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.
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.