• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

GBAD - The return of 'FOBS'

But we could both be wrong.


Just for general info

The lasers we are talking about are in the 20 to 50 kW range with EOS being at the 100 to 150 kW range,

Here is the spec on a motor of a similar electrical capacity.


The Stryker engine produces 260 kW output and the JLTV produces 298 kW.
 
.again
Nope. Range still too short and size and poor mobility makes it difficult to deploy and a magnet for incoming stuff.

Lasers will find their place when they are effective a bit further out and their power cells can be squeezed into and recharged in a LAV-sized armoured vehicle.

šŸ»

I just realized we were talking past each other again. I was referring to the possibility of covering UAVs in photoreceptors. Then if a laser were fired at the UAV it would actually be powering it up rather than damaging it.
 
I just realized we were talking past each other again. I was referring to the possibility of covering UAVs in photoreceptors. Then if a laser were fired at the UAV it would actually be powering it up rather than damaging it.
Ran this scenario through ChatGPT and this is what it came up with:Question: There have been experiments with unmanned aerial vehicles being equipped with photo-receptors and ground-based lasers being used to target the receptors to power the UAV. What would happen if a ground-based laser designed as a counter-UAV weapon were to fire at a UAV equipped with such photo-receptors? Would the laser provide additional power to the UAV or would it damage it?Short answer: almost certainly damage, not extra power.Here’s why, step by step.1. How laser power-beaming to UAVs actually worksExperiments that power UAVs with lasers are very carefully engineered systems:Matched wavelength: The laser wavelength is chosen to match the peak efficiency of the UAV’s photovoltaic (PV) receivers.Controlled power density: The beam intensity is kept below damage thresholds.Large spot size: The beam is deliberately spread out so heat doesn’t build up.Stable tracking: Precise pointing avoids hot spots.Specialized receivers: The UAV uses laser-optimized PV cells with cooling, current limiting, and sometimes shutters.
Even with all that, conversion efficiency is low (often 10–30%), and thermal management is a major challenge.


2. What counter-UAV lasers are designed to do​

A ground-based counter-UAV laser is designed with the opposite goals:

  • High irradiance (power per area)
  • Tight focus
  • Rapid heating
  • Structural or electronic damage, not energy transfer
These lasers aim to:

  • Melt surfaces
  • Burn wiring
  • Delaminate composites
  • Blind sensors
  • Cause thermal runaway in electronics

3. What happens if such a laser hits laser-power receptors?​

A. Power mismatch (the biggest issue)​

Weapon lasers deliver orders of magnitude more power density than PV receivers can tolerate.

  • PV cells saturate quickly
  • Excess energy becomes heat
  • Heat causes:
    • Cell efficiency collapse
    • Junction damage
    • Cracking or delamination
    • Permanent failure
Instead of ā€œcharging faster,ā€ the receiver overheats and dies.


B. Wavelength mismatch​

Most counter-UAV lasers use wavelengths like:

  • ~1 µm (fiber lasers)
  • ~1.06 µm (Nd:YAG)
Laser-power PV systems are tuned narrowly. If the wavelength is off:

  • Efficiency drops sharply
  • Absorbed energy turns almost entirely into heat
  • Damage happens even faster

C. Beam quality and speckle​

Weapon lasers are highly coherent and tightly focused, causing:

  • Speckle patterns
  • Local hot spots
  • Uneven heating
PV cells hate this. Localized hotspots can destroy a cell even if average power seems ā€œacceptable.ā€


D. No protective throttling​

A power-beaming UAV might have:

  • Optical diffusers
  • Active shutters
  • Power regulation
But those are designed for known, cooperative beams, not a hostile, overpowered one. Reaction times are usually too slow to prevent damage.


4. Could it ever help the UAV?​

In theory, only if all of these were true at once:

  • The weapon laser happened to match the receiver’s wavelength
  • Power density stayed below damage thresholds
  • The beam was defocused
  • The UAV had robust protection and cooling
That combination is so unlikely that in practice it’s a non-scenario.


5. Bottom line​

A counter-UAV laser firing at a laser-powered UAV would:

  • āŒ Not meaningfully increase its power
  • āœ… Rapidly overheat and damage the photo-receptors
  • āœ… Likely disable or destroy the UAV
A laser designed to kill drones is fundamentally incompatible with one designed to feed them energy.

TLDR - No. Firing a C-UAV laser at a UAV equipped with photoreceptors designed to be powered by lasers will NOT provide power. They will still be damaged/destroyed by the C-UAV laser
 
Ran this scenario through ChatGPT and this is what it came up with:Question: There have been experiments with unmanned aerial vehicles being equipped with photo-receptors and ground-based lasers being used to target the receptors to power the UAV. What would happen if a ground-based laser designed as a counter-UAV weapon were to fire at a UAV equipped with such photo-receptors? Would the laser provide additional power to the UAV or would it damage it?Short answer: almost certainly damage, not extra power.Here’s why, step by step.1. How laser power-beaming to UAVs actually worksExperiments that power UAVs with lasers are very carefully engineered systems:Matched wavelength: The laser wavelength is chosen to match the peak efficiency of the UAV’s photovoltaic (PV) receivers.Controlled power density: The beam intensity is kept below damage thresholds.Large spot size: The beam is deliberately spread out so heat doesn’t build up.Stable tracking: Precise pointing avoids hot spots.Specialized receivers: The UAV uses laser-optimized PV cells with cooling, current limiting, and sometimes shutters.
Even with all that, conversion efficiency is low (often 10–30%), and thermal management is a major challenge.


2. What counter-UAV lasers are designed to do​

A ground-based counter-UAV laser is designed with the opposite goals:

  • High irradiance (power per area)
  • Tight focus
  • Rapid heating
  • Structural or electronic damage, not energy transfer
These lasers aim to:

  • Melt surfaces
  • Burn wiring
  • Delaminate composites
  • Blind sensors
  • Cause thermal runaway in electronics

3. What happens if such a laser hits laser-power receptors?​

A. Power mismatch (the biggest issue)​

Weapon lasers deliver orders of magnitude more power density than PV receivers can tolerate.

  • PV cells saturate quickly
  • Excess energy becomes heat
  • Heat causes:
    • Cell efficiency collapse
    • Junction damage
    • Cracking or delamination
    • Permanent failure
Instead of ā€œcharging faster,ā€ the receiver overheats and dies.


B. Wavelength mismatch​

Most counter-UAV lasers use wavelengths like:

  • ~1 µm (fiber lasers)
  • ~1.06 µm (Nd:YAG)
Laser-power PV systems are tuned narrowly. If the wavelength is off:

  • Efficiency drops sharply
  • Absorbed energy turns almost entirely into heat
  • Damage happens even faster

C. Beam quality and speckle​

Weapon lasers are highly coherent and tightly focused, causing:

  • Speckle patterns
  • Local hot spots
  • Uneven heating
PV cells hate this. Localized hotspots can destroy a cell even if average power seems ā€œacceptable.ā€


D. No protective throttling​

A power-beaming UAV might have:

  • Optical diffusers
  • Active shutters
  • Power regulation
But those are designed for known, cooperative beams, not a hostile, overpowered one. Reaction times are usually too slow to prevent damage.


4. Could it ever help the UAV?​

In theory, only if all of these were true at once:

  • The weapon laser happened to match the receiver’s wavelength
  • Power density stayed below damage thresholds
  • The beam was defocused
  • The UAV had robust protection and cooling
That combination is so unlikely that in practice it’s a non-scenario.


5. Bottom line​

A counter-UAV laser firing at a laser-powered UAV would:

  • āŒ Not meaningfully increase its power
  • āœ… Rapidly overheat and damage the photo-receptors
  • āœ… Likely disable or destroy the UAV
A laser designed to kill drones is fundamentally incompatible with one designed to feed them energy.

TLDR - No. Firing a C-UAV laser at a UAV equipped with photoreceptors designed to be powered by lasers will NOT provide power. They will still be damaged/destroyed by the C-UAV laser


Oh well.....šŸ˜„
 

73 MEURO for SkyNex system for Italy
204 MEUR for three more systems.

One system = Oerlikon's SkyMaster Battle Management System + XTAR 3D Radar + EO/IR and Acoustic Sensors + 4x 35x173mm Revolver Cannons + AHEAD projectiles.


"Skynex is designed to plug the gap between medium- and long-range missile systems and very short-range man-portable weapons. By separating airspace surveillance from the effectors, the architecture allows radars, guns and any additional launchers to be dispersed while remaining closely linked through the command-and-control network. For the Italian Army, which is modernising its ground-based air defense with systems such as SAMP/T NG at the medium range and the GRIFO system with CAMM-ER missiles for SHORAD, Skynex offers a dedicated, close-in layer optimised for low-cost interception of drones, cruise missiles and indirect-fire threats in the immediate vicinity of key bases, ports, airfields and manoeuvre formations."
 
AeroVironment, the supplier of Switchblade Loitering Munitions and Puma SUAVs, is supplying the US Army with 20 kW lasers compatible with ISVs and JLTVs.


ā€œDirected energy is no longer a future concept — it is a proven force-protection capability,ā€ said John Garrity, vice president of the directed energy business unit at AV.

ā€œWith LOCUST’s target acquisition, tracking and precision beam control, warfighters have an easy-to-use, reliable, trusted, and proven solution against the very real and evolving threats of modern warfare.ā€
 
The poor folks at DLR2 doing GBAD must be getting awfully confused.

:giggle:
 
Back
Top