Comment by condensedcrab
1 day ago
From Rafael’s site: https://www.rafael.co.il/system/iron-beam/
100kW laser is nothing to joke about, but seems a good application for anti drone tasks. Fiber lasers are pretty snazzy.
1 day ago
From Rafael’s site: https://www.rafael.co.il/system/iron-beam/
100kW laser is nothing to joke about, but seems a good application for anti drone tasks. Fiber lasers are pretty snazzy.
The re-edited title frames this as an anti-drone system but this was foremost developed as an anti-rocket system.
Hamas and Hezbollah MO since the 1990s was based on bombing Israeli towns with statistical rockets and this system is supposed to reverse the cost equation (cheaper than those cheap rockets)
Today this is also used for drones though
Statistical rockets?
The rockets are very imprecise, but a large number of them, hitting the territory of a town, will deal damage, bodily harm, and death at random, due to statistics. It's Monte Carlo bombing of sorts :(
They say it's first operational system in it's class, but it seems very similar to the Australian Apollo system, with Apollo being able to go up to 150kW
https://eos-aus.com/defence/high-energy-laser-weapon/apollo/
It's also similar to the British DragonFire and US HELIOS
I think the major difference here is that the Iron Beam is operational, as in finished trials, delivered to an armed force and actually was in active use in the previous war for more than a year
apollo range according to site is 3km. iron beam 10km
Easily defeated with clouds of aluminum chaff?
First wave of drones get targeted, explode into clouds of chaff, second wave of drones penetrates the de-focused laser system.
You are describing salvage fusing.
When you're playing with nukes it actually is rather effective, not from a standpoint of chaff (you don't bring it) but the ionization of the nuke makes a radar blocked zone and the following missile is going very, very fast--makes a bunch of progress while the defenders are blind. It's also why we don't like nuclear anti-sub weapons--the dead zone lasts for hours, there's no way to know if you actually got the target.
But a drone is small and slow. You'll need an awful lot of drones to punch through defenses this way and the whole thing goes out the window when the laser pops drones farther back in line. And chaff only denies a small area and for a short time.
I dunno why people insist on this, there have been desktop lasers that cut aluminum and steel for ages.
Those materials do not reflect evert frequency.
It's quiet the power requirement. I wonder how long it has to focus on a drone to eliminate it. Like how long is this thing consuming 100kW?
Good question, probably depends a lot on how much energy actually makes it to the target some distance away. And then how much is actually absorbed. Probably depends more on the power density then, rather than total power?
Can't imagine they get a very small spot at multiple km unless they use gigantic lenses or multiple independent laser focused on the same spot
I also wonder the extent to which the effectiveness is reduced by painting the projectile white or wrapping it in aluminum foil. Maybe 100kw is so large that it simply does not matter at that power level.
1 reply →
Maybe it involves multiple converging beams to reduce transmission losses?
1 reply →
Even small divergence angles add up if they’re trying to intercept at visual ranges outside of traditional munitions.
That being said, probably ~10kW/m^2 is enough to overheat or disable a UAV
2 replies →
Is that output power of the laser? If it's input power, it doesn't really seem that high. Some US homes could draw 100kW if charging multiple EVs etc.
> Some US homes could draw 100kW if charging multiple EVs
No. Most US homes are on 200 or 100A service. 200A tops out at 48kW
You won't find many home chargers that are more than 60A.
2 replies →
I guess they are using it in pulsed mode, continuous mode would be a little bit much power
Huh, to what degree is this technology gatekept by battery advances?
A few decades ago lasers were dismissed because they involved chemical reagents for high power and explosive capacitors for even low-power applications.
> Huh, to what degree is this technology gatekept by battery advances?
Not too much. The power delivery was doable even 15 years ago. It would have just been more expensive and heavier.
The bigger issue I believe would have been the lens and tracking capabilities. For the tracking to work you need some pretty good cameras, pretty fast computers, and pretty good object recognition. We are talking about using high speed cameras and doing object detection each frame
4 replies →
Hm, you think longer than the laser is firing? Could there be windup?
I imagine there's some sort of storage system, like a huge bank of ultra-capacitors, that are constantly kept charged.
The wind up would be if that bank is depleted and they need to recharge. Delivering 100kW for a short period of time is definitely a feat.
2 replies →
Depends on how tightly they can focus the beam.
http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/DamageFromLaser.php
few seconds. it (lower power version) was deployed during war with hezbollah and intercepted 40 drones (big one, not fpv).
there is footage of intercepts out there. was released about half an year ago
How far away is the laser beam lethal? Could it accidentally bring down a plane flying behind the laser? Or a satellite?
from what I understand, problem with drones is first of all detection
> problem with drones is first of all detection
You’re right for ambush drones of the sort e.g. Hamas could launch. For the ones that would stream in from Iran, which Israel needed American help defending from last time, I’m not sure that’s the case.
Well there's drones, then there's prop driven cheap cruise missiles.
I think we're talking the second.
let me up the ante, drones intermixed with kamikaze pigeons.