>>64211076
>>64211103
Lasers can have extreme range, capable of killing satellite, I wouldn't be surprised it raise itself up to give the turret much better range
Well positioned, even limited to roads, a laser would be capable of cheaply shooting down plenty of cheap drones or even missiles that are just forced to pass by.

>>64211116
>A single tomahawk cruise missile is going to
...be intercept by anti-missile missile defense that are cost-effective against tomahawk.
Supposing the laser isn't good enough to shot down the tomahawk (in time). It's not like the tomahawk is going to be a stealth ninja hiding in the grass on approach.
The US actually tried to make flying lasers and hoped to also hit LEO satellites.
As technology evolve I think we will have laser capable of reaching more than far enough.

Being able to disable enemy satellites without creating debris, while they are stuck with anti-sat missiles that would shit out debris, would be an impressive geostrategic weapon.
You could do so without starting a full war.
While they can't do so without angering all their allies and endangering their own stuff.

Not saying those chinese laser truck are the kind used for anti-sat weapon.

>>63907546
Only as a desperate attempt if hypersonic missiles become resistant to lasers.
Or as a system to intercept dumb but heavy shells shot at you on ballistic trajectories.

To shot down missiles (and drones) I'd put all the money on lasers.
Right now they are cumbersome, waste half the power as heat and are fragile.
But given the potential, we are one breakthrough away from everyone else wondering: "What the fuck? Why don't WE have lasers already?"