pre-war objective was to "protect native Russians living in Ukraine" and "remove the Fascist leadership" And lets be clear, Russia doesn't control all of Donetsk yet (and Ukraine is regaining territory),

The ISW war maps call that a lie .. as does every major Western intelligence service. Ukraine takes an inch for a few days, sometimes a few weeks, but in every month of every year since 2023, Russia has gained ground.

the bridge linking to Crimea to Russia is in ruins,

You failed to read properly. I was referring to the land bridge to Crimea. And anyway, the Kerch Bridge is still active and in daily use (though admittedly weakened enough by Ukrainian strikes that Russia rarely moves heavy military material across it.

....and the only reason Ukraine isn't in NATO at this point is Trump

Oops! The NATO charter doesn't allow nations to join while in active warfare. And if Europe attempted to revise that charter, it would mean the use of tactical nukes by Russia in Ukraine.