UK's DragonFire laser proves combat readiness with high-speed drone kills

[Aranarth]

Risk: If it was cheap then I'd agree with you but I suspect it would become a high value target in itself. The Russian's would just try and sabotage the building and claim it as a huge political victory over western technology.

Range: I believe the range is 1km so that protects an area of just over 3 square km (just over a square mile). That's fine for protecting a power station but not a city. The Gepard has a range of 5km so that protects an area of nearly 80 square km (about 30 square miles).

Counter measures: it can hit fast flying drones in a straight line but what happens if they're changing direction constantly? What happens if the drones have a mirrored surface. I suspect it needs more testing.

Cost: The laser is definitely cheaper at $10 a kill but as long as what you're firing is cheaper than the drone then it doesn't matter too much. It's also new tech so they'd probably need expensive British boffins to operate it while the Gepard is old tech and simpler to operate.

I do think it's great tech but I don't think it's ready to deploy just yet. Other alternatives might be a number of ground based Bofors 40 which might offer decent protection to a city but obviously I'm no expert.

so.. exactly how much thought did you put into your list?

Range was given as beyond the horizon so that would put it at 5 km+. (horizon is around 3 miles or 4.5km).

Countermeasures: I believe each shot is 500ms (1/2 a second) I doubt any long distance drone can move sideways that fast.

Mirrors?! lol how to say "I don't know how high power lasers work" without actually saying it.
A mirror would have to be PERFECT or very nearly so. as in 99.999% reflectivity and perfectly CLEAN. Any dirt will absorb the beam and heat up leading to failure.

 

[mbk34]

so.. exactly how much thought did you put into your list?

Range was given as beyond the horizon so that would put it at 5 km+. (horizon is around 3 miles or 4.5km).

About the time it takes to drink my coffee. It obviously can't fire beyond the horizon because light travels in straight lines. The range of my torch on a dark night is probably about 3 miles on a dark clear night but that doesn't mean it will bring down a drone. The effective range of this laser is likely to be close to whatever range they shot down the test drones but they don't give that. It's probably even less as they would use easy targets for the demo. It would be interesting to know how "robust" the drones were that were shot down and at what range they were hit. The problem with long range lasers is you need more power to make them effective at range and adding more power ionises the air which then blocks the laser.

Countermeasures: I believe each shot is 500ms (1/2 a second) I doubt any long distance drone can move sideways that fast.

The laser brings down the drone by burning a hole through it. It's a bit using a magnifying glass to burn through paper, you hold the beam on the paper for enough time and it burns through. If the target is moving at 650kmh then it moves 180m (yards) even in that 1/2 sec burst. If it's moving all over the place then it's obviously difficult to hold the laser on the target to burn that hole.

Mirrors?! lol how to say "I don't know how high power lasers work" without actually saying it.
A mirror would have to be PERFECT or very nearly so. as in 99.999% reflectivity and perfectly CLEAN. Any dirt will absorb the beam and heat up leading to failure.

It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to reduce the effect of the laser enough that it doesn't destroy the drone. So if the mirror is only 50% effective then presumably you've reduced the effect of the laser by 50%.

(As I said, I'm no expert but I can read between the lines)

 

[Farkinell]

"In the latest trials, the weapon successfully detected, tracked, engaged, and destroyed several drones flying beyond the horizon at 650 km per hour."

The problem is that anti-ship missiles fly at 750 m/s. What is this "Dragon" trying to shoot down? Homing pigeons?

Drones. It says it in the headline, then several times in the article. Then once in the sentence you've quoted. Did you not make it to the 10th word?

 

[bviktor]

Damn, that pic screams Red Alert 2.

Btw rip Udo Kier / Yuri

 

[Alex G]

About the time it takes to drink my coffee.

Solid - and helpful - response, thank you - was thinking along similar lines with my morning coffee.

£10/shot: realistic? 50kW over half a second is about 7Wh if my math is right, so the energy expense is negligible - yet operating this thing + radars, targeting, etc. - seems like way over £10/shot?

(Also appreciate not responding in kind to trolling and baiting - nice. I could totally bite that dude's head off over a comment like this...)

 

[jeffbert]

As I understand it, the thing is still under development.

 

[ThomasTECH]

Pretty Dope! One air strike succeeds it's done along with 100 million $$ though.

 

[Northy]

Now they just need to mount them on satellites Akira style.

 

[PurpaFur]

So many comments are talking about how it wouldn't be able to hit a fast moving target.

Let's assume a missile/drone is flying sideways at a distance of 3km from the laser, moving at Mach 4 (1360m/s).

The angular rate at which the turret would need to turn can be found by dividing the velocity by the distance: 1360m/s divided by 3000m = 0.453rad/s = 26 degrees/s

An average turret can rotate up to 35 degrees/s, so even an extremely fast missile could be locked on and tracked by the laser.

This is all assuming an extremely high speed missile, which isn't the primary design target for this weapon. Also, why would a missile/drone be flying sideways instead of directly at the turret, assuming the turret is mounted on a ship? Realistically, the required angular rate would rarely go above maybe 10 degrees/s.

 

[Axeia]

I was wondering whether we might send this to Ukraine for" testing" but I suspect Gepard and Sky Ranger 30 systems are simpler, more effective and have more range.

I have a weak spot for the Gepard. Something that old pulled out of retirement and being the most cost effective solution to down drones is pretty amazing.
Last time I calculated it (from publicly available numbers) it should be about $100-360 per kill, going by some interview with a Ukrainian crew operating them saying they need about 1-3 salvos to down a drone (think they got over a 100 and even some missiles).
Even if it's 10 times that it still puts pretty much everything else to shame.

Couldn't find numbers for the Skyranger, but presumably it will pretty much always result in a kill on the first shot offsetting its substantially higher ammo costs

Why the picture of the old decommissioned frigate? Just curious. No royalty free Type 45 Destroyer images?

I haven't kept up with Dragonfire, but perhaps it made for a suitable test platform (or it might be random picture of a ship )? There's only half a dozen of the Type 45, if it can be avoided they probably don't want to use them for the testing stage as they'd be sorely missed.

 

[Squid Surprise]

So many comments are talking about how it wouldn't be able to hit a fast moving target.

Also, why would a missile/drone be flying sideways instead of directly at the turret, assuming the turret is mounted on a ship? Realistically, the required angular rate would rarely go above maybe 10 degrees/s.

Just a thought… the drone would be flying “erratically” on purpose in order not to be shot down?

 

[mbk34]

So many comments are talking about how it wouldn't be able to hit a fast moving target.

Let's assume a missile/drone is flying sideways at a distance of 3km from the laser, moving at Mach 4 (1360m/s).

The angular rate at which the turret would need to turn can be found by dividing the velocity by the distance: 1360m/s divided by 3000m = 0.453rad/s = 26 degrees/s

An average turret can rotate up to 35 degrees/s, so even an extremely fast missile could be locked on and tracked by the laser.

This is all assuming an extremely high speed missile, which isn't the primary design target for this weapon. Also, why would a missile/drone be flying sideways instead of directly at the turret, assuming the turret is mounted on a ship? Realistically, the required angular rate would rarely go above maybe 10 degrees/s.

The problem is not being able to turn the turret fast enough, the problem is being able to keep the laser focused on a single point of a moving target for long enough that it actually does damage. If the target is steadily moving towards you then there's definitely a better chance that you could maintain a steady aim. If it's fliting about all over the place as it approaches it's target then all bets are off. If there's a swarm of drones coming in then it's even worse.

 

[JSabin]

What's it using for detection (target acquisition)? And, how does a device that shoots in a straight line strike an object "over the horizon," let alone one traveling at 650kph? And, since when could drones fly that fast? Many odd assertions made in this article. Maybe their all high on crack.

 

[Tantor]

More UK bs. Their tech lost so badly in Ukraine that they need something to reclaim a little self respect.

 

[NeoNeanderthal]

Drones. It says it in the headline, then several times in the article. Then once in the sentence you've quoted. Did you not make it to the 10th word?

Which ones exactly? Drones like the Shahed-136 are easily shot down by ancient Vulcan-Fananx. You don't need to build a power plant on a destroyer's deck to do that.
And rocket-propelled loitering munitions, even ones as old as the Israeli Delilah, have a speed of at least 1,000 km/h.

A laser air defense system is a unicorn. A great way to "utilize" any amount of money. The US was already playing this game during the Reagan era.

 

[PurpaFur]

Just a thought… the drone would be flying “erratically” on purpose in order not to be shot down?

The problem is not being able to turn the turret fast enough, the problem is being able to keep the laser focused on a single point of a moving target for long enough that it actually does damage. If the target is steadily moving towards you then there's definitely a better chance that you could maintain a steady aim. If it's fliting about all over the place as it approaches it's target then all bets are off. If there's a swarm of drones coming in then it's even worse.

There are products that track mosquitos with a laser turret and zap them. Tracking the target is not the hard part. It's a laser; it doesn't need to lead the target like a projectile weapon would. It can just aim right at it.

 

[Squid Surprise]

There are products that track mosquitos with a laser turret and zap them. Tracking the target is not the hard part. It's a laser; it doesn't need to lead the target like a projectile weapon would. It can just aim right at it.

The mosquito is maybe a foot away…. The drone is a few kilometers away… and harder to lock on to a target if the target is moving erratically…

 

[mbk34]

There are products that track mosquitos with a laser turret and zap them. Tracking the target is not the hard part. It's a laser; it doesn't need to lead the target like a projectile weapon would. It can just aim right at it.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point. As Squid surprise says, a nearby mosquito is huge compared to a drone a mile away. You also only have to touch a mosquito with a laser to kill it, with a drone you have to maintain the beam on a single point to damage the drone. Keep in mind the drone is a km away and will have moved 180 meters in the 1/2 second the pulse lasts. Finally, the product you're referring to is just a prototype and will probably blind you if you get up for a pee in the middle of the night.

 

[PurpaFur]

The mosquito is maybe a foot away…. The drone is a few kilometers away… and harder to lock on to a target if the target is moving erratically…

I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point. As Squid surprise says, a nearby mosquito is huge compared to a drone a mile away. You also only have to touch a mosquito with a laser to kill it, with a drone you have to maintain the beam on a single point to damage the drone. Keep in mind the drone is a km away and will have moved 180 meters in the 1/2 second the pulse lasts. Finally, the product you're referring to is just a prototype and will probably blind you if you get up for a pee in the middle of the night.

Regarding the size, a 5ft diameter drone at 1km subtends about 315 arcseconds (measure of the observed size at that distance), while an average 7mm mosquito at 15 feet subtends the same 315 arcseconds.

If a commercial product can knock out mosquitos up to 20 feet like the Photon Matrix (currently being crowdfunded; working prototypes) or Photonic Fence (admittedly not a completed product, but in theory works up to 100ft) then I think it is quite reasonable that the UK military would be able to make a system capable of the same.

It's worth mentioning that the size of the laser beam itself is not mentioned. The ability to hit a coin from a great distance doesn't mean the beam is as small or smaller than the coin. It could be a beam with a 1ft width at 1km range, in which case precision wouldn't have to be quite as high anyways.

Also, no drone can move erratically enough that the LIDAR ranging and targeting system can't keep up. LIDAR uses laser ranging, which moves at the speed of light. Because it is light. And the data is processed by high-speed microcontrollers. Even a consumer-grade CPU can have a 3.5ghz speed (3.5 BILLION cycles per second).

At 1km range, the LIDAR ranging system obtains the drone's velocity, position, and direction in 6.67 microseconds, and processes that data in a super fast onboard computer to make almost instant calculations to move a small internal aiming motor in the turret to fine-tune the aim.

Even a drone making unexpected turns and changes to velocity has to follow physics. It still has to change direction gradually (might be fast, but not instant) and that speed is limited by aerodynamics and inertia. Much slower than light. The laser will have NO issue keeping track of the drone. Additionally, the laser can track the drone WHILE it fires. It's not like it has to hold still while the half second shot is fired; it can just keep moving with the drone.

 

[mbk34]

Regarding the size, a 5ft diameter drone at 1km subtends about 315 arcseconds (measure of the observed size at that distance), while an average 7mm mosquito at 15 feet subtends the same 315 arcseconds.

Interesting mix of units! I can't say I'm any better off.

If a commercial product can knock out mosquitos up to 20 feet like the Photon Matrix (currently being crowdfunded; working prototypes) or Photonic Fence (admittedly not a completed product, but in theory works up to 100ft) ...

Then it's not a commercial product, it's a prototype at best.

It's worth mentioning that the size of the laser beam itself is not mentioned. The ability to hit a coin from a great distance doesn't mean the beam is as small or smaller than the coin. It could be a beam with a 1ft width at 1km range, in which case precision wouldn't have to be quite as high anyways.

If the beam is that wide it's not a military laser, it's a heat lamp.

Also, no drone can move erratically enough that the LIDAR ranging and targeting system can't keep up. LIDAR uses laser ranging, which moves at the speed of light. Because it is light. And the data is processed by high-speed microcontrollers. Even a consumer-grade CPU can have a 3.5ghz speed (3.5 BILLION cycles per second).

At 1km range, the LIDAR ranging system obtains the drone's velocity, position, and direction in 6.67 microseconds, and processes that data in a super fast onboard computer to make almost instant calculations to move a small internal aiming motor in the turret to fine-tune the aim.

Even a drone making unexpected turns and changes to velocity has to follow physics. It still has to change direction gradually (might be fast, but not instant) and that speed is limited by aerodynamics and inertia. Much slower than light. The laser will have NO issue keeping track of the drone. Additionally, the laser can track the drone WHILE it fires. It's not like it has to hold still while the half second shot is fired; it can just keep moving with the drone.

What's the weather like on your planet?

 

[mbk34]

More UK bs. Their tech lost so badly in Ukraine that they need something to reclaim a little self respect.

Precisely which tech are you talking about? A lot of old stock was initially sent to Ukraine just to keep them in the fight. The Challenger 2 tank is vulnerable to drones but then so are all tanks. Missiles like the NLAW and Stormshadow have been very effective however.

Some inventions work well and some fall by the wayside. During WWII the British developed the world's first programmable computer - used to break Enigma codes. We invented radar - used to spot aircraft or to target naval guns allowing them to sink enemy ships even at night. Later improved with the cavity magnetron which is mostly used in microwave cookers now. Huff-duff which allowed pinpointing of German submarines in the Atlantic. This together with the (British) antisubmarine hedgehog weapon put an end to the "U-Boat menace". I believe Liberty ships were also invented by the British. The bouncing bomb, which I'll admit looks silly, wiped out the German Ruhr valley Industrial area by destroying dams. The proximity fuse which made a huge difference when shooting down enemy planes. The Dowding system wasn't strictly an invention but a process which allowed information to be processed and passed quickly to fighters - it would of been useful to the US as radar actually spotted the Pearl Harbour attack in advance but the information was simply ignored. Penicillin was also a British invention created during WWII which has saved approximately 500m lives.

The main thing though is that the UK is firmly supporting Ukraine. We certainly don't invite their president over just to criticise his dress sense. Nor do we appear to ask the Russians to draw up a peace plan for us and then pretend it's our own. Nor do we only offer our support in exchange for bribes. Nor do we conveniently ignore agreements already made that say we'll support Ukrainian over territory disputes which were agreed upon when Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons (Budapest Memorandum).

 

[PurpaFur]

Interesting mix of units! I can't say I'm any better off.

Then it's not a commercial product, it's a prototype at best.

If the beam is that wide it's not a military laser, it's a heat lamp.

What's the weather like on your planet?

Yea I'm American; I can't be bothered to use the same units, sorry.
"Commercial product" is poor choice of words, you're right. The point I was trying to make still stands; a private company can develop that, so why not a top military?
If the beam is a foot wide at a kilometer, (I know, mixed measurement systems, I don't care) and can still take down a drone, I'd say it's working perfectly fine. Of course, that's all speculation and a totally moot discussion since neither of us have any basis for either argument.

As for my weather, it's quite balmy here on Earth. If you're gonna take a jab, aim at something. You quoted so much of my comment that I have no way of knowing what you disagree with. I stated measurements, calculations, and facts. What did I get wrong?

 

[mbk34]

Yea I'm American; I can't be bothered to use the same units, sorry.
"Commercial product" is poor choice of words, you're right. The point I was trying to make still stands; a private company can develop that, so why not a top military?
If the beam is a foot wide at a kilometer, (I know, mixed measurement systems, I don't care) and can still take down a drone, I'd say it's working perfectly fine. Of course, that's all speculation and a totally moot discussion since neither of us have any basis for either argument.

As for my weather, it's quite balmy here on Earth. If you're gonna take a jab, aim at something. You quoted so much of my comment that I have no way of knowing what you disagree with. I stated measurements, calculations, and facts. What did I get wrong?

I'm going to make this my last reply on this as I feel I'm flogging a dead horse here.

Military laser beams will never be a foot in diameter as they work by burning through the outer casing of a drone and then destroying the internals. To do this they focus their power onto a small 1cm wide circle (or smaller). If you want the same power to be applied to a 1 foot wide circle then you'd need 2000x the power. That isn't going to happen.

The processing power of computers may be able to keep up but the physical mechanism required to keep the laser focused on the same point on a drone at 1km distance, especially one that's trying to evade being hit, is just not not there. As the defender you'd have the choice of either applying 2000x more power to obtain your 1 foot wide beam or you'd need to maintain the beam of a normal laser on the same point on an object that can cover 180 meters every half second. It's too difficult.

It's much easier, more proven and more reliable to use a Gepard to bring the drone down or something like the Bofors 40 with 3P ammunition. These weapons also don't require a steady high power electricity supply - this is an issue in a city where the power supply is continually being targeted.

 

[Gastec]

"In the latest trials, the weapon successfully detected, tracked, engaged, and destroyed several drones flying beyond the horizon at 650 km per hour."

The problem is that anti-ship missiles fly at 750 m/s. What is this "Dragon" trying to shoot down? Homing pigeons?

Are you expecting a missile moving at 750 m/s to ever hit a moving target in our reality?

 

[PurpaFur]

I'm going to make this my last reply on this as I feel I'm flogging a dead horse here.

Military laser beams will never be a foot in diameter as they work by burning through the outer casing of a drone and then destroying the internals. To do this they focus their power onto a small 1cm wide circle (or smaller). If you want the same power to be applied to a 1 foot wide circle then you'd need 2000x the power. That isn't going to happen.

The processing power of computers may be able to keep up but the physical mechanism required to keep the laser focused on the same point on a drone at 1km distance, especially one that's trying to evade being hit, is just not not there. As the defender you'd have the choice of either applying 2000x more power to obtain your 1 foot wide beam or you'd need to maintain the beam of a normal laser on the same point on an object that can cover 180 meters every half second. It's too difficult.

It's much easier, more proven and more reliable to use a Gepard to bring the drone down or something like the Bofors 40 with 3P ammunition. These weapons also don't require a steady high power electricity supply - this is an issue in a city where the power supply is continually being targeted.

As I said, the size of the beam is a moot argument since we don't have any official information. Assuming the beam has to be tiny, the aiming issue can easily be solved with small, fast adjustments to either the laser diode or even an aiming mirror.

If it wasn't possible, why did it already work in testing?
I don't understand your skepticism when the Dragonfire laser has already proven combat readiness with real-world tests. It works. The end.