DragonFire: Royal Navy warships to be fitted with laser weapon in 2027 

Allied destroyer has joined the squadron...

For Freedom, Liberty and Royal Navy!

It's nothing new they've had them for years

DEMOCRACY!

America have had it and israel but not as good.

@@PoliceBodycamVideos the united states made a couple in the cold war right ? a huge plane with a lens

@@JuniorJuni070 dont think its even been put into service, soviet union used to have a tank with like 20 lasers like this on it.

Now the mighty Russians have the turtle 😂

Most of those tests were static. How long does the laser take for the same kills, when the small target is moving fast and all sorts of atmospherics in between?

Needed sooner.

Where do you think the ideas for Star Wars came from? 🤦🏻‍♂️

Star wars has been in space for many years, this isn't anything new.

😂😂delusional

@@user-bg7yb5nl6y Would you care to expand on your comment Ivan, or is your English not that good?

​@@user-bg7yb5nl6yin what way is it delusion

@@masterbeethoven8209 Ships are sturdy enough so they are not attacked by flying drones. Against russian fleet only boat-size unmanned drones are used. Lazer wouldn't do much damage to half-submerged target.

@@redaerf2b414 Drones large enough to carry anti ship weapons already exist and are in deployment. Drones large enough to carry 200 or 300 kilo warheads can be purchased commercially. Obviously, due to their remote and often autonomous nature, they pose a significant threat to any blue water navy. They are cheap and expendable and thus pilots can be far more daring with them.

The mirror won't stop because the laser is very hot and once it hit a mirror it will melt it.

Tested already...

Troll science....

@@helderalmeida3417 I would argue that it heavily depends on the characteristics of the materials the mirror is made from. The laser light itself is not hot, but some materials convert the incoming laser photons into heat, while others may reflect it.

Actually it doesn't. Did America win in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Yet they were streets ahead in technological warfare. What wins wars are weight of numbers, attrition, a willingness to make sacrifices in living standards, a willingness to accept casualties, including justifying the deaths of civilians and finally proper leaders. The west has shown we are unwilling to accept even small losses. So we fight through bombing, drones, missiles. Video game wars. But no boots on the ground. Can't risk any soldiers getting hurt or killed. We will not accept the deaths of civilians, especially children. As shown by the recent demands for a ceasefire in Gaza. We will most definately not accept a lowering of our living standards to pay for wars. Finally the likes of Sunak are not, and never will be war leaders.

I wonder how they can shoot down a shell in flight? It is rotating so the energy is dissipated across the case.

@@Makeyourselfbig I wasn't talking about insurgent type warfare that the Malayan emergency, Vietnam and Afghanistan were. Where the opponents were scared of mustering and fielding their own forces because they would have been defeated like in the first Gulf War (due to technology advantage) . But hasn't that all been said before, that 'War is unthinkable'. That's usually said by those who bemoan preparing for one and who then go very quiet when they have left us defenceless and war has been forced on us. I agree with your last sentence because it is the next 5,10 or even 20 years that I see the world experiencing the greatest instability of my lifetime.

@@JBoy340a It almost certainly can't, the amount of power to do that would be too great for any current or near-future British warship outside of draining a QE

@@Makeyourselfbig What caused draws and losses in those conflicts was politics, not technology. Korea, Vietnam and Iraq showed the effect technology has on the battlefield, with Ukraine being a further example. While quantity does have a quality of it's own, it also has a monstrously increased logistics cost, whereas quality lets you cripple then defeat an enemy force. It's not as simple as more money=success, but adopting an indifference to casualties is not the path to victory either, let alone when it comes to civilians

Point defense batteries for swarm attacks

I thought the same...

You never know, by 2027 our two ships may be sufficiently developed and repaired to both be at sea at the same time.

They already have

I want two!

In sharks

No Austin doesn't take a genius to work out its one directional fault, leading up to every other angle fault to attack

​​@NOT.MI5.MI6.Southern ponce ! 😂

Now now children, play nice 😂 👍 🇬🇧

@@JRae19 🤣🤣

And the UK already has the most capable anti air destroyers in the world bar a couple of prototype ships from US projects never pushed into full production. The British play an important role in NATO naval operations by providing the best anti air protection a fleet can get. This is not a result of decisions made yesterday but a long term strategy that started at the end of the Falklands conflict and only after many years and many cancelled projects, ended up placing the UK where it is today. It is in the best interest of the UK not to rush these projects into service to make everything the best it can be tomorrow, but to evaluate and plan for the future in order to maintain the position it holds.

Depends on weather but it's easy to aim since you don't have to account for trajectory when firing

at 1.35 it shows them shooting a artillery shell that is static so my assumption is that it was for demonstration purposes to prove that the laser is powerful enough to do it in theory. No idea how long it took to neutralise the shell or how good the tracking is for the laser since it needs to target the same spot consistently in order to impart enough energy to do anything. Range is also important as for example if it requires 5 seconds to burn through the outer shell but the range is short so it doesn't get that much time to intercept before the shell lands. On top of the fact that its relatively easy to fire many shells and have them land within seconds of each other. Similar problem with missiles although they tend to travel slower but can be less predictable as they are not ballistic like an artillery shell.

Why won't it work?

reflective paint?

@LeonDegrelle.s when you hold a lighter under a mirror the heat comes from the lighter fuel burning, it has nothing to do with light hitting the mirror. A lazer will get reflected just like any other type of light. Light is energy and if it's being reflected then that energy is not going to turn into heat energy on the drone. So the drone will be fine.

@@matthewbaynham6286 Mirrors arent magic, they dont perfectly reflect 100% of the energy of the light hitting them. Put a normal mirror in the sun and it will get still get warm on a bright enough day. Mirrors could still have a level of effect but they wouldnt be some perfect counter as if it was a cartoon, it would just buy time for whatever was being targeted.

@@drdeadred851 even if a mirror is only reflecting 99% of the light that means 1% is being absorbed, so the lazer weapon needs to be 100 times more powerful, if the mirror reflects 99% of light.

@NOT.MI5.MI6. no, you don’t 😂 no one owns shares in anything they pay tax to 😂

Bad weather: drones and most aircraft cannot function in bad weather Limited range: 1km is fine for a close range defence system Slow to damage targets: fighting drones, mortars or small boats it's fine (SAMs are used to fight missiles) Power: It uses a generator

Incoming 500mph cruise missile can cover 1km in 4.5 secs. Chances of this lazer taking one down are zero. What kind of drones and aircraft can't fly in bad weather? These lazers can't even operate in heavy rain or fog.

Tbf the majority of weapons this would deal with can't deal with bad weather either

Makes little difference.

The atmosphere makes a lot of difference

I fink sooo if you no

My thought exactly.

What weapon works in all conditions perfectly against all targets? Just because it has potential downsides doesn't mean it doesn't still have immense utility.

@@drdeadred851It’s a very valid question

Just because the manufacturers illustration is a red beam doesn't mean that it is only optical. Lasers are possible at many wavelengths some not visible to the eye.. Undoubtedly the testing will have included all atmospheric conditions.

It would easier to just paint the exterior in some reflective substance(dont imagine it would totally negate it, probably just make it take a bit longer), a retractable mirror sounds like it would massivly inflate the cost of the sort of mini cheap commercial drones that this meant to work against.

Mirrors are only 99% effective and have a significantly lower melting point Paint is even less effective with a low melting point

@LeonDegrelle.s not if you confused the target with lots of mirror and go invisible. 😂🤣 Once a laser fired if target can escape does not matter if you light up the sky.

@LeonDegrelle.s it's called a deflected shield. 😊 And you worry about lighting up the sky well the ship firing the laser will be light up. Enemy fire missile BOOM there goes your expensive laser cannon.

@LeonDegrelle.s Here is the maths The energy density damage threshold in common dielectric coatings is ~14J/cm2 for a 20ps pulse. For a CW laser, this would be a power density of 7*1011 W/cm^2. The maximum laser power is 1*105 W. I'm going to have to use a low end estimate the focused beam diameter at ~100 cm so the area is ~101 cm2. This gives me an estimate of 104 W/cm2 . If it is a continuous wave laser, then coating your missile in mirrors should defeat the laser weapon.😁😇 And no you won't light up the sky this way you can strategically shot it back at them or it be directed to some where else. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT HEY??? 😂😁😏

Only slightly and the paint would be melted almost instantly

That will never happen. Too much ship generated power is needed to run half a dozen lasers...

The US one was 150kw power, 6 of 900kw power, which is an incredible amount of energy to use in one go 😂 does make you wonder how effective this will be again say 15-20 drones, missiles etc at the same time. I also wonder what counter measures could be put in place? Rotating bodies to avoid focus in one place, dummy body sections to take the brunt of the laser but not affect flight or even multiparty separating devices to fool or create multiple targets that the system cannot hit in one go. Then again a Phalanx would probably take care of anything that got through.

It’s not the power of the laser that is difficult. You could build a laser with an output 20x this one for not a large amount of money.

Lens cap

Don't stick your head in front of it, harry.

Blindness is potentially one of the uses of it, aim it at the cockpit of an enemy plane and watch them nose dive. Aim it at the optics on tanks or just drivers in vehicles etc. Its a weapon, dont point it at people you dont want to harm, otherwise its doing it job.

@@drdeadred851 which is a war crime

@@harryc1971 "The Protocol does not prohibit attacks against binoculars, periscopes, telescopes, and other optical equipment because it was unknown whether laser attacks on such devices could cause permanent blindness. Article 3 allows for attacks on electronic optical equipment, because damaging it would not cause human injury."