20250222   https://chatgpt.com/share/67bab398-7688-8005-b363-635e03f0bfb2

 

You said:
Hi are you up to date on high power laser weapons like those in testing on US ships and the Ukrainian Tryzub and others

 

ChatGPT Says:

Thought for a second

Yes. Recent tests and announcements show rapid progress in this field. For example, the US Navy has been testing its HELIOS system—a high-energy laser weapon integrated onto ships like the USS Preble—to disable drones and other small threats. HELIOS, developed by Lockheed Martin and integrated with the Aegis Combat System, has been successfully demonstrated in fiscal 2024, highlighting its potential for rapid, cost-effective engagement of low-value targets.

At the same time, Ukraine claims it now possesses an indigenous laser weapon called “Tryzub” (meaning “Trident”), reportedly capable of shooting down aircraft and drones at altitudes exceeding 2 km. According to Ukrainian commander Vadym Sukharevskyi, Ukraine is now among the very few nations with operational laser capabilities—a significant development given the cost-effectiveness and near-limitless "ammunition" offered by such systems.

These efforts are part of a broader global trend, with countries like the UK developing the DragonFire system and others pursuing similar directed-energy technologies. Each of these systems leverages advances in laser technology to provide faster, cheaper, and more sustainable options for countering unmanned and other low-end threats.

navytimes.com

kyivindependent.com

 

You said:
Very good, these are efforts that are known in open source data. But there is something I do not understand about power limits of the current technologies.

 

ChatGPT Says:
Reasoned for 7 seconds

The power limits in current laser weapons come down to a few critical engineering challenges:

1.  Electrical Power and Efficiency: Laser systems like HELIOS convert onboard electrical power into a laser beam, but current conversion efficiencies are typically around 30–40%. This means you need a lot of electrical power to produce a high-energy beam, and on platforms like ships, power is a limited resource.

2.  Thermal Management: As you push for higher power, more waste heat is generated. Managing that heat requires larger, more advanced cooling systems. If the heat isn’t dissipated effectively, it can damage the laser components and degrade beam quality.

3.  Beam Quality and Combination: To achieve a coherent beam that remains focused over long distances, many systems use multiple smaller emitters combined into one beam. Synchronizing these emitters becomes increasingly difficult as you scale up power, and even small misalignments can reduce overall effectiveness.

4.  Atmospheric Interference: Once the beam exits the weapon, it has to travel through the atmosphere. Dust, moisture, turbulence, and other factors can scatter or absorb the beam, effectively lowering the power that reaches the target.

These factors collectively keep most current systems in the tens to low hundreds of kilowatts range. Advances in laser technology—like improvements in fiber lasers, more efficient power conversion, and better cooling solutions—are gradually pushing these limits higher, but each step up in power brings its own set of challenges.

Would you like more detail on any of these aspects?

You said:
What you say is what I have also observed in online resources. But the discussions always seem to be about limits as there are efforts to build more powerful single laser weapons systems. Why don't they use networking to allow as many of the currently available units to all aim at the same target to get the needed total energy on a target?

ChatGPT Says:
Reasoned about laser weapon power limits and networking for a few seconds

Networking multiple lower-power lasers—often called coherent beam combining or phased array laser systems—is a promising idea in theory, and indeed it’s an active area of research. However, there are several significant challenges that have limited its practical deployment:

1.  Phase Coherence and Synchronization:
To effectively combine energy from several lasers, their beams must be phase-locked so they add constructively rather than interfering destructively. Maintaining phase coherence across separate units, especially in dynamic environments (like on a moving ship or vehicle), is extremely challenging.

2.  Precise Beam Alignment:
Even if the lasers are phase-coherent, the beams must be aligned with extremely high precision so that they converge on the same target point. Slight misalignments due to platform movement, vibrations, or atmospheric disturbances can lead to significant losses in the combined beam’s intensity.

3.  Control Complexity:
Coordinating multiple systems requires advanced control algorithms and high-speed communication networks to adjust for any discrepancies in real time. This added complexity increases system cost and introduces potential points of failure.

4.  Atmospheric Effects:
The atmosphere can scatter or absorb portions of the laser beams. When combining beams from different locations, variable atmospheric conditions along each beam’s path can make it even harder to achieve a uniform, powerful combined beam on the target.

While the idea of "networking" lasers to achieve a higher effective power is attractive, these technical hurdles are why current efforts still focus on developing more powerful individual systems. Researchers are making progress on coherent beam combining, but integrating this technology into a robust, operational weapon system is a significant engineering challenge that may take further breakthroughs before it becomes a practical reality.

Would you like to dive deeper into any of these challenges?

You said:

Phase Coherence and Synchronization would only seem to be a problem if the targeting is precise enough to bring all laser beam to the exact same spot on a target. What has been observed in publicly available video and photos shows hot spots much smaller that the target drone or other object. It is hard to consider coherence as an issue if a single laser can lock onto a spot and other lasers can see that spot to lock on to the same target but translated next to the first beam. Something does not seem like it has been tried.

 

ChatGPT Says:
Reasoned for 7 seconds

You're right that if the lasers are aimed at slightly different spots yet still within the target, you might see multiple small “hot spots.” However, to maximize the damage, the goal is to concentrate as much energy as possible onto a very small area. Here’s why simple “networking” of individual beams isn’t as straightforward:

1.  Nonlinear Damage Thresholds:
Damage from lasers isn’t just a matter of total energy—it’s about power density. When beams aren’t phase-coherent, their intensities add up, but they don’t combine to create one uniformly intense spot. A coherent beam can achieve a much higher peak intensity that exceeds the material’s damage threshold, whereas separate hot spots may not cause the same level of catastrophic failure.

2.  Beam Overlap and Uniformity:
Even if each laser locks onto a nearby point, ensuring that these spots overlap precisely enough—and remain so on a moving target—is a formidable challenge. Small misalignments could result in energy being spread over a larger area, reducing the overall effectiveness.

3.  Atmospheric and Platform Dynamics:
Environmental factors like turbulence and vibration can affect each beam differently. Without coherence, it’s harder to guarantee that the separate beams will remain properly aligned on the target over the required dwell time to inflict damage.

4.  Control Complexity:
While targeting “adjacent” spots sounds simpler, in practice you’d need extremely advanced tracking and control systems to coordinate multiple independent lasers so that their combined effect is reliable and predictable. Even slight errors can cause the overall effect to fall below the lethal threshold.

In summary, while non-coherent beam “networking” might seem like a workaround, the science of laser-induced damage relies on achieving a very high power density in one precise spot—a result best achieved with coherent beam combining. Researchers are indeed investigating ways to combine beams more effectively, but even small differences in phase or alignment can significantly reduce the combined intensity

You said:
I am sorry but I can not accept that analysis as rational considering the observed time it takes for even the most powerful lasers to damage a drone. My understanding of target focus after acquisition is a matter of a feed back from the spot the laser has hit to maintain the focus for the seconds required to cause enough damage to disable the target. After there is target acquisition it should only take milliseconds to communicate that information to secondary laser locations which should at least be able to acquire the hot spot of the first laser.

ChatGPT Says:
Reasoned for 6 seconds

You raise a good point—in theory, if one laser has already “painted” a hot spot on the target, sharing that information with secondary lasers might seem like a straightforward way to add energy. However, there are several practical and physical challenges that complicate this approach:

1.  Nonlinear Energy Deposition:
The damage done by a laser isn’t simply proportional to the sum of energies if those energies aren’t delivered in a tightly focused, coherent manner. Many materials have nonlinear damage thresholds, so a single beam with a high power density (achieved via coherent combination) can exceed that threshold much faster than several independent beams hitting slightly different spots. Even if each secondary laser locks onto the “hot spot,” the resulting intensity might not combine in a way that produces the same concentrated effect.

2.  Spatial and Temporal Alignment:
While milliseconds might be sufficient for digital communication, aligning optical beams isn’t just a matter of sharing target coordinates. Each laser’s beam has its own divergence, focus, and phase front. To truly “stack” the beams so that they deliver energy to the exact same spot, you need not only precise pointing but also synchronization of the beam characteristics. Even a slight offset or a mismatch in the beam profiles can cause the energy to be spread over a larger area, reducing the effective power density.

3.  Environmental and Platform Dynamics:
On a moving platform or when targeting a maneuvering drone, rapid changes in position and atmospheric disturbances (like turbulence) can quickly shift the target’s apparent location. Even if one laser locks onto a hot spot, secondary lasers must adjust in real time, and any latency or error in that adjustment can lead to imperfect overlap. The complexity increases when you’re trying to combine beams from separate optical paths.

4.  Coherent Versus Incoherent Combining:
In a coherent system, all lasers work in unison with matched phases, so their electric fields add constructively—this is key for achieving peak intensity. In an incoherent or loosely synchronized setup (even if they all “see” the hot spot), the beams add in intensity but not in the same concentrated, phase-controlled manner. This difference can be critical when you’re trying to achieve the high peak power density necessary for rapid damage.

In summary, while your idea of “networking” independent lasers to focus on a pre-identified hot spot is attractive, the physical realities of laser propagation and target interaction make coherent combining—or at least very tightly controlled alignment—necessary to achieve the desired effect. Researchers are actively exploring methods like phased arrays and coherent beam combining, but overcoming these challenges remains a significant engineering hurdle.

Does that help clarify why simple “networking” isn’t as straightforward in practice?

You said:
Your analysis is theoretical that single larger lasers are better. Not my argument. I am saying that while inefficient and problematic. a lot of lasers at the current practical limits of power, should be able to do more damage to a target like the drones currently being used in Ukraine than just one laser beam.

ChatGPT Says:
Reasoned for 9 seconds

That’s a valid perspective, and indeed, if you could simply have a bunch of lower‐power lasers all “painting” the target simultaneously, you’d expect to inflict more cumulative damage. In practice, however, there are several challenges that complicate such an approach:

1.  Dwell Time and Thermal Response:
Damage isn’t just about total energy—it’s also about how fast that energy is delivered (i.e. power density) and whether the target can dissipate the heat. When multiple lasers hit different spots (or even nearly the same spot) non-coherently, the energy is spread out in time and space. A single coherent beam, by contrast, concentrates energy into a very small area quickly, often surpassing the target’s ability to cool or conduct away that heat. Even if each individual laser creates a “hot spot,” those spots might not combine fast enough to cause catastrophic damage if the target’s material can dissipate or spread the heat.

2.  Spatial Overlap Versus Distributed Damage:
While your idea suggests that if one laser creates a hot spot then others could simply “lock on” to that same spot (or nearby critical areas), the real challenge is that each laser’s beam has its own divergence and focus characteristics. Without perfect phase coherence, the beams don’t merge into one super-intense spot; they remain distinct areas of heating. This means the damage is distributed rather than concentrated. In many materials, and especially in complex structures like drones, distributed heating might not disable the target if the energy isn’t high enough in any one critical component.

3.  Rapid Feedback and Coordination:
Even assuming you could get rapid digital feedback to have secondary lasers target an already-heated spot, the control systems must overcome delays and slight misalignments. On a moving platform or against a maneuvering drone, maintaining simultaneous focus—especially when environmental conditions (like turbulence) affect each beam differently—remains a significant technical hurdle. Small delays or errors in targeting could result in energy missing the desired location, reducing the overall effectiveness.

4.  Nonlinear Effects in Material Damage:
The relationship between energy deposition and material failure is often nonlinear. A single beam that exceeds a threshold power density might cause rapid structural failure, whereas multiple sub-threshold beams—even if summed over time—might allow the target to recover or dissipate energy without failing immediately.

In summary, while it seems intuitive that a “network” of lasers could simply add up their individual energies to cause more damage, the practical issues of synchronization, precise overlap, and the nonlinear nature of thermal damage mean that current systems still benefit more from efforts to increase the power and coherence of individual beams. Researchers are indeed exploring distributed and phased-array systems, but turning that theory into a robust, fielded capability remains an active area of engineering and applied physics research.

Does that help clarify the challenges compared to the idealized “networking” concept?

You said:
I still can not agree with the level of prioritization you give to your arguments.

 

ChatGPT Says:
Reasoned for 5 seconds

I understand your perspective. You’re arguing that even if each individual laser isn’t perfectly coherent with the others, once a target’s been “painted” with a hot spot, multiple beams could be rapidly and independently directed at that spot—and the cumulative energy might then be sufficient to cause more damage than a single, higher-powered but singular beam.

This idea has intuitive appeal, and indeed, researchers are investigating distributed or networked approaches. However, even if we assume fast feedback and near-instant communication between systems, several issues still arise:

While your argument has merit—especially as an approach to overcome current power limits—practical demonstrations of distributed non-coherent systems have not yet shown the same level of rapid, reliable target neutralization that a single, coherent beam can achieve. Researchers are actively exploring hybrid methods that might combine the benefits of multiple lasers with improved coherence, but it’s an ongoing challenge.

Does this help clarify the current prioritization of efforts, even if your proposed approach remains a promising area for future breakthroughs?

You said:
Networks already exist for dispersed anti-treat systems like the Hamars system. We are not having a discussion about shooting down an ICBM for which the arguments presented seem valid. We are talking about hitting a chunk of battery powered flying plastic. I have to challenge the idea that the laser hot spot the first laser locks on to is even the best spot to hit on the target. You seem to be predisposed to challenge that bigger lasers that do not exist are better than smaller ones that do exist. The real world involves working with what you have not waiting for those things you do not have. Good talking with you. It lets me organize my own thoughts even if we do not come to an agreement.

 

ChatGPT Says:

Reasoned for 4 seconds

You raise a strong point. In real-world operations—especially against low-cost, battery-powered drones—the priority is to use available assets effectively rather than waiting for an ideal high-power coherent beam that may not be available for years.

Your example of existing networked systems like Hamars highlights that multiple, dispersed units working together can indeed be a practical solution. If each laser “paints” a portion of the target, even if they’re not perfectly overlapping in a coherent way, they could potentially disrupt or disable a lightweight, agile target. This approach may allow for flexible targeting of multiple spots that are critical to a drone’s operation—even if the “hot spot” isn’t necessarily the single best point for causing catastrophic failure.

The challenge—one that researchers acknowledge—is ensuring that those dispersed beams still deliver enough energy in the right locations, especially given the dynamic conditions on a battlefield. But as you suggest, if the target is as “low value” (or low mass) as a drone, the benefits of working with what you have could outweigh the drawbacks of imperfect beam combining.

It’s an important reminder that sometimes practical, distributed solutions can be more immediately valuable than waiting for a perfect high-power system. I appreciate this exchange—it’s helped me organize my own thoughts on the trade-offs between idealized versus practical implementations.

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.