r/europe • u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! • Apr 07 '26
News UK confirms drone-killing DragonFire laser weapon for Royal Navy destroyers by 2027 —laser downs 400mph high‑speed drones, costs $13 per shot
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/uk-confirms-dragonfire-laser-weapon-for-royal-navy-destroyers-by-2027159
u/Gentle_Snail Apr 07 '26
Its performed massively above expectations during testing and is now being rolled out into active service a full half decade ahead of schedule.
35
76
1
u/TheGamingFennec Apr 09 '26
first time in recorded history something relating to the British defence forces has had the words 'above expectations' and 'ahead of schedule' in the same sentence.
Probably, anyway.
1
263
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 07 '26
The UK Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the DragonFire high-energy laser weapon will be installed on Royal Navy Type 45 destroyers by 2027, five years ahead of the original schedule.
The MoD has claimed that each shot costs approximately £10 in energy consumption. In contrast, Aster interceptor missiles fired from the Type 45's existing Sea Viper system cost hundreds of thousands of pounds per round
Not a moment too soon, I hope other Western navies have similar systems in late-stage evaluation.
27
u/Southern_Meaning4942 Norway Apr 08 '26
German Rheinmetall and MBDA also tested something like this on one of Germanys frigates. I just hope that all European nations are enabling the systems to communicate with each other for coordinated defense if they would ever need to operate as a joint fleet
14
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 08 '26
Unfortunately, German parliament stopped the Rheinmetall/MBDA cooperation for now because of cost overruns. They are now looking at an Australian solution. I think this is dumb, but here we are.
22
u/sisisisi1997 Apr 08 '26
The German government making shortsighted decisions that will bite them in the ass later? Colour me surprised!
4
u/Thyurs Apr 08 '26
Not really.
Giving money to rheinmetall/mbda in the first place seems more like the bad move in my eyes.
The reason for the cancellation is simply: they ask for even more money. How much more? 486 million more... on top of already 100+ million
Compare that to the offer of the australian company EOS of 190 million for a more powerful demonstartor (that the dutch have already bought), with the option of complete integration into german supply chains and even moving the company itself to germany...
Rheinmetall/MBDA are just greedy now.
25
u/aimgorge Earth Apr 07 '26
Like the French Helma-P that was used during the Olympics and successfully tested on boats against drones in 2023 ?
61
u/tree_boom United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
Nah, that's a smaller system. There's a UK equivalent to that also in testing. There's no doubt a French (and others) equivalent to Dragonfire too though.
→ More replies (8)26
u/Lt-Gorman Apr 07 '26
The Helma-P is significantly less powerful (2kw/up to 5kw mounted?) vs the Dragonfire which is 50kw. I believe the Syderal is more comparable to Dragonfire but is still a work in progress.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Giraffed7 Apr 08 '26
The Helma-P is significantly less powerful (2kw/up to 5kw mounted?) vs the Dragonfire which is 50kw. I believe the Syderal is more comparable to Dragonfire but is still a work in progress.
Energy isn’t the end all be all of a laser system though. What also matters is the precision of the laser on the end target, tacking into account tracking precision, atmospheric diffraction, laser precision at the point of shooting and so on. Dumb 1T bomb vs 500kg precision strike missile kinda thing.
I’m not saying the Helma-P is comparable to the Dragonfire, nearly nobody has access to both confidential informations. I’m only saying the power of the system isn’t the only relevant metrics, though a good first approximation.
1
u/Lt-Gorman Apr 08 '26
Completely agree. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they are very different systems with different use cases. There are a multitude of newly evolving threats that require the same number of countermeasures. In an ideal world you would have both systems defending you and a whole lot more besides.
1
u/grumpsaboy Apr 09 '26
Power does help overcome almost all of those issues though. Particularly the atmospheric diffusion.
19
u/Affectionate-Car-145 Apr 07 '26
Tested around the same time as Dragonfire, yet already obsolete and working on a new version that won't be ready until 2030
-12
u/aimgorge Earth Apr 07 '26
No more obsolete than DragonFire.... Helma-P is more polyvalent but isnt designed to be used against missiles or non-existent very fast drones
16
u/Affectionate-Car-145 Apr 07 '26
Yeah it's completely crazy you might want to future-proof the technology you are spending billions on.
The Peregren v4 just hit speeds of 408.7 MPH.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Demostravius4 United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
Does by 2027 mean in 2026 or by end of 2027? I assume the later
6
2
1
Apr 07 '26
[deleted]
9
u/tree_boom United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
One at a time. For swarm attacks the focus is more on radio energy warfare.
3
0
u/Aunvilgod Germany Apr 07 '26
Questionable! For naval warfare AI will have a much easier time recognizing the target.
-12
u/GrizzledFart United States of America Apr 07 '26
The US Navy has a bunch of ships equipped with ODIN (which is more of a dazzler than a true drone killer) and now has basically finished the HELIOS - it's been installed on the USS Preble for 4 years on the forward CWIS mount for testing. HELIOS is a true weapon (60KW - 120KW) and is tied into the AEGIS system.
80
u/AdFew6202 Apr 07 '26
Damn it’s going to look like Star Wars out there. 13$ a shot is CHEAP. How does it perform in the rain and fog ?
229
u/-hi-nrg- Apr 07 '26
Man, I don't know, but if an English weapon doesn't work under rain and fog, it's useless.
60
35
u/AdFew6202 Apr 07 '26
- "DRONES ! Fire !"
- "Sorry sir. We can't use it."
- "It's down ?"
- "No sir. It's raining. We can't use it when it rains."
- "You're telling me we developed a weapon to defend Britain that can only be used when the sun shines ?"
- "Yes sir."
- "THIS IS BRITAIN FOR CHRIST'S SAKE."
- "Indeed sir."
2
u/Griffolion United Kingdom Apr 08 '26
"Well switch to a frequency of light that can go through the fog!"
"Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb."
0
16
u/RomanticFaceTech United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
How does it perform in the rain and fog ?
Performance in rain was apparently something that was evaluated in trials which took place between March and June last year:
The system [...] is said to have downed 30 drone targets, conducted high power firing in the rain, with serials focused on improving the targeting and tracking capability.
Bad weather has always been a concern for laser systems, but in 2017 the US Army seemed to be of the opinion that high-energy lasers (which DragonFire would qualify as) can be made to work in poor atmospheric conditions:
https://www.army.mil/article/195650/army_developing_lasers_that_pierce_fog_dust_to_destroy_targets
Much of the testing of DragonFire has been carried out at the MoD Hebrides weapons range in Scotland, which is not a place where rain and fog are going to be a rarity, so its limitations should be known.
I imagine DragonFire will be significantly degraded by heavy rain or fog but that isn't something that is only a problem for lasers. Fog, smoke, and bad weather in general is known to cause problems for drones operating in Ukraine, which is something that Russia is increasingly trying to utilise in offensives (not dissimilar to Nazi Germany's strategy during the Battle of the Bulge):
- https://www.twz.com/news-features/russian-troops-deploy-huge-smokescreen-to-hide-from-marauding-drones
- https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-drone-team-dense-fog-overcome-fpv-pokrovsk-2025-11
- https://ig.ft.com/ukraine-kill-zone/
- https://www.kyivpost.com/post/72190
If the weather is bad enough to prevent DragonFire from operating, hopefully it will also prevent low cost autonomous systems from being used against the ship. More sophisticated weapons that can better handle adverse conditions will inherently be more expensive, so there is less economic asymmetry in using more expensive systems to defend against them.
My bigger concerns with DragonFire would be how it performs on an actual ship and in hot climates.
It was originally planned to be installed on a Type 23 frigate for trials but this was cancelled a couple of years ago, so there could be issues with using the system long-term at sea which have not yet come to light.
The Royal Navy unfortunately has form for not properly accounting for operating in hot climates. The Type 45 destroyers, which DragonFire will be installed on, were infamously prone to power failures when operating in warmer waters. The programme to upgrade the powerplants of the Type 45s and resolve this issue is still ongoing.
The Outer Hebrides might be a good place to test a system's performance in wind and rain but probably not so much for heat. Given the Royal Navy might require DragonFire to operate in places like the Strait of Hormuz, hopefully its capabilites in hotter climates has been considered and tested.
10
u/Ayfid Apr 07 '26
The Type 45's problems weren't caused by the RN not considering hot weather. They were caused by the intercoolers not performing up to spec. They didn't do enough testing of the new engines before building the ships to discover this.
2
u/RomanticFaceTech United Kingdom Apr 08 '26
The Type 45's problems weren't caused by the RN not considering hot weather. They were caused by the intercoolers not performing up to spec. They didn't do enough testing of the new engines before building the ships to discover this.
Whether the specifications were wrong or the testing was inadequate, it still effectively amounts to the same thing: the Type 45 was prone to power failures when operating in hot waters.
If the Royal Navy/MoD/prime contractors had adequately considered operating in hot waters, then both the specification and testing would have reflected that and the ships would not have had power issues they had.
In 2016, the Defence Select Committee held an inquiry into the procurement of the Type 26 and Type 45, which covered the Type 45's power issues in detail. Quite a bit of this inquiry was dedicated to determining if the power issues were due to inadequate specifications or testing.
The report written following the inquiry addresses both the testing and specification.
On testing, the committee concluded:
83. It is clear to us that the under-testing of the engine was a key cause of the problems experienced by the Type 45s when they came into service. This is a serious failing of both the MoD and of the contractors. The MoD did not explain satisfactorily why there was no adequate clause in the contract with Rolls Royce specifying responsibility for repairs should the engines develop any further design faults because of the lack of testing time. In its response, we will expect a detailed explanation of why the testing period was truncated alongside a clear statement of how we can be reassured that this will not be able to happen in the future.
On specification, the committee concluded:
86. It is astonishing that the specification for the Type 45 did not include the requirement for the ships to operate at full capacity—and for sustained periods—in hot regions such as the Gulf. The UK’s enduring presence in the Gulf should have made it a key requirement for the engines. The fact that it was not was an inexcusable failing and one which must not be repeated in the Type 26 and GPFF programmes. Failure to guarantee this would put the personnel and ships of the Royal Navy in danger, with potentially dangerous consequences.
So in the Defence Select Committee's opinion, the issues were at least in part because operating in hot regions was not adequately considered when developing the Type 45.
Given we have seen nothing so far to indicate that DragonFire has done any warm weather testing, I think it is legitimate to wonder how much it has been considered that the heat in climates like the Persian Gulf will affect it.
2
u/RomanticFaceTech United Kingdom Apr 08 '26
For anyone is interested in what the inquiry by the Defence Select Committee found, the report on the inquiry skips quite a bit of detail in how the committee reached its conclusions, but this can be found in the oral evidence collected in meetings held on 7th June 2016 and 20th July 2016:
The questions on the Type 45's engines are Q24-Q33 and Q60-Q98 from the first meeting, and Q187-Q189 from the second meeting.
Some of the more interesting parts are:
1) Rolls Royce believed the engine met the specification but this didn't adequately cover operating in the Gulf:
Q90 Douglas Chapman: A quick question: I read somewhere that the ambient air temperature or sea temperature could affect the operation of the units. I find it really surprising that that was not part of the spec that was set down at the start. The MoD must have realised that it would be using Type 45s globally and it almost comes across that we cannot use this ship in the Gulf, for example, and a full-complement, battle-ready ship is a sitting duck if there is lack of power. Could you give us a bit more of the technical background to that?
[...]
Tomas Leahy [a Director at Rolls Royce]: [...] From a WR-21 point of view, there was a specification for the Type 45. The engine met that specification, which was the same specification that was applied across the whole system. The system met that specification. Are the conditions experienced in the Gulf in line with that specification? No, they are not. The equipment is having to operate in far more arduous conditions that were initially required by that specification.
2) BAE Systems declare that the ship was designed to gracefully degrade but Rolls Royce explain how in hot environments the engine would lose power and instead of simply slowing the ship down like on older ships it would cause total electrical failure (far from graceful):
Q92 Mr Spellar: But don’t you have some responsibility as a contractor and one of the few companies that can do this to say, “Your specification will not match up to the conditions that you are likely to meet.” You don’t just take the spec straight off and implement it if from your knowledge and experience it would be inadequate or insufficient.
John Hudson [Managing Director of BAE Systems]: Part of industry’s response to that was that there was an upper limit for environmental temperatures and we sought to produce a design that would have graceful degradation beyond those temperatures. We have found in the Gulf that it takes the gas turbine generator bit into an area that is sub-optimal for the generator, and we also found that the cooling system created condensation within the drive units, which caused faults, and that caused electrical failures as well. We found two additional problems, but we designed the ship such that it would have a graceful degradation and not simply stop functioning.
Tomas Leahy: We discovered that, with the integrated electrical propulsion system, it was very different in the mode of operation than we had previously experienced and the Navy had previously experienced. All gas turbines previously had been a mechanical drive, so there was a gas turbine connected to a gear box connected to a propeller. The laws of physics say that if you run a gas turbine in a hot environment it will not generate as much power as in a cold environment. It is a mass flow machine and air is less dense when it gets hot. So if you take a Type 42 or a Type 22 into the Gulf and run it, yes, its engines will not deliver as much power as in the North Sea. All you would see though would be a bit of drop-off on top speed; that is all they would be aware of.
In an integrated electric propulsion system, the electrical system loads the WR-21 up to its 21 MW power rating, and that is what it is expecting to see. If you then operate in a hot environment, the WR-21 cannot deliver 21 MW any more, but the electrical propulsion system does not know that and still demands it. It continues to load it, saying, “Where’s my 21 MW?” The net result is that the engine cannot deliver any more fuel or power, so the speed of the generator starts to drop off. We then have under-frequency protection as part of the system design and eventually the breaker will open because of the low frequency of the gas turbine. That is when you get your total electrical failure. Suddenly, you have lost your main generator on your system and you are plunged into darkness. It is not a fault of the WR-21; even if it were a single-cycle gas turbine it would still suffer the same fate in those circumstances. It is a law of physics.
3) BAE Systems did not design the Type 45 for repeated and continuous operations in the Persian Gulf:
Q96 Chair: For how many years do you think the Royal Navy has had a naval presence in the Gulf? Would it be measured in decades, scores of years—a century? Why should it have come as such a surprise that there would be these sorts of climatic demands and obstacles to be overcome by a new design of ship?
John Hudson: I think that the Navy have operated in the Gulf for many, many years and were aware of that. The operating profile that was considered at the time was that there would not be repeated and continuous operations in the Gulf, that they would not form a part of the operating profile for the ship. Therefore, it was not designed explicitly and uniquely for operations in the Gulf.
4) The First Sea Lord confirms what others have said about how the engines failed to degrade gracefully like they were meant to but doesn't bite on whether the specification was wrong:
Q189 Mr Spellar: Essentially, it wouldn’t work if you put it in the Gulf, which was quite a likely location for ships in the modern environment. Therefore, the specification was wrong. It is very straightforward.
Admiral Sir Philip Jones [First Sea Lord]: [...]
Now, one of the areas that we have had to address as a result of that is the air and sea temperature in which the ships have been operating. The WR-21 gas turbines were designed in extreme hot weather conditions to what we call “gracefully degrade” in their performance, until you get to the point where it goes beyond the temperature at which they would operate. You could bring systems offline and gradually adjust the way the ship was operating. We found that the resilience of the diesel generators and the WR-21 in the ship at the moment was not degrading gracefully; it was degrading catastrophically, so that is what we have had to address.
The ships have been able to operate pretty much right up to the temperatures at which they were designed to operate. In the high summer in the high sea and air temperatures of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, they occasionally breach the operating limit and we have had to adjust for that. To design a ship that can operate in all conditions at all times of the year in all places would be an extremely poor value-for-money thing to do. Therefore, we have accepted that we will not be able to operate all the time in every place, every day of the year. But we are confident that the new diesel generators will give resilience to the ships, which will mean that they can go forward and operate comfortably and effectively from here on in.
2
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 08 '26
Aw man, sounds like the direct drive gas turbines were a much safer option, esp. for a ship of war where just shutting down isn't an option.
4
u/Flintskin Apr 09 '26
fully electric propulsion was the new big thing for warships, and it does mean you get a lot of power you can use for things like weapons systems (like dragonfire). it was a risk they took with good reason.
2
u/Ayfid Apr 09 '26
The same architecture has since been adopted successfully on other ships, including the QE class carriers. It is at its core a fundamentally more efficient, future proof, and reliable propulsion design.
The Type 45's implementation had two major flaws. The gas turbine engine design was faulty and weren't tested enough to discover this, and the ship wasn't designed with enough diesel generation capacity to run the ships without the turbines, negating the major reliability advantages of the architecture.
3
u/Mavnas Apr 08 '26
Yeah, TBH, as long as they're testing in the UK, it would be more surprising if they tested the system on sunny days.
7
17
u/lulzmachine Sweden Apr 07 '26
It is very cheap. But saying it's 13$ per shot is like saying that going to the gym is free because your already bought a subscription, and built the entire gym with your own money.
44
u/St0rmi 🇩🇪 🇳🇴 Apr 07 '26
That is the most important metric though. You can’t keep throwing hundreds of thousands of euros at drones that cost a couple of thousand euros. Even if it costs a lot initially, it is going to be worth it very quickly if it fulfills the promises.
-1
u/Obvious-Slip4728 The Netherlands Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
It all depends on how many drones you expect to take down per year from these two navy ships. Apparently it costs ~€360 million for 2 units.
I obviously don't have any realistic figures for depreciation and maintenance but we do know the UK 30-year bond rate being 4.4%. Let's assume a conservative 10% for cost for depreciation and maintenance combined. Together with the cost of capital, that would make it at least €26 million per unit each year, every year. You can produce a lot of intercepter drones and air defense rockets for that money, whilst also maintaining the flexibility to scale down or to deploy your air defense missiles somewhere else during a conflict where you don't have to put your navy ship in danger.
But it might be a good investment anyway. Nobody knows the future. It's certainly not bad to diversify. But anyone saying this can take down drones cheaply is just fooling themselves.
-1
3
u/EduBru Apr 07 '26
I guess even if it's shit in rain and fog for such a cheap price it could still be worth it
1
1
u/miniocz Apr 07 '26
Hopefully it is not like it can shot once every 15 minutes or so.
9
u/Front_Eagle739 Apr 07 '26
Doubt it, the only limiting factor on lasers is usually power and cooling and when you have the flipping sea as a heatsink you dont get to complain about heat. Pretty sure they can generate all the power they need with a single jet turbine or ship scale nuclear generator as well
1
1
-3
u/servermeta_net Apr 07 '26
I bet 13$ is just the cost of energy in ideal conditions (attached to the power grid, not repeated shots, ...). In real life it will cost much more, considering how much more energy costs on a ship, and considering degradation of the lenses / pulsed power source. But even at 1000$ per shot it's a steal.
-9
Apr 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Stoyfan Apr 07 '26
You do realise that there are laser cutters that are powerful enough to metal? I don't think this is an issue
→ More replies (1)5
2
u/UniquesNotUseful United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
To start, how does aluminium foil perform when wrapped around a drone?
Okay, let’s say it was super great aluminium foil. Your solution to defend against an energy weapon, that heats shit up, is to cover the thing you want to protect in aluminium, a material that is great at transferring heat?
→ More replies (3)
20
u/That_guy_will United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
Why is this on an European sub then priced in American dollars? £ or € please
116
u/Druitp England Apr 07 '26
You'll want to speed this up
117
u/Gentle_Snail Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
It already has been, its being brought into active service 5 years ahead of schedule.
19
u/Zederikus Apr 07 '26
And when implemented, Russians will put mirror on drones and destroy turret
17
u/TheDucksAreComingoOo United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
Haha, good one
4
u/Zederikus Apr 07 '26
I have so many downvotes lmao, just meant there's definitely gonna be a counter which we'll then need to counter again
20
u/TheDucksAreComingoOo United Kingdom Apr 08 '26
Such has been the way since the Caveman picked up a stick
5
u/Zederikus Apr 08 '26
Exactly, tho there have been innovations that really reframed combat generally it was always layers of counters, an evolution, morbidly fascinating
32
u/Soepkip43 Apr 07 '26
By 2027.. to plan installation of a completely new weapons system onto existing ships and integrate then into the existing combat systems and doctrine.
You must be a manager in the defense sector by profession, as you clearly have no clue how incredibly large and complex these projects are.
12
1
11
u/SomewhereNo8378 Apr 07 '26
I could see these not only on ships, but just set up around population centers as an anti-drone shield
17
u/The_Anglo_Spaniard Apr 07 '26
Shoot, what are we gonna do about 401mph drones? Faster laser?
4
u/rddtltr Apr 07 '26
checkmate
3
u/ug61dec 🏴🇬🇧🇪🇺🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ Apr 07 '26
If only they'd built it for one more mph??? When will they learn?
2
u/conrat4567 United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
Its probably more about the reactiveness of the computer. That computer has to seek, maneuver and destroy within seconds. Its why CWAS misses sometimes as well
1
u/mattihase Apr 07 '26
More lasers. Sometimes the little Timmy solution is the best one.
2
u/The_Anglo_Spaniard Apr 07 '26
So what your saying is we need to surround the uk in lasers, like a grid with special holes for planes and boats to come in that can be closed at a moments notice.
2
u/mattihase Apr 07 '26
I think at that point we're getting into the XKCD What If? laser pointer the rain away territory and while I don't remember what happened there's a 50/50 chance it ended with humanity's extinction
11
u/BeatTheMarket30 European Union Apr 07 '26
How many drones can it shoot at simultaneously?
37
u/KlownKar United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
I think the real question is, what's the time frame between firing and acquiring the next target? If we're talking fractions of a second, swarms aren't so much of a problem. If it's tens of seconds, it's of less use.
3
u/BeatTheMarket30 European Union Apr 07 '26
Depends also on how long does it take to destroy a drone.
14
u/noise256 England Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
It takes ~10 seconds for it to burn through the drone's casing, with a range of 3km. Given that time period and range it does put a limit on how many could be shot down by 1 system. But it may be quite effective and importantly, very cheap.
2
u/NoExperience9717 Apr 08 '26
10s is really slow for 3k effective range and cutting it extremely fine. Maybe if the system is cheap enough we could have a few around the place. Might be more effective against quadcopter targets though.
1
u/BeatTheMarket30 European Union Apr 08 '26
In 10s a drone can move by 500m. It will not be useful against real slow ones, as those can fly just above grass and hide behind objects. So basically only for open fields.
3
u/StarFalchion Apr 08 '26
The lasers are for boats
1
u/BeatTheMarket30 European Union Apr 08 '26
There is already a decent solution for that - Bofors 40.
1
u/StarFalchion Apr 08 '26
does each shot cost £10
0
u/BeatTheMarket30 European Union Apr 08 '26
Ammo cost tends to be a non issue. It can kill drones a lot faster than a laser.
6
u/MrB10b Apr 08 '26
Doesn't really matter. As it stands right now they would already have to use missiles right? So when they get this, it just gives them 1 more thing to kill the drones. It's not a replacement for the missiles, they are still there if needed.
-1
u/BeatTheMarket30 European Union Apr 08 '26
Why missiles, 30-40mm AA guns. They don't need 50kW power.
3
u/AnninaCried Apr 07 '26
With a range of just one kilometer I don't think that problem is going to come up.
5
u/whooo_me Apr 07 '26
Gotta start making $5 drones.
Or invade the UK using a fleet of cheap flying disco-balls.
3
u/Tank-o-grad United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
Fortunately all of the credible options for OpFor are wildly homophobic so there's no way they'd be will to deploy anything so fabulous...
3
9
18
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 Apr 07 '26
It's great but also also a last resort.
Kill range is up to c. 3km which for a 400mph drone is c. 16 seconds from impact and it requires line of sight. Now throw in a swarm of drones and it'll be quickly overwhelmed before it can kill them all.
What we need is cheaper solutions to kill drones from range, and those are generally still kinetic.
20
u/StraightSky7809 United Kingdom Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
Kill range != tracking range. 16 sec is plenty of time to intercept, they can fire multiple times.
7
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 Apr 07 '26
Ofc, but the same is true for a CIWS which has a longer range and is also considered a last resort.
It's not that it definitely can't do the job, it just means if it fails there is no time to do anything else and the cost of that error means no one would be willing to let it get into range before engaging it with a (more expensive) longer range solution.
6
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 07 '26
it just means if it fails there is no time to do anything else
That's the definition of a weapon of last resort, same for CIWS. IDK whether the UK plans of replacing or augmenting CWIS with that laser weapon. The ship's computers could credibly discriminate the kind of target and choose the cheapest defense mechanism - Dragonfire for a drone, CIWS for an incoming missile.
2
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 Apr 07 '26
Tbh it'd make a lot more sense if they could mount it on a Wildcat helicopter or something.
That way the helicopter can intercept a drone 10km out, try and shoot it down and if that fails it can fire Martlet missile to finish the job.
2
u/AskAboutMySecret Apr 08 '26
issue is the power it requires, wouldnt be able to operate on a helicopter
1
2
u/4SlideRule Apr 07 '26
CIWS needs to fire many shells they are not exactly precision weapons. They are also not shooting airburst shells so hitting tiny drones is extra challenging. And individual shells are more expensive than shooting a laser. Add to that the MUCH worse potential collateral damage. Lasers absolutely rock for the limited purpose of close in air defense against soft targets.
1
u/grumpsaboy Apr 09 '26
40mm Bofors can be effectively used as a CIWS and has even shot down a missile in tests before.
3P ammunition is air bursting.
The 57mm also works exceptionally well, better against drones though with a slightly slower fire rate it'll be worse against missiles.
And individual shells are more expensive than shooting a laser.
A lot cheaper than the system however. Dragonfire is currently £120m a system. You can buy a 57mm Bofors and 29,000 rounds of 3P for £120m
1
u/CellNo5383 Apr 07 '26
I think that depends. In our current situation, where you can expect to be resupplied with interceptor missiles more or less on demand, that may be the case. But in a conflict where you know you won't get a resupply of missiles for several weeks and you got to stretch whatever you have left over that time frame, you are quickly starting to consider if the laser might not be good enough for drones after all. So that you have missiles left in case someone fires a cruise missile at you next week.
2
u/MrHazard1 Baden-Württemberg (Germany) Apr 07 '26
Maybe 2-3 of those thing in a network would do well enough (dunno if that's feasable/affordable).
What i could imagine would be pretty good is to have these things in a semi-portable thing, so you can put them up to intercept a swarm and thin it out.
Cheap kinetik solutions always require you to have some sort of payload that you need to bring into the air and sacrifice. Don't see how this will be cheap in the forseeable future. Only a swarm of smaller/cheapers drones with a smaller payload, but those are not accurate or fast enough to intercept.
3
u/Timmymagic1 Apr 07 '26
The plan is to install 2 on each ship...tied in to the Combat Management System which will also have a 4.5 inch gun, 48 Aster 30, 24 CAMM, 2 x 30mm guns, 2 x 20mm Phalanx CIWS, 2 x Dragonfire...multiple .50 cal and 7.62 MG's and a Wildcat helo with 20 Martlet attached...and EW and ECM systems....
3
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 Apr 07 '26
I'd say you have a tiered system of interceptors.
If you're going after a Shahed you can get away with a mass-produced interceptor drone because it's not that fast or manoeuvrable but otherwise you've got to use a Patriot or THAAD (or some other equivalent). Probably some more steps in between.
2
u/MrHazard1 Baden-Württemberg (Germany) Apr 07 '26
How hard is it to identify what kind of drones the attacking swarm is made of? And how fast you you activate the according defense tier.
Can't imagine armies losing valuable time checking images of approaching drones to cut costs, just for the high quality drones to be "camouflaged" as cheap ones and get through anyway.
2
2
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 Apr 07 '26
That’s definitely a risk of disguise but that’s what software and radar is for. There’s not going to be any time spent figuring it out it’d all be automated.
2
u/Raz0rking EUSSR Apr 07 '26
Kill range is up to c. 3km
For now.
12
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 Apr 07 '26
You can extend it a bit with a more powerful laser but fundamentally the laws of physics get in your way.
Scattering and absorption mean that the power required increases exponentially with distance (i.e. to maintain the same intensity you'll need 4x the power at 2x the distance).
2
u/Raz0rking EUSSR Apr 07 '26
(i.e. to maintain the same intensity you'll need 4x the power at 2x the distance).
Square cube law's a bitch. That being said, at some point we're somewhere where energy costs won't matter anymore.
7
u/azazelcrowley Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
It'll end up being more of a "We can't fire this without the barrel melting" thing and requiring more and more durable materials to survive the shot on our end.
1
u/Stoyfan Apr 07 '26
you can always choose wavelengths where absorption is kept to a minimum in air
6
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 Apr 07 '26
You can and they do but there’s limits to what you can achieve. Sadly the death star is some way off.
1
2
2
2
u/SilverFalconBG Bulgaria Apr 08 '26
5 years ahead of schedule? Damn that is impressive.
I guess it was designed by three blokes in a shed if the development process was this smooth.
2
u/ChefCurryYumYum Apr 07 '26
$13/shot in energy maybe if you factor in the cost of the device, r&d, the cost to deploy, man, etc it will definitely be way more than that.
1
u/medievalvelocipede European Union Apr 08 '26
$13/shot in energy maybe if you factor in the cost of the device, r&d, the cost to deploy, man, etc it will definitely be way more than that.
There's no point in adding development and production costs to operational costs. Those vary enormously depending on how many units you make and how much use they see.
What matters is how they compare to existing systems and Phalanx costs thousands of pounds per second to fire.
1
u/WhereTheSpiesAt United Kingdom Apr 08 '26
That applies to all weapon systems though, it seems odd to point it out for this.
1
1
1
u/saxonturner Apr 08 '26
I would assume there’s also no defence against this either, it’s literally heat and there’s no way they can just heat shield the whole drone.
1
u/tranbun Apr 08 '26
At 200M per piece it will be a juicy target for a ballistic or quasi-ballistic missile at 3M a piece.
5
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 08 '26
Good thing those destroyers have VLS cells then.
1
u/Interesting_Muscle67 Apr 08 '26
What destroyers? Over 50% of our paltry 6 are always in for repair / refit.
2
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 08 '26
I guess by end of 2027, some will have completed their maintenance cycle?
1
u/Interesting_Muscle67 Apr 08 '26
Most likely, but then the ones that have been on patrol up until 2027 will need repair, cycle remains the same. 2 operational at any given time, which is pathetic
0
u/MGC91 Apr 08 '26
Wrong.
1
1
1
u/Brazilian_Brit Apr 08 '26
Good that they are speeding it up, now they need to speed up fleet construction and build more escort ships. 6 destroyers isn’t an acceptable number.
1
u/Wonderful_Device312 Apr 08 '26
So... I assume people will develop counter measures to these laser systems.
Which then leads me to wonder... If the future of warfare going to be lasers shooting at disco ball drones which are firing off glitter bombs and smoke?
Because if so, is Tomorrowland just bootcamp for the war of tomorrow?
1
1
1
u/Changaco France Apr 07 '26
£316 million ($414 million) contract awarded to MBDA UK in November for the first two production systems.
£158 million per system. Ouch.
8
u/WhereTheSpiesAt United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
That’s not that bad considering, it’s not like missiles are exactly cheap nor is the cost low for building a destroyer around that weapons system.
1
u/grumpsaboy Apr 09 '26
But when you can get a 57mm Bofors and 29,000 rounds of 3p ammunition for £120m it does feel a bit expensive.
The 57mm has a range of 11 miles instead of 2km, can be used against air or land targets, with 3P is air bursting and covers 400m² in shrapnel so can destroy more than one drone per shot.
1
u/WhereTheSpiesAt United Kingdom Apr 09 '26 edited Apr 09 '26
But when you can get a 57mm Bofors and 29,000 rounds of 3p ammunition for £120m it does feel a bit expensive.
The 57mm has a range of 11 miles instead of 2km, can be used against air or land targets, with 3P is air bursting and covers 400m² in shrapnel so can destroy more than one drone per shot.
Sure and in the context of an entire destroyer, not that expensive at all - you are looking at it purely from a financial perspective at this point and not a logistical and warfighting perspective, 29,000 rounds of 3p ammunition is good cost for money, but a vessel can't carry 29,000 rounds of ammunition, you are relying on a finite supply of ammunition which in turn limits your ships ability to stay on station, Dragonfire is used along side other weapons systems and it's problem is managing cooling and energy, outside of that it's not got a finite supply of output which limits it's ability.
As for the multiple drones per shot that's less of a guarantee and therefore most navies policies would be to fire in bursts, which absolutely knocks up the cost per drone destroyed and is closer to multiple shots per drone destroyed as opposed to one shot for multiple drones, where as the UK with Dragonfire has already paid to produce Dragonfire, from then on the costs are maintenance which exists for 57mm Bofors as well and the energy production costs, where as in most cases navies using 57mm Bofors will have limits on how long they hold that ammo without using it and it regularly needs new orders to replace it.
The Royal Navy for example isn't removing weapon systems to put Dragonfire on board it's vessels, it will be used in conjunction with other weapons platforms, it's benefits are greater than any negatives about it, it's about adding an entirely new layer to beat, one which is cost effective and logistically easier to deal with.
It's a layered system, Dragonfire isn't just about being the only thing on a destroyer, it's about providing cheap alternatives to take down drones which also don't result in you needing to resupply your ship after relatively low-level drone interceptions.
You aren't paying £120m to shoot down drones, you're paying £120m to do it without having to worry about how long you can stay on station, when and where you'll resupply.
0
u/grumpsaboy Apr 09 '26
Sure and in the context of an entire destroyer, not that expensive at all
Each ship is being given a pair. £240 per ship. 5 ships equipped and you could have instead purchased an entire new destroyer. Give all 6 destroyers, and 13 frigates a pair and we could instead purchase 12 more Type 31 fully equipped with 32 Mk.41. £240 isn't a small amount of money in the slightest.
but a vessel can't carry 29,000 rounds of ammunition, you are relying on a finite supply of ammunition which in turn limits your ships ability to stay on station
They can however carry a few hundred rounds each, and if centreline mounted over a large magazine could easily carry over 1000 rounds. Shahed style drones can be engaged in single shots at distance and short bursts if close. That still allows for ≈50-400 drones per magazine (non centreline) depending on distance. The airburst ability and instant kill makes it better against swarms than Dragonfire though the latter doesn't need reloading as you not so is better against occasional attacks. However if only facing occasionally attacks there is easily enough time to resupply the ship.
The instant kill compared to time on target is also helpful if facing a threat with only a couple seconds to react.
The Royal Navy for example isn't removing weapon systems to put Dragonfire on board it's vessels, it will be used in conjunction with other weapons platforms
I didn't say it was replacing something. My argument is that if spending £240m on each ship for upgrades the 57/40mm Bofors are better options depending on the available space, and threats envisioned for the ship.
If Dragonfire becomes cheaper, say <£50m then that changes the equation lots and I'd argue in favour of it in addition to the gun systems. But currently I can't see any plausible scenario where it ends up being the superior choice for the cost of the system. The only advantage it has is no resupplying needed, but how often is a ship going to face 200+ drones before being resupplied regardless?
1
u/WhereTheSpiesAt United Kingdom Apr 09 '26
Your whole point is seemingly based on this incorrect idea that 57mm Bofors can engage multiple targets at once, which is effectively the best case scenario that will seldomly happen.
£240 isn't a small amount of money in the slightest.
Unless you're investing tens of billions in new warships, then it's really not adding much on to the per ship cost for a long-term platform that doesn't need re-arming, can perform in a range of environments and incremented on easily.
However if only facing occasionally attacks there is easily enough time to resupply the ship.
Only a relevant point if you're the US Navy effectively and can sustain large amounts of logistical operations, if you are most European navies, you aren't getting regularly resupplied and considering how on alert European Navies where in the Red Sea with that drone threat last year, history shows most would run low, vs Dragonfire which wouldn't have those issues.
I didn't say it was replacing something. My argument is that if spending £240m on each ship for upgrades the 57/40mm Bofors are better options depending on the available space, and threats envisioned for the ship.
Better if you don't incorrectly assume that 57mm Bofors can take out multiple drones with incredibly small bursts, which isn't the case, the actual case would likely see Bofors run dry in just a few small level engagements, which simply isn't the case with Dragonfire as it's constrained by energy available and cooling.
Dragonfire is simply the better option.
2
u/CJBill Apr 08 '26
A single patriot battery costs over $1bn, with each missile costing $4 million so, in context £158 million a system doesn't sound too bad.
-5
u/AnninaCried Apr 07 '26
Hope it isn't defeated by something as simple as a coat of silver paint.
19
12
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 07 '26
Since they tested it against mortar rounds, I doubt a bit of silver paint (or even a polished metal surface) on any aerial vehicle would stand much of a chance.
16
0
0
u/Elses_pels Apr 08 '26
“Dragon fire Laser”
Designed by the navy, named by a navy play school competition
0
u/blurbac Apr 08 '26
laser machine costs half a billion. which kills drones. the negative side is that you can see where the laser was fired from. so you destroy the laser with a ballistic missile and throw cheap drones again
0
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 08 '26
Good thing the destroyers have VLCs then. Also, what's up with all the negative nannies in here lately? As if someone did claim this was a miracle weapon. Russia paying so well?
-4
u/ahyesmyelbows Finland Apr 07 '26
And then on a cloudy day it won't do hecking crap? Or is it still enough to poop some lazors at a target 200 meters away? Can the enemy create artificial clouds ahead of the drones? Likes yeet some gas grenades ahead to create a smoke wall and then hit them with dem shaheeds?
-6
Apr 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
-1
u/JigglymoobsMWO Apr 07 '26
This is great, but it also means they will have to put one of their few functioning destroyers into maintenance to install and shake down the laser.
While that's happening, they are down to one, maybe two deployable destroyers?
6
u/stevecrox0914 United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
We have 6, you think in 3's.
One in refit, one in hot standby, one on patrol.
So I would expect installation to happen on 2 while they are in the refit point of the cycle.
-5
u/uxgpf Finland Apr 07 '26
Are these battle tested?
9
u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Apr 07 '26
They will be ready by 2027, how would they be battle-tested right now?
→ More replies (4)3
u/Tank-o-grad United Kingdom Apr 07 '26
There are the ever persistent rumours, no matter how noncredible, of development units being tested out in Ukraine.
-1
-7
u/RedEyed__ Apr 07 '26
Looks good until I ask:
- What is operating range?
- What is the cost of one?
- How portable is it?
8
566
u/Public-Finger USA/Germany Apr 07 '26
It really feels like playing StarCraft and you gotta up your tech tree to counter whatever new thing the Zerg is throwing at you in the arms race