chinese laser weapon development

I think we need to apply some caution here, as I have a feeling the 'blinding' part might be a (deliberate) miss translation.

I think these weapons will have several power settings. The higher ones may well cause blindness on people, but they would be intended for use against enemy optical sensors rather than naked eyes.

For antipersonnel use, the lower settings will probably only dazzle and cause temporary partial blindness at most.

I would imagine that the focal area would also be correspondingly different, with a tight beam for sensor blinding, while you get a much larger spread in the antipersonnel role to easy aiming and potentially allow you to dazzle multiple enemies at the same time.

I doubt much of a spread from such a aperture. If it was Larger device I could agree but being carbine shaped this is a one target design with a limited degree of spread.
I agree there is likely some hyperbole here, yet the amount is up for debate.
The main concern with blinding is the same for why some types of bullets are banned. Unnecessary long term mailing. Yet again in another role law enforcement and especially riot control less then lethal weapons is a prevalent need and want, and lasers and strobe lights can weaken and dishearten the resolve of a opposing party.
Disabling sensors is a standard military want from commando raids to large scale operations.
The key questions are 1) if used against a human being would this permanently blind or render lasting harm.
2) if so is that by design or incidental.
3) what is the aim of doctrine for there employment?
4) can a means to ensure limitations on use to match the CCW?.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The key questions are 1) if used against a human being would this permanently blind or render lasting harm.

Click to expand...

That's against international law.

siegecrossbow said:

That's against international law.

Click to expand...

So is firing a 50 caliber machine gun at enemy soldiers (supposedly only mechanical machines, i.e. tanks, planes, and artillery pieces), but that hasn't stop ISIS and those fighting against them from doing it. But you're right about the law, but that law hasn't been enforced once the rule of combat comes into play and the human nature in a terrible fight to survive takes over.

Equation said:

So is firing a 50 caliber machine gun at enemy soldiers (supposedly only mechanical machines, i.e. tanks, planes, and artillery pieces), ...

Click to expand...

That is a long standing myth that somehow continues to live through the times. There is no specific law / convention / accord that ever specificly mentions .50cal weapons as forbidden to use on human targets.
That round has been around for over a century now I think. When it became used some time ago in a sniper rifle, these M82 / M107 rifles were designated as anti-material rifles, as they provided the power to successfully engage lightly armored targets. And this desingation somehow apparently implied to many the anti-personell use is prohibited. Some of the longest range sniper kills have been made with such weapons and absolutely no fuzz was made about an alleged illegality.
The same holds true for that round fired from a machine gun of course.

What advantage does this have over a normal DMR/Sniper rifle ? I feel like I am missing something, because there seem to be little advantages for a lot of disadvantages.

Equation said:

So is firing a 50 caliber machine gun at enemy soldiers

Click to expand...

There is no treaty that forbits the use of 12.7 or 14.5mm guns to be used against personnel. It gets iffy when something like raufoss, but not if you use normal FMJ.

Equation said:

but that hasn't stop ISIS and those fighting against them from doing it.

Click to expand...

ISIS isnt exactly a good role model in that regard. You might as well ask why the US doesnt indicriminally kill civilians or use human shields.

Equation said:

But you're right about the law, but that law hasn't been enforced once the rule of combat comes into play.

Click to expand...

Ignoring these treties on a large scale is a good way to be 1. convicted for war crimes if you lose and 2. get these very same weapons used against you. I doubt the Chinese would apprichate having lots of blinded soldiers or chemical weapons used against their cities.

The Blonding mode is kinda up in the air, If it's temporary then it can be considered a Less than lethal.

日前，中国首次实现了“高功率光纤激光器”核心器件全国产化目标，标志着中国已具备了“万瓦级”固体激光武器的光源系统自主研发和生产能力，为高能固体激光装备的自主可控之路打下了坚实基础。

Click to expand...

Seems to be indirect confirmation that Low-Altitude Guard uses fiberoptics laser.

Akkarin said:

What advantage does this have over a normal DMR/Sniper rifle ? I feel like I am missing something, because there seem to be little advantages for a lot of disadvantages.

Click to expand...

Let's see, just off the top of my head:
- no need to adjust for bullet drop, wind, humidity etc = greater accuracy and hit probability
- (by far the biggest) zero noise and likely minimal or no visual cues to alert an enemy they are under attack.

With a conventional weapon, you get off one shot and the entire enemy base is on full alert, meaning other high value targets are protected/moved and your team is being actively hunted by the enemy.

With such a laser, you could very conceivably take out the optical sensors of a parking lot of enemy tanks, attack helicopters, IFV, UAVs, even disblae the short range missiles of enemy fighters, and be back at your base tucking into a hot meal before the enemy even realised they were being attacked.

Ignoring these treties on a large scale is a good way to be 1. convicted for war crimes if you lose and 2. get these very same weapons used against you. I doubt the Chinese would apprichate having lots of blinded soldiers or chemical weapons used against their cities.

Click to expand...

It's not ignoring treaties, but a difference of opinion on what is covered by them.

Like most such provisions, the ban against laser weapons is a ban on specific and intentional causing of blindness. If the weapon is primarily designed to do something else, ie destroy enemy optical sensors, then that is not against the treaty.

Chemical weapons attacks against civilian targets in response of a few blinded pilots or tankers is so beyond reason and logic is not even worth responding to.

Pictures of a Chinese infrasound weapon showcased at the Beijing weapons expo.