Will the Advent of Drone Warfare bring back the Gun Air Defense

[Sailor.X]

Tankers are diffrent then warships

One of the Burkes had to expend a not small amount of anti air missiles to defeat just one drone swam heading for a Tanker. That is not cost effective in the long run.

 

[Zachowon]

One of the Burkes had to expend a not small amount of anti air missiles to defeat just one drone swam heading for a Tanker. That is not cost effective in the long run.

It's about range.
The CWIS would more likely to damage the ship at the range they are at

 

[Sailor.X]

It's about range.
The CWIS would more likely to damage the ship at the range they are at

You will always have more bullets and shells than you will have missiles.

 

[Zachowon]

You will always have more bullets and shells than you will have missiles.

While true, when in close to others you want to get the stuff out further away before it gets to close

 

[Sailor.X]

While true, when in close to others you want to get the stuff out further away before it gets to close

The Vulcan can hit a target 2 miles away and the 5 incher can hit targets over 12 miles away. plenty of room to nail a drone.

 

[Zachowon]

The Vulcan can hit a target 2 miles away and the 5 incher can hit targets over 12 miles away. plenty of room to nail a drone.

5 inch still has altitude limits, and missiles are more accurate and can adjust to the target.

Missiles can also be effective for other means

 

[Sailor.X]

5 inch still has altitude limits, and missiles are more accurate and can adjust to the target.

Missiles can also be effective for other means

Our ship trained to hit aircraft with the 5 inch gun as an option. Math still rules in combat. You fire where the target is gonna be.

 

[Agent23]

You stop building anything if you can't tell the difference between ablative and reflective.
First you go "haha Palestinians put reflective materials on drone countering lazors" and when i call you out on how that's a non-soution you go "but who said anything about perfectly reflective", go clown to children on the yard if you don't know what you're talking about. Now you are talking about putting essentialy bricks of armor on cheap drones, sure, that's gonna work great with their already low payload. The spacecraft in question aren't tiny cheap drones, they tend to be fucking heavy and moved around with rockets that cost millions.

I said ablative OR reflective.

And FYI nothing is "perfectly" reflective, just like there is no such thing like perfect energy transfer or perfect energy conversion without loss to electrical resistance, or mechanical friction, and so on and so forth.

It has enough power generation to indeed work and shoot down multiple drones or mortar rounds. Anything beyond that seems classified.

Lots of "will be"
Few examples of something working and in production.
And what is deployed has 10% of the power of this alleged laser.

Yeah, would be a problem if you are trying to turn a city car into a laser SHORAD, but it's not much for 20-30 ton armored vehicles like Stryker.

Are there anti-air radars with a similar power input mounted on Strykers?

I don't think so.

Usually they come with a separate vehicle, and one for control, and a towed generator, possibly a fuel carrier.

As to shooting it being free, well, neither the batteries that can be used for rapid response, nor the diesel generators are "free" nor is the petroleum product they burn.

In order to run a 60 kW generator at full power for an hour you need 4.8 gallons of diesel of course, yo will not be able to convert the power 1 to 1 into light, and the system will likely need cooling, to be rotated while in operation etc, and this does not include any power needed for any additional sensors, but as with radar installations and control modules I guess those can be in separate vehicles.

This vehicle has fuel capacity of 53 Gallons so, 10% for one hour of running that generator.
And there is the extra armor added according to your article, which will likely increase fuel consumption further due to weight.

So, yeah, I will believe it when I see it, deployed in quantity, and actually battle tested.

Your jacking off to "muh lazors" is more than slightly premature.

Well it seems they are getting enough out.

It seems?

Where in these very sparse on the details sales glorified pitch brochures from popsci publications do you see anything about how these are powered exactly?

Maybe they can burn some of that magic Polish coal you think can be used in the Haber process to make ammonia.

Yeah, don't fry your brain with your smartassing, everyone knows they need to power sensors, which doesn't take that much compared to the laser itself, but that comes with standard modern AA vehicle, lol. And no one forbids them from multiple vehicles cooperating to take down swarms

Standard modern AA vehicle, which the Stryker never was, and for which role it was never designed.

It is basically an ugly BTR with some extra guns.

Whatever, lmao.

You are the one whose panties are perpetually in a bunch.

Yet there it is, in real world tests. Amazing, isn't it?

Combat use and operation?
Don't see any.

 

[Agent23]

Yeah, I think this is going to be another "body armour" scenario.

Armour used to be everything until gunpowder weapons basically made them obsolete, so the concept was pretty much discarded (especially seen since 17th/18th century conflicts, the World Wars, and conflicts like Korea and Vietnam) until the later half of the 20th, when kevlar vests and ceramic plates made body armour as a concept viable again versus gunpowder weaponry.

Flak is considered an old hat/obsolete technology with the advent of more specialized and accurate weapons, such as missiles and CIWS platforms, but now that drones are being used/spammed? Spending million dollar missiles and countless rounds of ammunition meant for beefier/heavier targets on such cheap, disposable pieces of equipment doesn't make sense.

So, we're likely going to see cheaper flak/lighter machine guns hooked up to cheaper sensors mounted on the back of ordinary trucks or light vehicles, and nations like the US which can throw money at anything will just further develop/implement laser weapons so they can pop these drones in the air without blinking an eye.

Yes, it is a game of rock-paper-scissors.

And if this gets perfected and all the problems that will arise get fixed we will probably see the return of some form of canister-like shot that disperses a large amount of tungsten-carbide flechettes get shot at these lasers.

 

[Marduk]

I said ablative OR reflective.

And FYI nothing is "perfectly" reflective, just like there is no such thing like perfect energy transfer or perfect energy conversion without loss to electrical resistance, or mechanical friction, and so on and so forth.

That's exactly what i just told you.

Lots of "will be"
Few examples of something working and in production.
And what is deployed has 10% of the power of this alleged laser.

Look at the date on the article...

Are there anti-air radars with a similar power input mounted on Strykers?

I don't think so.

There are anti-air radars mounted even on 4x4's so definitely can fit one on a Stryker.

Usually they come with a separate vehicle, and one for control, and a towed generator, possibly a fuel carrier.

The 50's said hi and want their radar tech back.
Every Shilka, Gepard, PIVADS and similar cold war era SPAAG has its own radar no problem, since many decades, and that's that's the kind of range we are talking about for guidance here, it doesn't need to provide fire control for some long range SAM FFS.
For comparison this is a radar sufficient for drones and artillery rounds on a tiny 4x4 MRAP:

Jet-Powered Coyote Drone Defeats Swarm In Army Tests

Raytheon claims the Army used an unspecified "non-kinetic effector" aboard one of its Coyote drones to take down a swarm of ten hostile UAVs.

www.thedrive.com

Where's the generator and fuel carrier?
You don't need a fucking strategic defense radar with range in hundreds of km to shoot down drones, chill out.

As to shooting it being free, well, neither the batteries that can be used for rapid response, nor the diesel generators are "free" nor is the petroleum product they burn.

Compared to cost of guided missiles, they could as well be free.

In order to run a 60 kW generator at full power for an hour you need 4.8 gallons of diesel of course, yo will not be able to convert the power 1 to 1 into light, and the system will likely need cooling, to be rotated while in operation etc, and this does not include any power needed for any additional sensors, but as with radar installations and control modules I guess those can be in separate vehicles.

And?
How many drones do you need to require to make it fire for an hour constantly?

This vehicle has fuel capacity of 53 Gallons so, 10% for one hour of running that generator.
And there is the extra armor added according to your article, which will likely increase fuel consumption further due to weight.

Because fitting a large barrel sized extra fuel tank for the generator on the whole dedicated 8x8 chassis is such a huge problem, stop trying to make up problems.

So, yeah, I will believe it when I see it, deployed in quantity, and actually battle tested.

Your jacking off to "muh lazors" is more than slightly premature.

I don't think they or i care about securing your belief.

It seems?

Where in these very sparse on the details sales glorified pitch brochures from popsci publications do you see anything about how these are powered exactly?

Maybe they can burn some of that magic Polish coal you think can be used in the Haber process to make ammonia.

Standard modern AA vehicle, which the Stryker never was, and for which role it was never designed.

Chassis is chassis, the stuff put on it is what makes it an AA vehicle, ambulance, command center, ATGM carrier or whatever.

It is basically an ugly BTR with some extra guns.

You are the one whose panties are perpetually in a bunch.

Combat use and operation?
Don't see any.

Well the "extra guns" and the doodads added to them are what make the difference.
It's typical for SHORAD systems to be mounted on some other chassis originally used for something else since ages.

 

[Agent23]

That's exactly what i just told you.

And you have to repeat what I have said because?

Look at the date on the article...

Don't care about obvious fap material.

There are anti-air radars mounted even on 4x4's so definitely can fit one on a Stryker.

I'd assume that much will depend on the type of the radar, the number and size of tracked targets and the range.

But for this thing to be any good it will need to defend more than just itself.

The 50's said hi and want their radar tech back.
Every Shilka, Gepard, PIVADS and similar cold war era SPAAG has its own radar no problem, since many decades, and that's that's the kind of range we are talking about for guidance here, it doesn't need to provide fire control for some long range SAM FFS

That will depend on teh number and type of targets, too.

For comparison this is a radar sufficient for drones and artillery rounds on a tiny 4x4 MRAP:

Jet-Powered Coyote Drone Defeats Swarm In Army Tests

Raytheon claims the Army used an unspecified "non-kinetic effector" aboard one of its Coyote drones to take down a swarm of ten hostile UAVs.

www.thedrive.com

Oh, look another piece of equipment that was never used in actual combat...

And where in the articles are artillery rounds mentioned, again?

Where's the generator and fuel carrier?
You don't need a fucking strategic defense radar with range in hundreds of km to shoot down drones, chill out.

Compared to cost of guided missiles, they could as well be free.

And you have large caliber bullets fired from a machine-gun or Gatling gun, you know, the type of stuff helicopters or fixed wing aircraft have been using for years.
And you also have the R2D2 and other similar point defense...

And?
How many drones do you need to require to make it fire for an hour constantly?

Because fitting a large barrel sized extra fuel tank for the generator on the whole dedicated 8x8 chassis is such a huge problem, stop trying to make up problems.

So, crew, capacitors for the laser, the laser mount itself, the sizable generator, and an extra barrel of fuel plus extra armor to protect all that stuff.

Yeah, ok, I am sure that won't decrease range or increase price and tonnage.

I don't think they or i care about securing your belief.

Chassis is chassis, the stuff put on it is what makes it an AA vehicle, ambulance, command center, ATGM carrier or whatever.

Yes, yes, I am sure it is multi-functional.

Well the "extra guns" and the doodads added to them are what make the difference.
It's typical for SHORAD systems to be mounted on some other chassis originally used for something else since ages.

John Ringo called, he wants his Stryker whank back.

And I told you, I will believe all your incessant fapping based on press releases and popsci articles when the tech is actually deployed and used at scale and in realistic combat situations, oh know it all autism sufferer.

 

[Marduk]

And you have to repeat what I have said because?

Don't care about obvious fap material.

I'd assume that much will depend on the type of the radar, the number and size of tracked targets and the range.

But for this thing to be any good it will need to defend more than just itself.

Every bloody radar guided SPAAG in history can defend more than itself, so do we need to have that discussion about you being skeptical about reinventing the wheel?

That will depend on teh number and type of targets, too.

Oh, look another piece of equipment that was never used in actual combat...

Yes, every piece of new equipment was never used in actual combat at some point.

And where in the articles are artillery rounds mentioned, again?

Mortars are artillery too, don't try to do silly word traps like that, ok?

And you have large caliber bullets fired from a machine-gun or Gatling gun, you know, the type of stuff helicopters or fixed wing aircraft have been using for years.
And you also have the R2D2 and other similar point defense...

And do you know the cost of firing those for just one second?
If you do, you would very much rather pay for few gallons of diesel.

So, crew, capacitors for the laser, the laser mount itself, the sizable generator, and an extra barrel of fuel plus extra armor to protect all that stuff.

Yes, that about fits with why it's on a fucking 8x8 truck and not on a humvee.

Yeah, ok, I am sure that won't decrease range or increase price and tonnage.

Aaaand... so what? Still much cheaper than Stingers and the like.

John Ringo called, he wants his Stryker whank back.

And I told you, I will believe all your incessant fapping based on press releases and popsci articles when the tech is actually deployed and used at scale and in realistic combat situations, oh know it all autism sufferer

WTF does your Stryker hate obsession have to do with it tard, and no one cares if you believe it right now, i'm not trying to sell you Leonardo stock.

 

[Agent23]

Every bloody radar guided SPAAG in history can defend more than itself, so do we need to have that discussion about you being skeptical about reinventing the wheel?

Noz I am skeptical about a glorified APC being turned onto a muh lazor based point defense.

Yes, every piece of new equipment was never used in actual combat at some point.

Yes, dear, and maybe we can postpon the ehanking session until it does.

And we have proof thet things like high humidity and dust particles on the air do not degrade it.

Mortars are artillery too, don't try to do silly word traps like that, ok?

I searched for the sord artillery, I did not see it, I am not going to read every popsci advertisement brochure for int sted toys you salivate over.

And do you know the cost of firing those for just one second?
If you do, you would very much rather pay for few gallons of diesel.

Depends on what you are firing at.

As you have pointed out yourself a COTS drone is slower and more fragile than an anti-ship missile, by a very long shot.

Yes, that about fits with why it's on a fucking 8x8 truck and not on a humvee.

Truck?
Are you talking about the Stryker again?

Aaaand... so what? Still much cheaper than Stingers and the like.

And you have tried and tested anti air weapons thdt use projectiles called bullets.

WTF does your Stryker hate obsession have to do with it tard, and no one cares if you believe it right now, i'm not trying to sell you Leonardo stock.

Stinks of being overhyped, and last I checked it is an American vehicle, not one built by the Italians.

It is very much a system that had never been tested in real warfare, as opposed to the usual idiot safaris in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I am sceptical about tech that is a jack of all trades, or a broad usage platform as you put it.

So, an untested and overly "flexible" platform gets a brand new and untested weapon, my, I do not see how this can go wrong.

Bitbdonfeel free to resume your fapping, in private!

 

[Marduk]

Noz I am skeptical about a glorified APC being turned onto a muh lazor based point defense.

Most light to medium AA systems are based on trucks, glorified APCs or old MBTs, the chassis has little relation to the capabilities of the defense system put on top of it.

Yes, dear, and maybe we can postpon the ehanking session until it does.

And we have proof thet things like high humidity and dust particles on the air do not degrade it.

Sorry, we can't, happy to disappoint you, go whine about muh proof to someone who cares.

I searched for the sord artillery, I did not see it, I am not going to read every popsci advertisement brochure for int sted toys you salivate over.

Your loss.

Depends on what you are firing at.

As you have pointed out yourself a COTS drone is slower and more fragile than an anti-ship missile, by a very long shot.

In both cases most of the gun systems burn through hundreds, if not thousands of rounds per target, that's still way more expensive than some diesel.

Truck?
Are you talking about the Stryker again?

Yes.

And you have tried and tested anti air weapons thdt use projectiles called bullets.

As i said, still pretty expensive.

Stinks of being overhyped, and last I checked it is an American vehicle, not one built by the Italians.

Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) | Leonardo DRS

With the M-SHORAD Mission Equipment Package (MEP) on a purpose-built Stryker, Warfighters maneuver with tactical units to detect, identify, track and defeat air threats.

www.leonardodrs.com

It's a US company owned by Italians.

It is very much a system that had never been tested in real warfare, as opposed to the usual idiot safaris in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I am sceptical about tech that is a jack of all trades, or a broad usage platform as you put it.

So, an untested and overly "flexible" platform gets a brand new and untested weapon, my, I do not see how this can go wrong.

Bitbdonfeel free to resume your fapping, in private!

It's a fucking SHORAD, not some "overly flexible platform".

 

[Zachowon]

Alright.
@Agent23
Radar that can track multiple targets and engage targets does not have to be large.
Large generally means ot wants to reach further.
For the kind of dromes we are looking at, we don't need Long Range radars that need a whole complex for.

For instance, SA-15 has mounted radars.
PANTZIR
Tunguska
Some versions of the Shilka
And the VADS, Vulcan Air Defnese even has a simple range radar wouldnwould be very helpful with drones.

The thing is?
They are.cpmpacy enough it doesn't matter.
The new M SHORAD strikers are very good because they have a radar on them. Instead of just stingers, they also have guns that can use Frag rounds that detonate in the air causing shrapnel

 

[Agent23]

Most light to medium AA systems are based on trucks, glorified APCs or old MBTs, the chassis has little relation to the capabilities of the defense system put on top of it.

And all of your examples are sizable, the Shilka you like to mention is pretty bulky to the point where discerning what the hell the "chassis" once was used for is impossible.
And the size/shape and armor of something like the striker will mean sticking square pegs into round holes.

The striker is

Sorry, we can't, happy to disappoint you, go whine about muh proof to someone who cares.

>But muh vundervaffen is great, even though I do not have proof of it working, mein autismz mein fapping material!!!

Your loss.

You are the one doing most of the bitching and moaning here cause you can't let go.

In both cases most of the gun systems burn through hundreds, if not thousands of rounds per target, that's still way more expensive than some diesel.

You were the guy proclaiming that a technical truck or a rando with an AK can efficiently take down a lot of drones, those do not have the rate of fire of modern point defense.

Yes.

As i said, still pretty expensive.

As I said, you don't have anything to compare it to, since neither the lazor, nor all the other parts and supplies you will need to operate it are free.

Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) | Leonardo DRS

With the M-SHORAD Mission Equipment Package (MEP) on a purpose-built Stryker, Warfighters maneuver with tactical units to detect, identify, track and defeat air threats.

www.leonardodrs.com

It's a US company owned by Italians.

It's a fucking SHORAD, not some "overly flexible platform".

I am talking about the striker, not whatever package you have mounted on it.

Alright.
@Agent23
Radar that can track multiple targets and engage targets does not have to be large.
Large generally means ot wants to reach further.

Citation needed.

For the kind of dromes we are looking at, we don't need Long Range radars that need a whole complex for.

For instance, SA-15 has mounted radars.
PANTZIR
Tunguska

And those are pretty huge, even if you don't try and crap extra fuel and a huge ass generator and armor.

Some versions of the Shilka
And the VADS, Vulcan Air Defnese even has a simple range radar wouldnwould be very helpful with drones.

The thing is?
They are.cpmpacy enough it doesn't matter.
The new M SHORAD strikers are very good because they have a radar on them. Instead of just stingers, they also have guns that can use Frag rounds that detonate in the air causing shrapnel

Ok, where do you stick the sizable 50mW generator, extra batteries and extra fuel tanks and any other bits you might meed. Preferably where they don't get hit by flying debris and make your day horrible.

As I said, call me when this doodad is actually tested in equivalent field conditions, against a real enemy.
Or do I need to remind you of the M-16 in Vietnam debacle?

 

[Marduk]

And all of your examples are sizable, the Shilka you like to mention is pretty bulky to the point where discerning what the hell the "chassis" once was used for is impossible.
And the size/shape and armor of something like the striker will mean sticking square pegs into round holes.

And Shilka is an example of peak Vietnam era Soviet technology, don't you think miniaturization and performance of electronics got a little bit better than that now?
It also weights less than a normal Stryker, and i don't see what's wrong with the shape of Stryker's rectangular cargo compartment that's making it bad for utility purposes unlike all the other 8x8's, it's better for that than a light tank chassis Shilka uses.
Others also use similar setup on other 8x8's, like LAV-AD on LAV and Skyranger on Puma (also with gun/missile/lazor setup like the Stryker one).
Hey, also you wanted numbers for operation cost, and zee Germans give numbers:


The latest addition to this mix for the Skyranger 30 HEL is the high-energy laser weapon with its own sensors. This laser pumps out a 20-kW beam that can automatically lock onto targets and neutralize them. According to Rheinmetall, the immediate goal is to increase this power to 50 kW and, ideally, to 100 kW in the near future. This will provide the Skyranger 30 HEL with not only a very long reach, but also a practically unlimited supply of laser ammunition at a cost of about a dollar a shot so long as power is available.

The striker is

>But muh vundervaffen is great, even though I do not have proof of it working, mein autismz mein fapping material!!!

So you have no arguments just your usual random whining because it's not from Russia.

You are the one doing most of the bitching and moaning here cause you can't let go.

You are the one making random shit up because you like to fight over nothing.

You were the guy proclaiming that a technical truck or a rando with an AK can efficiently take down a lot of drones, those do not have the rate of fire of modern point defense.

I don't know what you are smoking and i don't want any of it.

As I said, you don't have anything to compare it to, since neither the lazor, nor all the other parts and supplies you will need to operate it are free.

Yet diesel for the energy it takes is cheaper by orders of magnitude and you can compare it to that.

I am talking about the striker, not whatever package you have mounted on it.

So just completely irrelevant gripes, got it.

 

[Agent23]

And Shilka is an example of peak Vietnam era Soviet technology, don't you think miniaturization and performance of electronics got a little bit better than that now?

Sure, that doesn't mean that these radars and other equipment do not take up space and do not consume electricity, especially given the tit for that nature of technological development and the ability of the enemy to use more advanced EW, other countermeasures and throw larger swarms of targets ranging from drones to missiles to lots of artillery.

It also weights less than a normal Stryker, and i don't see what's wrong with the shape of Stryker's rectangular cargo compartment that's making it bad for utility purposes unlike all the other 8x8's, it's better for that than a light tank chassis Shilka uses.

You are the one that brought them up, not me.

Others also use similar setup on other 8x8's, like LAV-AD on LAV and Skyranger on Puma (also with gun/missile/lazor setup like the Stryker one).
Hey, also you wanted numbers for operation cost, and zee Germans give numbers:


The latest addition to this mix for the Skyranger 30 HEL is the high-energy laser weapon with its own sensors. This laser pumps out a 20-kW beam that can automatically lock onto targets and neutralize them. According to Rheinmetall, the immediate goal is to increase this power to 50 kW and, ideally, to 100 kW in the near future. This will provide the Skyranger 30 HEL with not only a very long reach, but also a practically unlimited supply of laser ammunition at a cost of about a dollar a shot so long as power is available.

Nice advertising leaflet from someone who stands to gain from this stuff being purchased.
20kw is less than half the power of the laser for the striker, and once again, there is no example of how many drones ot can take out for how long.
And of course, there is the option for any potential adversary to drip feed the cheaper drones in for a few hours, then hit the enemy with a larger swarm combined with artillery and missiles.

So, yeah, unproven vundervaffe.

So you have no arguments just your usual random whining because it's not from Russia.

Russia?
Look you are the one bringing up Russia and Russian equipment, I haven't, but if they tried to pull this then I would see it on the same light.

Honestly, people are getting sick and tired of your Russia fetish, and I am sure there are more than enough Russia hoes that would dominate and peg you for a few hours if you are this obsesses.
Hell, I'd even treat you to some time with one of you have a particular one in mind, I hear lots have swarmed Poland.

You are the one making random shit up because you like to fight over nothing.

I am raising valid concerns over an interested piece of equipment that has many potential drawbacks and counters.
And you, like most other neocucks, gan let your shiny expensive toy obsessions/insecurities/other fetishes get the best of you.

I don't know what you are smoking and i don't want any of it.

Yes, and as I said, it depends on the drone, the number of drones and the other potential improvements thst can be done to them with existing technology.

Yet diesel for the energy it takes is cheaper by orders of magnitude and you can compare it to that.

Here is the price of a 7.62 mm rifle round.
Of course, those look to be wholesale and government buying in bulk should be able to buy them for less, so I would say about 30 cents a shot:

https://ammopricesnow.com/762x39/

So just completely irrelevant gripes, got it.

Yes, dear, completely valid criticism of your fap material is irrelevant gripes.Sure.

Damn, you sound like a particularly annoying tsundere gf.

 

[Zachowon]

Citation needed.

TOR 2, also known as the SA-15, has a radar that can scan up to 44 at once, and can act as a secondary tracking with up to ten. It's other radar which is tracking can scan and target two, and both have roughly 25km range.
Pantsir, 20 at a time.
Tunguska, 1 as far as I can find.
Shilka, only says multiple targets that I can find.

And this is just Soviet stuff, bit even going into the French, English stuff

And those are pretty huge, even if you don't try and crap extra fuel and a huge ass generator and armor.

not really?

Ok, where do you stick the sizable 50mW generator, extra batteries and extra fuel tanks and any other bits you might meed. Preferably where they don't get hit by flying debris and make your day horrible.

I mean, seems pretty well armored.

And seems qhat we would expect.

And here is Raytheon on it

https://www.rtx.com/news/news-center/2022/05/16/raytheon-intelligence-space-and-kord-team-up-to-defeat-multiple-mortars-and-lar

Army short-range air defense laser prototypes take down drones at Yuma

The Army's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office chief said its Short-Range Air Defense 50-kilowatt laser weapon is performing well.

www.defensenews.com

As I said, call me when this doodad is actually tested in equivalent field conditions, against a real enemy.
Or do I need to remind you of the M-16 in Vietnam debacle?

you mean because they lied about it being fine and never needing cleaning?
And it againstbreal enemy isn't always possible.
But the Army does very extensive testing on its stuff

 

[Agent23]

TOR 2, also known as the SA-15, has a radar that can scan up to 44 at once, and can act as a secondary tracking with up to ten. It's other radar which is tracking can scan and target two, and both have roughly 25km range.
Pantsir, 20 at a time.
Tunguska, 1 as far as I can find.
Shilka, only says multiple targets that I can find.

And this is just Soviet stuff, bit even going into the French, English stuff


not really?

I mean, seems pretty well armored.

And seems qhat we would expect.

Question is, can you fit the power supply and the extra fuel.
I am skeptical of that.
As I am of the overall efficiency of this new toy.

And here is Raytheon on it

https://www.rtx.com/news/news-center/2022/05/16/raytheon-intelligence-space-and-kord-team-up-to-defeat-multiple-mortars-and-lar

Army short-range air defense laser prototypes take down drones at Yuma

The Army's Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office chief said its Short-Range Air Defense 50-kilowatt laser weapon is performing well.

www.defensenews.com

Yeah, ok, the revolving door is not a thing and limited testing will always show all problems.

Also, a lot of your new toys tend to turn out to be buggier and more expensive as they are developed and put into service.

you mean because they lied about it being fine and never needing cleaning?
And it againstbreal enemy isn't always possible.
But the Army does very extensive testing on its stuff

You contradict yourself, obviously the testing was not that extensive back then, what makes you think it is extensive enough now?