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.

66 points

They better send some to Ukraine.

Make Putler happy.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

It’d probably be great testing for them too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
63 points

Will they be mounted on sharks?

They seriously need to call the platform sharks.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

Best we can do are mutated sea bass

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Are they at least ill-tempered?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Super High Arial Reconnaissance Kill Station

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

When discussing deterrents against drone swarms the cost per “round” is the correct metric…

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What about the advantages of the logistics of those “rounds”. Seems like a huge savings.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

What’s the kW or MW class of laser? If it’s too low, it could be ineffective against even tinfoil wrapped quad copters.

permalink
report
reply
26 points

Inb4 flying disco balls!

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Imagine getting a massive burn because the drone trying to bomb you reflected the laser your colleague used to try to shoot it down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This screams UFO encounter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Unless they’re gps guided, or they can turn their camera away from the laser source in time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

A buck fifty a shot at the rate I pay is about 12 Kwh kwH 😉 of power. That laser has got to be way up there in power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

kWh

(I’m sorry, I have nitpicking issues.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

What a coincidence! I have picnicking issues.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Fixed

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Wouldn’t that cut it’s communication though?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I don’t think so? Radios don’t care is a laser is shining at them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The tinfoil, not the laser

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The tinfoil would stop it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah I’m no light expert but can’t they just make shilding and filters for this sort of attack vector?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Agreed, this is definitely first gen research.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Probably 2nd or 3rd gen, laser weapons have been in the works for decades.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
2 points

15 seconds later it crashed down

Why did it take so long?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Modern radars can see way more than just size. You’re right that there should still be a human in the loop, though.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 274K

    Comments