Thread 64099634

Laser power/cost ratios are going exponential. Lasers will make ground forces relevant again. MW1 lasers will RETVRN CKEM and direct fire combat to war.

>>64099634 (OP)
It looks like lasers will become roughly 100 times cheaper per watt by 2045. So theoretically, spending $1 billion on laser defenses (with radar already available) would shield any site from attacks of 700-1300 warheads.

>>64099648
>For example, Taiwan could render its six largest cities nearly immune to a 100-warhead strike over the course of 5 years, using 6 x ($100 million lasers + $500 million radars) / ($16.5 billion x 5 years) = 4.4% of their military budget. Japan could do it for 1.3%, Australia for 2.1%. Then, in 1.5 further years of similar spending but without purchasing new radars, they would decuple the effectiveness of their laser shields to 1000 warheads.
https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2025/05/the-laser-revolution-part-ii-ground-sea.html

>>64099648
That's assuming that nobody adopts anti-laser countermeasures to protect missiles, which would be easy enough to do if the need arose. A layer of ablative ceramics around the missile would do the job. Sure, you'd have to lighten the payload in proportion to the amount of protection, but you could easily create a low-payload missile that was invulnerable to laser fire that was specifically designed to strike the laser turrets themselves, then send a second wave of missiles with the full payload to hit the actual target.

I feel like lasers could enormously reduce the effectiveness of infantry, because just dragging a 1kW laser over the eyes of the enemy will permanently blind them for life.

>>64100059
We can give infantry cool sunglasses, and turn them into foil, in case laser guns try to split them.

Im an optical engineer working on some of the US prototype laser defense systems. If you guys have actual questions about this tech, Ill have answers.

For starters, there are multiple projects going on for different engagement types: a DE-Shorad system of ~50kW to counter drones, rockets, and mortars. The second is HELSI-II, a 1MW class system designed for missle defense

>>64099634 (OP)
Yes, laser AA will suppress drones. But they're still vulnerable to sneaky drones and treefrog drones that call in artillery.

>>64100059
Unironically an actual war crime protocol IV ratified by the UN in 1995

>>64100084
Can your lasers burn steel rocket in a flight?

>>64100059
Blinding lasers have already been an option for decades, but nobody uses them because they're basically like what gas was in WWI. The first few times anyone used blinding lasers would be devastating, but it's a weapon that could be hard-countered by protective gear, and in the long run would just lower the overall quality of life of the infantry on both sides while only producing occasional incidental casualties among a careless few.

>>64100091
Depends on distance and atmospheric. On a stationary target, we typically see 100kW laser can burn through about 1" of steel in a few milliseconds, depending on various factors, like focal spot. The plan is to scale power to push out distance

>>64100059
This is why augmented reality, despite its teething issues, is important. In the future I expect infantry (whatever infantry is left on the battlefield anyway) to be running opaque visors with exterior optical/IR sensors. Losing a few of many cheap and replaceable cameras to a stray laser is better than losing both irreplaceable eyes, plus you get an advantage in FOV and actual ballistic protection for the eyes and face.

>>64100046
Sure, but now you're having to make weight, payload, and/or range concessions to laser countermeasures, with the additional concern of electronic-, missile-, and gun-based defenses that need their own countermeasures as well. Missile defense, particularly at the strategic level, isn't just about destroying your opponents' missiles to prevent them from damaging you, it's about forcing them to allocate the maximum number of attacks at the minimum amount of targets.

>>64099634 (OP)
these niggers will continue to invest billions in the laser meme because it will be effective in fortress cities where they can actually power and have time to set up the damn things. Additionally, lasers will prove to be even less useful for anti-drone work in the future, as not only will mobile lasers run out of battery before the enemy runs out of drones, but the russians will tape cheap handmirror glass from china to their drones, which will simply reflect much of the laser's energy, allowing the drone to stay in flight until it reaches target. Atmospheric conditions, power supply and glass will remove laser meme from this world.

>>64100046
>copium extra strength
Graphite up-armored nuclear RVs moving at hypersonic speeds inside a plasma sheathe are already factored into this math nigger. It wouldn't be a revolution if cope mirrors could stop it.

>>64100104
How long does a 100kw laser typically last? months? years?

>>64100288
Sorry that was a stupid question, i mean like assuming it burns a few hours over a 3 month period do these things need extensive periodic maintenance?

>>64100218
>as not only will mobile lasers run out of battery before the enemy runs out of drones
Vehicle mounted lasers are powered by the engine. Whatever batteries and capacitors they might need can be charged in the field, or even during use. And no, laser-equipped forces will not run out of oil, gas, and nuclear power generation before the drone force runs out of drones that are like two orders of magnitude more expensive than the energy required to destroy them.
>but the russians will tape cheap handmirror glass from china to their drones, which will simply reflect much of the laser's energy, allowing the drone to stay in flight until it reaches target.
Nigger do you fucking think that all lasers and DEWs are visible spectrum continuous beam lasers

>>64100299
I'm pretty sure it's all solid state machinery that doesn't need any real maintenance. Like how computers can run for years maybe even decades and still be ok

>>64100318
>vehicle mounted lasers are powered by the engine
I foresee this causing no heating issues or failure of both weapon and vehicle when batteries run out or a fuse blows.
And batteries WILL run out, you will not be receiving nuclear power except in the navy, as mobile nuclear batteries destroy the petro-dollar, so oil and gas for you. Lockheed Martin has portable nuclear energy capable of powering a city from the back of a truck, but you don't get that technology until after WW3 (when everyone is dead). Also, yes, the cost in cents for shooting a drone is very low, but the cost in power is quite high, and has to be in order to do any damage, that's how energy works. You don't get free lasers unless it's from a nuclear battery. Also I don't see why glass won't at least add extra time-to-kill to each drone, as you then have to heat through glass in order to attack the drone's frame, even if you don't reflect a lot of the energy. This plus weather and flying high == mobile lasers being big useless. Only nuclear powered lasers like what will be installed in fortress cities or boats will do its job, and even then in the future there will be massive debate over whether that legitimizes nuclear power plants as military targets, and if the power plant is gone suddenly you don't have lasers.

All this is not to say that drones are untouchable for cheap hard-kill, it's just you have to cope with the fact that bullets will always be king in that category.

Isnt it bad to emit frequencies on the battlefield?

Shit, we’re gonna get the Black Ops 3 timeline.

>>64099648
This will either make air combat cool again due to on-aircraft CIWS being able to destroy long range missiles (or requiring armored missiles which would be necessarily slower and less manueverable), or ruin it forever thanks to laser SPAA making even approaching the frontlines in an aircraft impossible.

>>64100088
Who gives a shit what the UN says? Did we ratify that protocol? The only rules that exist are the ones America abides by

>>64100046
Yeah but now you're putting AFV-grade protection on what was meant to be a single-use munition which dramatically ups the price of your counter-beam warheads.

>>64100904
yeah
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-protocol-iv

>live in the era where energy base weapon systems will get to see widespread use
Noice. Next step, miniaturized the tech so man portable lasguns become a thing.

>>64100299
Optical engineer here, was taking a shit.

Most fiber lasers nowadays need to have multiple channels into a system, anywhere from 500W to 3kW per channel. Typically, a system with 100 channels might lose 2-5 channels per year during frequent, though not heavy, use.

Often, the channel can be swapped out. There are components that can cause an entire system to be brought down for months at a time, but the systems Ive worked on havent seen these critical failures, just single channel failures.

For more information, google HELSI-II program, or check out coherent beam combining or spectral beam combing for the latest and greatest systems

>>64100550
These systems typically use SWIR, doesnt interefere with coms or other shit

>>64100523
You can easily mount a 500 horsepower (370 kW) engine in the back of a Stryker, supplementing it with its regular engine gives you in excess of 500 kW to power your electrical systems, say rounding down to 500 kW since electric generators are 85%~ ish efficient

Diode lasers are 50%-70% efficient, depending on the model and operating temperature, that gives you 250 kW - 350 kW of laser "muzzle power" mounted on a pretty regular sized vehicle

>>64099634 (OP)
>ground forces relevant again
Ground forces were never irrelevant, simply more vulnerable. This is no different from, say, during the Revolutionary war when American sharpshooters sniped British officers off horseback. Military tactics will evolve, ground forces will never ever be irrelevant.

>>64100523
We're not talking GWs here. 1MW or less. A tank engine generates more than that (albeit in shaft horsepower, so drop 15-20% for conversion).

A 50KW laser should be reasonably effective against FPV drones and the like. A 150KW laser would be more appropriate against thin-skinned, subsonic targets. 300-500KW should be good against larger or supersonic targets, including tactical ballistic missiles. 1MW output would be approaching that of the YAL-1. Those are the scales that we're talking about here. The hard part isn't generating a few hundred to a few thousand KW, it's getting the engineering of the laser system right, especially the cooling; all that power that went into the system and didn't make it into the beam becomes waste heat that has to be sinked and then removed from the installation.

>>64101582
Another issue is that you can't really run that off the main engine, unless you're willing (and, just as importantly, able) to replace the power pack every three days. A hypothetical twincharged 12-cylinder deltic engine running as a pure generator (in a dieselec config) would be compact and powerful enough for even a 500 kW class laser (assuming the vehicle isn't an actual tank, but a lighter AFV), but you're going to be swapping them out on the reg (and having to carry them back to a shop for rebuild).

>>64101615
Hybrid transmission.
Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeekr_9X
It's power plant can easily support 150 kW laser (assuming 500 kW electric input).
70 kWh battery is 8 minute of fire, and to charge 1 minute of fire into battery it needs about 4 minute if engine run. So in all practical situations it will not run out of power.
And that SUV from factor able to power 150 kW tactical laser.
Power generation and transformation developed immensely for laser decades. Supplying 500 kW - 3000 kW for several minutes of electric power from vehicle is not a problem with hybrid drivetrain.

>>64101768
Also here
https://aerospace.honeywell.com/us/en/products-and-services/products/power-and-propulsion/electric-power/honeywell-1-megawatt-mw-turbogenerator
1000 kW Turbogenerator with total system weight of 1000 pounds.

We have quiet electrical revolution you just didn't get the memo. Progress in power density of motors, generators, power transformers, power switchers and regulators, batteries is insane over last 40 years.

>>64100887
Would that then necessitate the creation of mecha?

>>64101768
>>64101785
Pretty much every hybrid design relies on battery banks. However batteries are a bit... temperamental (see all the cargo ships going down due to BEV fires). Or, at least, the current Li-ions. Na-based chemistries might be more durable, but they're still in post-prototype stage. And large banks get real expensive really quickly.
Also, 150 kW is good against light threats, but you want at least 250 kW to fry 'em fast (for anti-swarm engagements). Which requires more than double the power production (losses etc.)
I'm not saying it's not doable, I'm just not seeing anybody put all the parts together in a single system.

>>64100095
But why hasn't it been used for terrorism yet?