Military Review

The Chinese have demonstrated a laser "killer" drones

45
The Chinese company GuoRong showed how to defend against small UAVs. According to the portal eastpendulum.com, that the Chinese manufacturer has presented the same name laser defense system.


The Chinese have demonstrated a laser "killer" drones


The company presented a video showing the work of the GuoRong complex, consisting of two small trucks. One of them is equipped with a radar and an electronic jamming system, the second with an electro-optical module and a laser system. With the help of a laser, a plastic target suspended from a quadcopter was struck at first, and during the re-demonstration, the drone itself was hit.

According to the developers, the range of the radar system is 55 km, and the laser setup and jamming system can neutralize drones and other radio-controlled air objects at altitudes up to 600 m. GuoRong announced that it has already received an order for several installations from the police and airports transmits "Warspot"

Photos used:
http://www.eastpendulum.com/
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. newcomer
    newcomer 29 November 2017 16: 52 New
    +3
    not so, the Chinese are keeping pace with science.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 29 November 2017 17: 03 New
      +9
      Not so, the Chinese are PR. Both in the USA and in Russia and in Europe, such developments are already 30 years old. Projects are being carried out at the scientific and theoretical level and laboratory conditions, due to their complete practical unsuitability. (weather instability, huge energy consumption, ease of counteraction)
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 29 November 2017 17: 12 New
      +8
      Quote: newbie
      not so, the Chinese are keeping pace with science.

      There is nothing outstanding here ...
      and the laser system and jamming system can neutralize drones and other radio-controlled airborne objects at a height of up to 600 m.

      And if the drone flies at a height of a kilometer or more, then this setting will only show the drone to the drone, or vice versa, the drone will show it to it.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 29 November 2017 17: 22 New
        +2
        C-400 can hit targets only up to 25 km, and if the target flies at an altitude of 26 km? What for such a system is needed? And Tor is 10 km away, the Global Hawk flies higher. To the scrap immediately wassat
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 29 November 2017 17: 37 New
          +9
          Quote: BlackMokona
          C-400 can hit targets only up to 25 km, and if the target flies at an altitude of 26 km?

          For this, the classification of air defense systems and their separation were invented. Under the goals of near space and the stratosphere, the S-500, respected, is being created. At the same time, the Triumph arsenal is also being modernized.
          Quote: BlackMokona
          The global hawk flies higher.

          Global Hawk flies at an altitude of up to 20 km. And this target, in addition to interceptors, is very good for Shell-SM.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 29 November 2017 17: 38 New
            0
            For this, the classification of air defense systems and their separation were invented. Under the goals of near space and the stratosphere, the S-500, respected, is being created. At the same time, the Triumph arsenal is also being modernized.

            And it cannot have short-range air defense covering the troops from any small martyrs of UAVs, with which ISIS and company are so rich? winked
            And the Pantsyr SM is up to 15 km, and the Global Hawk is up to 20 km.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 29 November 2017 17: 47 New
              +6
              Quote: BlackMokona
              And the Pantsyr SM is up to 15 km, and the Global Hawk is up to 20 km.

              You are mistaken ... up to 15 km, this is Shell-C1 beats ... and I'm talking about a new modernization of Shell-SM, in which both the range is doubled and the height of the interception of targets. hi
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 29 November 2017 18: 08 New
              +3
              You see, from the Chinese side these are still ordinary show-offs.
              Not earlier than in early summer, the Americans dragged a similar complex based on the Stryker armored personnel carrier to Europe for "military tests." The Chinese made a fuss, and whipped up an analogue, according to the method of "we can too." On the truck, apparently they have the same problems with the energy.

              Meanwhile, without noise and dust, Israeli General Robotics riveted a system of similar purpose weighing only 70 kg.

              Moreover, with such a low power consumption that it can be installed on a light robotic platform
              Almost the same functions as the American or Chinese version. They found UAVs using radar, began to accompany them, using REP means on the system of receiving information from global positioning satellites and on control channels. Simply, if the "client" did not accept the "soft power", an ordinary machine gun is used for destruction, for which no transcendental energy is needed.
              1. _Jack_
                _Jack_ 29 November 2017 19: 37 New
                0
                Using an ordinary machine gun to get into a small drone is problematic only if it flew at point blank range, then yes. Somewhere there was a video of the test of the Shell-S, how many of the machine guns were not shot, so they didn’t hit the drone, I had to shoot it with a rocket
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 29 November 2017 20: 07 New
                  +1
                  Quote: _Jack_
                  Using an ordinary machine gun, getting into a small drone is problematic

                  Yeah ... A laser, just spit ... 8)))
                  Actually, everything is exactly the opposite.

                  Quote: _Jack_
                  Somewhere there was a video of the test of the Shell-S, how many of the machine guns were not shot, so they didn’t hit the drone, I had to shoot it with a rocket

                  Like "an extra rocket was lying around, she had to shoot down"? 8)))
                  All in all, it was working out the actions of the "Shell" on the simulator of a cruise missile. And the exercise scenario provided for the mandatory use of rockets. And then on the Internet they thought up a bunch of everything ...
                  1. _Jack_
                    _Jack_ 29 November 2017 23: 17 New
                    0
                    Yeah ... A laser, just spit
                    Spit more than once, but at its working distance it is much easier (speed of a bullet and speed of light compare).
                    Like "an extra rocket was lying around, she had to shoot down"?

                    No, not at all like that, at first they fired machine guns, and for quite some time, but they never hit, so I had to shoot down with a rocket. I personally saw the video a couple of years ago, then there was still a lot of negativity about this in the comments, such as what the automatic gun is, if they cannot get into it at all.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 30 November 2017 08: 34 New
                      +1
                      Quote: _Jack_
                      Spit more than once, but at its working distance it is much easier (speed of a bullet and speed of light compare).

                      And if you compare the total time? The laser must be held on target to ensure that the target is hit, this is not instantaneous. And ultralight UAVs, due to their weight, maneuver very actively, and it is very difficult to keep them

                      Quote: _Jack_
                      No, not at all, at first they fired machine guns

                      For starters, these are not machine guns. And "for a rather long time" they were engaged in practicing firing on small-sized targets from cannons.
                      1. _Jack_
                        _Jack_ 30 November 2017 09: 57 New
                        0
                        And ultralight UAVs, due to their weight, maneuver very actively, and it is very difficult to keep them
                        For modern automatic guidance tools this is not a problem at all, even preemption does not need to be taken into account, as for small arms.
                        And "for a rather long time" they were engaged in practicing firing on small-sized targets from cannons.

                        Yes, they worked it out, worked it out, but nothing worked. Excellent firing practice with zero result. Apparently this is the point of practicing firing - never to hit the target?
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 30 November 2017 10: 22 New
                      +1
                      Quote: _Jack_
                      For modern automatic guidance tools this is not a problem at all

                      Which brings us back to baseline. For modern guidance tools it is easy to accurately hold the laser on target for a rather long time. But less time and with much less accuracy, within the scattering ellipse, from which it is difficult.

                      Quote: _Jack_
                      Yes, they worked it out, worked it out, but nothing worked. Excellent firing practice with zero result.

                      And who told you that there was no result? Did class leaders report? For systems of this level, the KR simulator is a very rare target in live firing. Usually they hit on much less technological targets and outdated ATGM missiles.
                      And therefore, the lifetime of such a target should be used as efficiently as possible.
                      1. _Jack_
                        _Jack_ 30 November 2017 11: 05 New
                        0
                        And who told you that there was no result?

                        Well, if the necessary result is never to hit the target for the sake of increasing the target's lifetime, then, yes, the result is achieved. But this is a rather strange way to train personnel.
        2. Nyrobsky
          Nyrobsky 29 November 2017 22: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: BlackMokona
          C-400 can hit targets only up to 25 km, and if the target flies at an altitude of 26 km?

          UAV at an altitude of 26 km ?! What functions should be assigned to it in order to justify the costs? The Chinese idea itself is interesting, but financially expensive and very dependent on climatic conditions. Our men tested an electromagnetic pulse gun against drones in Syria, which operates up to two kilometers. Cheap and cheerful. At the same time, low cloud cover and fog do not greatly affect the result. If you "cross" these two systems, then maybe they will complement each other, although ..........
      2. Pirogov
        Pirogov 29 November 2017 17: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: NEXUS
        And if the drone flies at a height of a kilometer or more, then this setting will only show the drone to the drone, or vice versa, the drone will show it to it.

        Hey . So the point is not who will show the figs to whom, but the fact that the Chinese comrades are not standing still. Remember how it was with the construction of ships in China, more than ten years ago, destroyers were built in Russia, and now China itself destroyers rivets at the pace of motor boats and a bunch of such examples.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 29 November 2017 17: 40 New
          +4
          Quote: Pirogov
          Hey .

          hi
          Quote: Pirogov
          but the fact that the Chinese comrades do not stand still.

          And this is not only the Chinese concern. There is widespread militarization in the world in anticipation of a large shecher. And here either you or you. Question of desire "not to be eaten" wink
        2. Muvka
          Muvka 29 November 2017 17: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: Pirogov
          Quote: NEXUS
          And if the drone flies at a height of a kilometer or more, then this setting will only show the drone to the drone, or vice versa, the drone will show it to it.

          Hey . So the point is not who will show the figs to whom, but the fact that the Chinese comrades are not standing still. Remember how it was with the construction of ships in China, more than ten years ago, destroyers were built in Russia, and now China itself destroyers rivets at the pace of motor boats and a bunch of such examples.

          And who is standing still? Name at least one country that stands still. African do not take.
          1. Pirogov
            Pirogov 29 November 2017 18: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: Muvka
            And who is standing still? Name at least one country that stands still. African do not take.

            China is developing all sectors and will gradually reach a quality level in everything. It’s worth it, it’s not worth it, I don’t know, but I know that someone builds ships for decades and doesn’t draw conclusions, and someone for months. And the point is not in cheap labor, but in proper planning.
            1. Muvka
              Muvka 29 November 2017 18: 49 New
              +1
              Are you talking about France? Have you seen the terms, how do they make analogues of our Ashes? And how do you relate the speed of building ships and technological development? And you are sure that the Chinese vessels reach the quality of ours? Or let us begin to rivet the T-34 and outnumber the Chinese in quantity, but how to fight in such tanks in the modern world?
        3. newcomer
          newcomer 29 November 2017 17: 43 New
          +1
          koleegi, well, why so immediately, as a pioneer then? the same is not sewn with a bast, which I read, which I recognize. whatever it was, the Chinese issued a product. like a similar question about the fleet of the PRC, etc., they do as they can and what they can, but they do, and not PR in the press. worthy of respect, my opinion.
    3. RASKAT
      RASKAT 29 November 2017 17: 45 New
      +5
      I would say not keeping up with science, but are being conducted on American fairy tales, all kinds of lasers, railguns, etc. Well, they burned a plastic sheet and case with a laser at a distance of several tens of meters, so what? And what is his range?
      How many such complexes will need to be put on 100 kilometers of front to ensure the necessary efficiency? But how does it work on metal, but does clouds, fog and rain break through? etc.
      For example, our Kraukha figachit 300-400 km, and in my opinion more than once our electronic warfare systems have proven their effectiveness in the fight against UAVs, several even put themselves on airfields. This is what I understand the effectiveness. good
      1. newcomer
        newcomer 29 November 2017 17: 49 New
        +2
        Well, if the airport police made an order, then what are the reasons to believe that not smart people threw money away?
  2. Viktorfi
    Viktorfi 29 November 2017 17: 02 New
    +1
    There is nothing particularly new here. Only suitable for ordinary simple drones without signal encryption.
    1. bulvas
      bulvas 29 November 2017 17: 07 New
      +5
      Quote: Viktorfi
      There is nothing particularly new here. Only suitable for ordinary simple drones without signal encryption.


      Do you think if there will be signal encryption, the plastic case will withstand the heating by the laser beam and will not melt? belay
      1. Viktorfi
        Viktorfi 29 November 2017 17: 56 New
        +1
        The case of military war drones is not as easily damaged by a laser as plastic.

        And encryption is a jamming system that does not work against an encrypted GPS signal.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 29 November 2017 19: 25 New
          +1
          Quote: Viktorfi
          And encryption is a jamming system that does not work against an encrypted GPS signal.

          It, possibly, cannot be replaced (ZhPS-spoofing). However, drowning is quite possible. Like control channels. What will actually be the fulfillment of the task.
          1. Viktorfi
            Viktorfi 29 November 2017 19: 43 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            However, drowning is quite possible.


            At one of the exercises, Russia failed several years ago.

            There is no real information that someone drowned the gps of a military drone.
  3. Simon
    Simon 29 November 2017 17: 02 New
    +1
    I think that we have the same something similar, or at least being developed! recourse
    1. san4es
      san4es 29 November 2017 17: 09 New
      +8
      Quote: Simon
      I think that we have the same something similar, or at least being developed! recourse

      ... The laser tank is idle soldier
      1. Breard
        Breard 30 November 2017 02: 15 New
        +1
        Hmm ... "laser tank" .... So this is a SOVIET laser tank and was developed and built in the USSR and it has nothing to do with the current vashrash.
        It’s ... 30 years ago, at least it’s necessary to repeat, to say - “AT US”
        1. bulvas
          bulvas 30 November 2017 17: 26 New
          0
          Quote: Breard
          Hmm ... "laser tank" .... So this is a SOVIET laser tank and was developed and built in the USSR and it has nothing to do with the current vashrash.
          It’s ... 30 years ago, at least it’s necessary to repeat, to say - “AT US”


          Yes?

          And who do you think made him, wise guy?
          Some of the developers of this product, like many others, can now communicate on this site

          Where are you from?

          If not for "Nasharash" (our Russia, translated into Russian from ..... anyone)
          I wouldn’t really learn to read / write.

          So it turns out, learned on your own head ...
  4. Simon
    Simon 29 November 2017 17: 11 New
    +4
    It’s interesting, but it’s possible to send an anti-ballistic missile to the laser to this unit to destroy it recourse
    1. Herculesic
      Herculesic 29 November 2017 17: 28 New
      0
      Yes, at least two! ! soldier
  5. Herculesic
    Herculesic 29 November 2017 17: 28 New
    +1
    And the Chinese, too, decided to create their own "laser"? Soviet technology fell into the wrong hands! fool 3D copywriters, they themselves did not invent anything new, and they created it, everything is on our backlog! !!! fool
  6. Eurodav
    Eurodav 29 November 2017 17: 37 New
    +9
    Already wrote ... Look for yourself on the web, fans of laser killers wouldn’t have anything ... Are there any shifts in this segment of science? Find, tell us!

    Victor Sharkov (leading expert of Moscow State University; - professor, doctor of technical sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences, laureate of the Kurchatov Prize, 1st degree):
    "... A laser weapon is a scam, there are no successful experiments, it does not melt metal at long distances, all videos of Americans, how they shoot down targets with a laser - fakes, like weapons - are ineffective ... In the 80s it was tested on the Taimyr ship ... "

    "... In the mid-80s I tried to analyze the deafening failure of full-scale tests of powerful lasers at combat ranges. I was exiled there at the direction of Academician A.M. Dykhne" for re-education and acquaintance with the real industry. "He served on a laser ship and on a for a couple of years, together with his colleague BA Tikhonov, I developed methods for analyzing the physical causes of chronic failures with gas lasers. Megawatt lasers at a distance of a mile could not even set fire to a piece of paper, the "terrible" rays were completely scattered on the way to the target. And the atmosphere here did not play the title Some unexpected factors were highlighted: very small fluctuations of the gas density of the active medium, which are practically inevitable for powerful installations, make a cheap light bulb out of a combat laser.
    Average fluctuations of 1% scale reduce the laser range by about 100 times. The situation with pulsed lasers is slightly better, where this factor is weaker. And, of course, without an electric discharge, this factor weakens by an order of magnitude. Also not sugar, but still ... "

    "... As a result, ten years later, the grandiose" high-power laser-poppycock "became absolutely apparent, when the" active medium generators "- the" golden buttons "- did not provide the specified range even by 1% due to the poor quality of the radiation, which was catastrophically corrupted by optical inhomogeneities The megawatt laser from the Dixon ship at a distance of 2 km could not even set fire to a piece of paper on the Crimean coast. Today I’m just formulating the physical reason for the obvious grandiose failure of the “laser bullshit”, and I had hoped before, like all specialists in generators active media, that other optical companies will somehow bring the laser beam quality to the level set by the military. They will be ordered from the CPSU Central Committee, and they will do it at a high price. It didn’t work out. It is impossible to turn a light bulb into a long-range spotlight if physical laws optics forbid it. The laws of nature are not subject to political and career "mantras" ... "
    1. Viktorfi
      Viktorfi 29 November 2017 17: 58 New
      +2
      Already read this junk. Science has advanced. Combat lasers are not only already there, but are already in use.
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 29 November 2017 18: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: Viktorfi
        Already read this junk. Science has advanced. Combat lasers are not only already there, but are already in use.

        In which conflict? What is the effectiveness? In your fantasies?
    2. Herculesic
      Herculesic 29 November 2017 17: 59 New
      +1
      Eurodav hi - the man froze stupidity, the problem with long-range combat lasers is a completely different problem! And God forbid that the true reason should not be known for another half a century at least, and during this time we will really go far ahead! The problem with our jambs is that we found the real reason in the 90s! !!!
  7. Retvizan 8
    Retvizan 8 29 November 2017 17: 49 New
    0
    Yes, what do you say, the Chinese are forcing themselves to respect more and more! Such a progress!
    Eighty years ago they were a backward, frightened country, and now they are becoming world leaders!
  8. APASUS
    APASUS 29 November 2017 18: 09 New
    +3
    This hat with lasers again! Well, let them start by coating silver on this UAV, how much will the distance of combat use be reduced ..................?
  9. Evgenijus
    Evgenijus 29 November 2017 19: 00 New
    +1
    Interestingly, the mirror facing of the drone will withstand the laser beam? The video shows the drone, almost motionless hanging in the air. And if you provide the protective lining of the drone with the ability to emit smoke (steam), when exposed to a laser, such as a smoke screen?
  10. Lena Petrova
    Lena Petrova 29 November 2017 19: 45 New
    +3
    It is necessary to make small quadrocopters for search, detection, rapprochement with the drone and its detonation in the future. Right in the air. The war of cars without embellishment. :))
  11. BABA SHURA
    BABA SHURA 29 November 2017 22: 57 New
    +1
    When will it appear on aliexpress? Desperately needed!