>Saudi Arabia procured the SkyShield as part of its broader effort to counter the rising threat of unmanned aerial attacks on critical infrastructure. >A former Saudi military officer who coordinated the project said performance has not met expectations under operational conditions.>“Despite the strong performance demonstrated during trials, in real conditions the SkyShield components have lower effectiveness than promised,” he said.>“In some cases, it took between 15 and 30 minutes of continuous targeting and laser illumination to guarantee a drone kill,” the officer explained. Dust and sand disrupted optical tracking and weakened the laser beam. Continuous exposure also caused abrasion to the optical systems, while the high desert heat forced much of the system’s power into cooling rather than firing.>Deploying the laser module from its truck-mounted container also took time, slowing the transition from standby to combat mode. Moreover, the weapon required long, flat terrain for clear lines of sight, conditions that are difficult to guarantee across much of Saudi Arabia’s environment.>By contrast, the jamming elements of the SkyShield proved more reliable. The officer noted that “most of the drones engaged in the defended zone were neutralized not by the Silent Hunter but by the JN1101 counter-drone jamming system.”>Saudi officials have asked Beijing to refine the SkyShield for use in hot and dusty climates. Until those improvements are made, the Silent Hunter laser remains limited for sustained deployment.>The experience demonstrates both the potential and the limitations of directed-energy weapons. While lasers promise low-cost, precise shots, they are vulnerable to environmental conditions. In Saudi Arabia, traditional electronic warfare systems like jamming remain the backbone of counter-drone defense.EW works better than lasers since they're not affected by environmental factors:https://defence-blog.com/saudi-military-slams-chinese-laser-weapon/
>>64215300>15 - 30 minutes>minutes instead of secondsDo journalists even have brain? even Slop AI can do better than that.
>>64215313Id see it more as>15 to 30 min>to kill one target>chink laser is traaaash
>>64215354>>64215313>Dust and sand disrupted optical tracking and weakened the laser beam. Continuous exposure also caused abrasion to the optical systems, while the high desert heat forced much of the system’s power into cooling rather than firing.Retards can't read. These problems have been well known to anyone who knows about lasers. And that's why lasers won't be "the future" nor replacing existing systems anytime soon.
>>64215354Lasers destroy their target in seconds or just heat the target without causing damage.
>>64215376>>64215364Would that not imply the chinese laser is trash at doing the job it was sold as being able to do?
>>64215384There is no situation/laser that would be constantly beaming at a drone 15 - 30 minutes and then actually downs it. That scenario is not realistic. Are you fucking stupid?15 - 30 seconds sounds realistic and indicative of suboptimal performance.
>>64215300Oh no, another couple million that could've been burned in another failed megaproject.
>>64215403>Continuous targeting and laser illuminationso this is from time of targeting solution to destruction
>>64215403So 15 to 30 minutes would be 60x worse
>>64215300>dylan malyasov Not the most credible reporter in the world
>>64215384I believe that was the general message, yes
>>>64215300It's weird they'll just complain about it publicly instead of just forwarding complaints and letting the Chinese upgrade the systems.>Dust and sand disrupted optical tracking and weakened the laser beam. Continuous exposure also caused abrasion to the optical systemsA problem with all laser systems, there's not much you can do about it, although the exposure problem can be solved with covering it while it's not in use>the high desert heat forced much of the system’s power into cooling rather than firing.lol, what is this nonsense? Cooling shouldn't ever consume a significant fraction of the energy going into the laser. It's more likely overheating caused throttling of the power to avoid melting. Although I'm not making excuses, they really should had had better cooling if it's overheating.>Moreover, the weapon required long, flat terrain for clear lines of sight, conditions that are difficult to guarantee across much of Saudi Arabia’s environment.That's hardly the weapon's fault. It's not like as if missiles or bullets/shells are any better. Also shouldn't Saudi Arabia have much better sight lines than most places?
>>64215300>“Despite the strong performance demonstrated during trials, in real conditions the SkyShield components have lower effectiveness than promised,” he said.Didn't India try to pull a similar bs with Brazil? (They demonstrated them a brand new AD system and then tried to sell them used Soviet jank)
>>64215431And 1 - 2 days would be ~6000 times worse
>>64215495>instead of just forwarding complaints and letting the Chinese upgrade the systems.Said like someone who doesn't deal with Chinese corporations that have shit CS. They're doing this to force them to lose face because they didn't get after sales support.
>far more perfidious than Bongs >even bigger kikes than Israelis>already know that they literally sell monkey models for exports since they're absolutely paranoid about Americans or Yuros getting their technology (which they all copied somewhere)>WTF THEIR STUFF IS DOGSHIT
>>64215495>Cooling shouldn't ever consume a significant fraction of the energy going into the laser.I see you've never been to a desert.
>>64215300So now China knows what to fix.
>>64215364they aren't a replacement but it has its uses
>>64215495Chink defense out in strength
>>64215313Nah they're correct. You need far more power than people expect to use the laser to cut the sheet metal of the drone especially at realistic distances of multiple kms and with enviromenral factors. Lasers aren't able to instantly obliterate large UAVs yet sadly. Not implessive.
>>64216961(You)
